Medical Kidnapping Business: Judges Skirting the Law for Federal Funds

From Medical

Judge Striking Gavel While Holding Scale With Money

One of the tragic themes we hear in almost all of these medical kidnapping stories is that the judge in family court is so quick to approve CPS in their removal of the child from the parents.

CPS can enter a home without a warrant or court order, simply because there is a complaint that a child is in “imminent danger.” Often that complaint is from a doctor. Law enforcement is trained to cooperate with CPS, and the child is removed, by force if necessary.

Then it is up to the parents to fight it out in family court to get their child back.

Last year, Health Impact News covered the story of Alex and Anna Nikolaev in Sacramento California, who had their infant child seized by force and removed from their home, simply because they took their child out of a hospital, and brought him to a second hospital for a second opinion. They did not think they were getting good care at the first hospital. The doctor called the police, who arrived at the second hospital, where the child was being well cared for, so the police did nothing further.

The doctor at the first hospital, however, was not satisfied, and issued a complaint to CPS who arrived at the Nikolaev home the next day with armed police officers and literally grabbed the child out of the arms of the mother, while holding down the father outside at gunpoint, and then returned the child to the first hospital. (Story here.)

The local media caught wind of this story, and it caused a huge public outcry. When Alex and Anna arrived at court a few days later to appear before a judge and try to get their baby back, quite a few supporters had arrived at the court house.

In an impromptu interview with the father’s attorney at the court house, this attorney experienced in handling CPS cases in family court stated the following:

The chances they will get their baby back today are (slim). In my 21 years of experience, between me and my colleagues, we have seen maybe 3 cases where the child was returned the first day. Now think about that, can they really be right that much of the time?

The attorney goes on to explain that family court basically only gives you six months (in California) to prove your case, and then they award the children to a foster home. Here is the interview:

Since Alex, the father, is a Russian national, and the Russian press had picked up the story, Russia made a formal protest of human rights abuse. Not surprisingly, the judge wanted no part of this case, and allowed the baby to return to the hospital of the parents’ choice.

But most other families are not so fortunate.

Why Judges in Family Court so Quickly Agree with CPS and Remove the Child

The Defend Parental Authority in Arizona Facebook Page recently released a video clip from the Arizona Judicial Branch government website. It is from their Dependency Video Series training Family Court Judges on how to handle Dependency cases in family court. Judge Aimee Anderson and Judge Mark Brain of Maricopa County are giving a presentation in this clip that instructs judges how to handle cases brought to family court by CPS.

It appears from this video that the first concern of the family courts is not justice, but federal funding. Judge Brain makes it clear that if they do not remove the child from the parent immediately, they will lose federal funding. Quote:

If you are removing a child, in a Contrary to the Welfare finding, that order is mandatory. If you do not make that finding whenever you remove that child from a placement, you’re forfeiting federal funds… The federal government says that if you did not make that (decision) right at the outset the first time through, you’re not going to get any federal money for those services, ever… CPS is going to have a kid they cannot pay for.

As we have pointed out in another article (The Medical Kidnap Business: Bilking Medicaid), a child taken into state custody can have all of their medical care billed directly to Medicaid, and this alone represents an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide. There are other funds also available for programs like foster care. Obviously, children with medical needs present the greatest amount of federal funds the state can receive per child.

So what if the child was removed unnecessarily? What if the child actually was NOT in danger with the parents? Is it the responsibility of the family court judge to find out?

Apparently not. Here is what Judge Brain said:

What happens then when a majority of the removal team under (section) 8-822 doesn’t agree with the removal? Is the remedy to dismiss the dependency in these kinds of cases? (someone in the classroom can be heard on the video actually saying “Yes it is.”)

My answer is “no.” And the reason is that there are two ways to remove a child. CPS, yes, can go in and grab them… The second way is upon order of the court children can be removed.

Judge Brain makes it clear that his order even supersedes CPS if they are uncomfortable removing the child. If the parents don’t like it, according to Judge Brain, they can fight it out in Civil Court and pay a lot of money.

So is this training video for judges in Arizona designed to carry out their oath and seek justice for protecting families, or to fill their quota of children that need to become wards of the state to receive federal funds to pay everyone’s salaries and benefits?

Get a Private Attorney – NOT a Court Appointed or Recommended One

Since we have started publishing these medical kidnapping stories, we have received many emails and comments from people who have been affected by this issue. One of them was the wife of a CPS employee who wanted us to share what she tells as many people as she can who have experienced losing their children to CPS:

I would highly recommend that you include the following information on your pages that talk about the abuse that CPS does to families by taking children away needlessly. It will help the parents tremendously if they will hire a private lawyer. Not the court-appointed lawyer, but a private lawyer, one who knows CPS.

