PARENTS CLAIM “ADOPTION WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN”
by Sharon Rondeau
The two elder children have already been placed in the adoption process and placed with the Grants via earlier hearings.
The hearing was originally scheduled for December, but Kanika was not provided proper notice through U.S. mail, which is acknowledged on the first page of the Minute Information sheet (shown below).
Both Williamses have said that DCFS social workers have acted disingenuously from the outset of the cases and that no reason ever existed for their children to be removed from their care. They make their home in Alabama and claim that the Edelman Court has no jurisdiction, although they have traveled back and forth to California for hearings over the last five years and five months.
They maintain that theirs is the longest-running child dependency case in the history of the United States.
Earlier this month, Roosevelt and Kanika contested the adoption of the two elder children through civil actions filed in California’s Second Appellate District, Division Four, and to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing deprivation of constitutional and civil rights.
Last week, they informed The Post & Email that they have not seen their three children for approximately a year. The “Minute Information” sheet issued for Tuesday’s hearing indicates that reunification services were terminated for the third child in September.
No reason was provided as to why the child was not returned to her biological parents. The reason cited for the child’s detention by DCFS is stated as “emotional abuse.”
In an interview on Sunday evening, Roosevelt told The Post & Email that he believes his third child was taken out of retaliation for a complaint he filed against the Department on April 30, 2014. The child was detained on May 12, 2014 by an order from Judge Marguerite Downing.
Roosevelt and Kanika are convinced that the adoption of their three children was engineered by corrupt social workers, Downing and an unaccountable system to please the Grants, who wish to raise the children as their own. Kanika has told The Post & Email that her father, an attorney, is acquainted with Downing, and she believes he heavily influenced her decisions in all three cases.
Numerous emails provided to The Post & Email by both Roosevelt and Kanika show that they place no faith in their court-appointed attorneys who purportedly represent their interests and that they would prefer to represent themselves, a position also taken by the Hendersons several years ago in the same court with the same judge.
Approximately two weeks ago, another parent whose child was taken by Los Angeles DCFS contacted The Post & Email to report that she believes her child has been placed in danger after a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) detective contacted DCFS and reported her as having violated a restraining order which she said “didn’t exist.”
To The Post & Email’s knowledge, the eight Henderson children were placed in prospective adoptive homes despite no documented evidence of either parent ever having abused or neglected any of the children. The two youngest were taken from Mrs. Henderson’s arms shortly after birth on the premise that open cases existed with the elder six children.
In 2013, a California child-protective case became national news when an infant, Baby Sammy, was seized by police in Sacramento on the grounds that his mother had placed him in danger by signing him out of a hospital where she was dissatisfied with the care he received but took him directly to another hospital.
Although Baby Sammy was returned to his parents care and custody in relatively short order and the state legislature was reportedly investigating the state child-protective system, the Williams, Henderson and Robinson* cases appear to illustrate that the system is fraught with problems as well as parents’ allegations of machinations on the part of social workers who are said to harbor a predetermined outcome in their cases.
In 2014, Fox11 in Los Angeles demonstrated that Family Court Commissioner Alan Friedenthal would not speak with the media about the allegations of abuse of power leveled against him by several parents whose children he ordered removed from their care. Friedenthal was “severely admonished” by the Commission on Judicial Performance but moved to a parallel position in a court overseeing requests for restraining orders.
The document detailing the justification for Tuesday’s hearing is below.
Email inquiries from The Post & Email sent to social workers Alexander Cisneros and Claudia Meza Martinez noted on page 1 received no response on Monday.
*Not her real name. The mother has chosen to use an alias for the protection of her children’s privacy.