Forwarded from Watch the Water (Heidi😊)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Great Advice from this Man right before bed!
Maybe YOU ARE the good thing happening to the people!
❤️❤️❤️
Maybe YOU ARE the good thing happening to the people!
❤️❤️❤️
Forwarded from Watch the Water (Heidi😊)
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Good Morning!
Great information about what is going on in the world FREQUENCY wise!
It’s worth the listen!😊
Great information about what is going on in the world FREQUENCY wise!
It’s worth the listen!😊
Forwarded from The Yorkshire Lass (Samantha 🌸17🌸)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
So Powerful❤️💫🙏
Forwarded from Deleted Account
A trial court cannot terminate a parent’s rights absent this finding of unfitness. Parental deficiencies alone do not render a parent currently unfit; the proper inquiry is whether the existing parental deficiencies, or other conditions, prevent the parent from providing for the child’s basic health, welfare, and safety. In re Parental Rights to K.MM, 186 Wn.2d 466, 493, 379 P.3d 75 (2016).
When a judge knows that he/she lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him/her of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
Where there is no jurisdiction there can be no discretion for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed 646 (1872)
The assumption that drug use constitutes neglect inappropriately shifts the focus from the welfare of the child to the behavior of the parent. The parenting, not the supposed quality of the individual who is the parent, should be at issue. See Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1213, 1235-36; Wald, supra note 304, at 1034
When a judge knows that he/she lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him/her of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
Where there is no jurisdiction there can be no discretion for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed 646 (1872)
The assumption that drug use constitutes neglect inappropriately shifts the focus from the welfare of the child to the behavior of the parent. The parenting, not the supposed quality of the individual who is the parent, should be at issue. See Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1213, 1235-36; Wald, supra note 304, at 1034
2022 - NOTICE- pdf BILL OF PARTICULARS DEMAND.pdf
122.9 KB
bill of particulars notice
Affidavit-requiring-property-to-be-returned-1-child-man(2).odt
25.8 KB
affidavit of truth - us uniform code
2022 -000000-decleration of facts response to tpr .odt
33.6 KB
decleration of facts thus far
Forwarded from Exposing CPS In Pennsylvania
Ecenbarger,_William_Kids_for_Cash_Two_Judges,_Thousands_of_Children.pdf
1.8 MB
kids for cash pdf book
Straightforward Truth pinned «A trial court cannot terminate a parent’s rights absent this finding of unfitness. Parental deficiencies alone do not render a parent currently unfit; the proper inquiry is whether the existing parental deficiencies, or other conditions, prevent the parent…»