My husband, who works for CPS, and also recently got his master’s in Social Work, said that there are virtually no children from middle and upper class families in CPS, and that the workers tremble and make sure they are careful what they do when they see a family has a private lawyer. Also, the judge is more likely to view the family favorably if he sees a private lawyer.

Many families would say or do (or neglect to say or do) things that would hurt (or help) them in their case, because they don’t know the law. They will believe what they are told, even if the information is not correct, because they don’t know better.

It is  absolutely crucial that parents get a lawyer to help them with their case, and that they sue the agencies involved (including policemen and hospitals, if necessary) if any unlawful actions were taken against them. If the parents don’t have the money, they should start a fund for friends and family and community to help them out.

Family Court Judge Suspended for Financial Misconduct in Vermont

While judges in family court apparently know how to play the system to their benefit, sometimes they get caught. Earlier this month (October 2014) Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell filed a lawsuit to revoke funding for a nonprofit supervised visitation center handling foster kids placed there by a judge in family court. Emerge Family Advocates, Inc., a non-profit, is operated by a state legislator, family court judges and some of the professionals who appear before them, according to

According to CDN:

Emerge has received millions in grants from State and local agencies in Vermont and New Hampshire. Funding sources include the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement’s Access and Visitation program, as well as the US Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) Safe Havens grants.

Concerns are that some New England courts are protecting the financial investments of unethical industry professionals instead of the best interests of the families. The Attorney General’s investigation was prompted by numerous consumer complaints.

Records from the Judicial Conduct Board show that in 2009, family court Judge William Boardman was suspended from the bench for six months in conjunction with financial misconduct Boardman allegedly committed while acting as both the court’s administrator and Emerge’s co-founding director. The JCB also required Boardman to resign from his position on Emerge’s board of directors.

According to the decision, Boardman co-founded Emerge with current director Russell, current President Joseph Verdine, and Roberta Tracy. IRS tax documents show that State Senator Richard McCormack (who sits on the Child Poverty and Health and Welfare Committees), psychiatrist Matthew J Friedman, and the late Charles Baker were also co-founders.

According to Baker’s 2007 obituary, Baker’s wife is heir to the Kinney Drugs fortune, while Baker himself was a real estate investor who served as a foster parent and guardian ad litem (GAL) for troubled Vermont children. (Source.)

We get comments from people upset that we are publishing stories of families whose children have been medically kidnapped. They tell us that there is always another side of the story, and that these kind of things just don’t happen.

Yes, they do. And we are the ones publishing the “other side” of the story.


Yes….this does happen all too often! Judges are in on the scam…getting paid to take away children from their parents! A friend was told by a judge after the judge decided to take away her parental rights to her two young children… “If you had been an alcoholic or a drug addict, I would have given you your children back.” WTF?

One of the Social workers had given his testimony on her behalf….. he had to quit his job and move away as he was getting threats that his children were next!

Oh yeah….. they are all in on it and if one doesn’t play their game by their rules….. they are threatened!

~Blessed B~

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Medical Kidnapping Business: Judges Skirting the Law for Federal Funds

  1. Kathy says:

    Alex and Anna are the couple I mentioned in my comments on your post yesterday. Disagreeing with a doctor’s opinion shouldn’t be cause for complaints to CPS.

    As usual, money drives everything, so the solution is to stop the federal funding for this whole scam. Easier said than done of course.

    • Blessed B. says:

      Yep….. disagreeing with a Doctor’s opinion shouldn’t lead to CPS being called in! Since when is it a crime to get another two or three opinions and then decide what you feel is best? Not all Doctor’s graduated at the top of their class…. some slept through important parts of their education IMHO! OR rely on the Big Pharma to give them a kick back for the drugs they prescribe rather than on the best options for health!

      Defunding, dismantling and rebuilding is the solution along with putting in a watchdog over them! Charging each one also with child endangerment, kidnapping, sexual abuse, ……Though with so many being in on the scam and criminal activity, it will be very difficult to do.

  2. Just Gene says:

    I used to sit on the bench in Pima County – what the hell is going on in Arizona?!?!?

    • Blessed B. says:

      I don’t think it’s only Arizona…. it’s all of North America. Money seems to be the bottom line here. People trying to get rich off the backs of small children and their families.

      You were one of the decent folks sitting on the bench! If Judges didn’t go along with this then there would be a change.

      Think also that the parents should be able to see their accuser/complainant in all these cases! It’s not right for someone to accuse you of hurting your child and not be able to know who it was. They are never brought into court and can remain anonymous.

