If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
JUDGE TO HOLD HEARING NOVEMBER 19 TO DESIGNATE SIX CHILDREN AS AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION DESPITE PARENTS’ STRUGGLE TO REGAIN CUSTODY
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 31, 2012) — The following letter has been sent to Judge Michael Nash regarding the case of Jeffrey and Erica Henderson, whose seven children remain in foster care through the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) despite their willingness and desire to regain permanent custody. The Post & Email has covered the case here.
While DCFS Public Affairs Director Armand Montiel has told us that “reunification” of children with their parents is the top priority of the agency, it is difficult to locate information on reunification on the agency’s website, while a significant amount of information is found soliciting foster and adoptive parents.
A message left with the Media Relations person on Sunday at the Los Angeles Police Department inquiring why members of the department appeared twice at Mrs. Henderson’s home on Saturday looking for her husband was not returned.
Concerned members of the public are invited to attend the November 19 hearing at which Judge Downing will discuss adoption procedures for the older six Henderson children.
October 31, 2012
Judge Michael Nash
Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court
201 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Dear Judge Nash:
I am owner and editor of The Post & Email (www.thepostemail.com), an electronic newspaper which covers government corruption.
For the last two months, I have been reporting on a story involving the case of the Hendersons, whose then-six children were placed in foster care after they were apparently falsely imprisoned in May 2010.
Since that time, the Hendersons had another baby which was seized by members of the Los Angeles Police Department and a DCFS social worker on August 31 during an unsupervised visit with all of the children and Mrs. Henderson. It recently came to light that the required paperwork was never verified by an independent party as required by California Rule of Court 5.524.
The latest story dealing with the behavior and ethics of Judge Marguerite Downing is here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/10/26/bombshell-la-county-dcfs-removed-infant-from-mothers-care-without-necessary-signatures/
Despite this finding to which the presiding judge, Marguerite Downing, admitted in court on October 26, jurisdiction by the court was declared, with Downing stating “I’m going to allow it” even though at least one of the attorneys said that the case should have been voided. Both court-appointed attorneys stated on the 26th that their copies of the paperwork supposedly authorizing the seizing of the infant were still unverified.
In covering this story, I discovered several articles alleging corruption within the Los Angeles DCFS amounting to the trafficking of children into the foster care system with large payouts to the county from the federal government for each child so placed. An article from 2003 in the Long Beach Press Telegram http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/news/archive/troy_anderson/money_motive_in_foster_care.htm supports the information Mrs. Henderson has given me regarding federal payouts to the county for children placed in foster care.
My understanding is that the parents have complied with the case plan, including attending parenting classes, counseling and other services which the court has recommended. Both parents contend that they have never abused their children and that the children should have been returned to them many months ago. However, Judge Downing has designated the six older children as being adoptable as of November 19. The parents clearly want them back, and at least one of the children has been molested while in foster care.
I have notified the public affairs director of DCFS, Mr. Armand Montiel, about the allegations, which he claims appear “inaccurate.” However, regulations preclude him from discussing any details about the specific case. Mr. Montiel has told me that reunification of children with their biological parents is the “top priority” of DCFS. If that is the case, why are these children being kept from loving parents who have done everything in their power to regain custody, and why are they going up for adoption? Does the judge have a personal vendetta against the parents which is affecting her decisions?
The Post & Email would appreciate your review of this case, including the actions of Judge Downing, who has clearly disregarded the violation of a court rule which it is her responsibility to enforce.
To access my reportage of the Henderson case, simply land on the home page, click on the title of any article, register at Level 0, which is free, and open up any article containing the key word “Henderson.”
Thank you very much.
Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT 06076