  3. Hardnox says:

    I remain disgusted. Money is the root of many ills in the West.

    Btw, who/what hatched this scheme in the first place? Lefties?

    • Blessed B. says:

      According to Wikipedia…. it’s been around for quite sometime….

      The History
      In 1690, in what is now the United States, there were criminal court cases involving child abuse.[1] In 1692, states and municipalities identified care for abused and neglected children as the responsibility of local government and private institutions.[2] In 1696, The Kingdom of England first used the legal principle of parens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of “charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery.” This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families’ child rearing practices.[3]

      In 1825, states enacted laws giving social-welfare agencies the right to remove neglected children from their parents and from the streets. These children were placed in almshouses, in orphanages and with other families. In 1835, the Humane Society founded the National Federation of Child Rescue agencies to investigate child maltreatment. In the late-19th century, private child protection agencies – modeled after existing animal protection organizations – developed to investigate reports of child maltreatment, present cases in court and advocate for child welfare legislation.[4]

      In 1853, the Children’s Aid Society was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York.[5] Rather than allow these children to become institutionalized or continue to live on the streets, the children were placed in the first “foster” homes, typically with the intention of helping these families work their farms.[6][7]

      In 1874, the first case of child abuse was criminally prosecuted in what has come to be known as the “case of Mary Ellen.” Outrage over this case started an organized effort against child maltreatment[8] In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt convened the White House Conference on Child Dependency, which created a publicly funded volunteer organization to “establish and publicize standards of child care.”[6] By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work.[7] Issues of abuse and neglect were addressed in the Social Security Act in 1930, which provided funding for intervention for “neglected and dependent children in danger of becoming delinquent.” [8]

      In 1912, the federal Children’s Bureau was established to manage federal child welfare efforts, including services related to child maltreatment. In 1958, amendments to the Social Security Act mandated that states fund child protection efforts.[9] In 1962, professional and media interest in child maltreatment was sparked by the publication of C. Henry Kempe and associates’ “The battered child syndrome” in JAMA. By the mid-1960s, in response to public concern that resulted from this article, 49 U.S. states passed child-abuse reporting laws.[10] In 1974, these efforts by the states culminated in the passage of the federal “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act” (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247) providing federal funding for wide-ranging federal and state child-maltreatment research and services.[11] In 1980, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272), which focused on state economic incentives to substantially decrease the length and number of foster care placements.[12]

      Partly funded by the federal government, Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974 CAPTA which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment.[13]

      In the 1940s and 1950s, due to improved technology in diagnostic radiology, the medical profession began to take notice of what they believed to be intentional injuries.[14] In 1961, C. Henry Kempe began to further research this issue, eventually identifying and coining the term battered child syndrome.[14] At this same time, there were also changing views about the role of the child in society, fueled in part by the civil rights movement.[7]

      In 1973, Congress took the first steps toward enacting federal legislature to address the issue of child abuse. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act[15] was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.”[8]

      Shortly thereafter, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in response to concerns that large numbers of Native American children were being separated from their tribes and placed in foster care.[16] This legislation not only opened the door for consideration of cultural issues while stressing ideas that children should be with their families, leading to the beginnings of family preservation programs.[17] In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act[18] was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement.[7] Although this legislation addressed some of the complaints from earlier pieces of legislation around ensuring due process for parents, these changes did not alleviate the high numbers of children in placement or continuing delays in permanence.[17] This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.[7]

      In addition to family preservation services, the focus of federal child welfare policy changed to try to address permanence for the large numbers of foster children care.[17] Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act;[18] the 1988 Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption, and Family Services Act; and the 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act.[19] The 1994 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act, which was revised in 1996 to add the Interethnic Placement Provisions, also attempted to promote permanency through adoption, creating regulations that adoptions could not be delayed or denied due to issues of race, color, or national origin of the child or the adoptive parent.[20]

      All of these policies led up to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), much of which guides current practice. Changes in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act showed an interest in both protecting children’s safety and developing permanency.[20] This law requires counties to provide “reasonable efforts” (treatment) to preserve or reunify families, but also shortened time lines required for permanence, leading to termination of parental rights should these efforts fail.[7][20] ASFA introduced the idea of “concurrent planning” which demonstrated attempts to reunify families as the first plan, but to have a back-up plan so as not to delay permanency for children.[21]


      If you go to the link ….you might be interested in reading all of it! Especially the part on Criticism of CPS and see the lawsuits that have been brought against CPS and why!

      There is also this link I found…..

      ~ This one explains what to do if CPS comes knocking!