AT HANDS OF DCFS, JUDGE MARGUERITE DOWNING
by Sharon Rondeau
As The Post & Email has reported, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) successively removed each child on different pretexts beginning in September 2011 with their eldest, who was just under the age of four at the time.
The parents, Kanika and Roosevelt Williams, report that they have not seen their three children since November 2015 even though they completed multiple times all parenting classes and counseling mandated by the Department. They have already appealed the ordered adoption of the elder two children, with the appellate court upholding Judge Marguerite Downing’s ruling in an “unpublished opinion” issued on July 28, 2017.
In an unusual move, according to DCFS spokesman Armand Montiel, social worker Tim Reeff indicated in an email to Roosevelt in November 2011, less than two months after the eldest child was detained, that “adoption” was under consideration and that his maternal grandparents were designated as his custodians.
A hearing regarding the future of the Williamses’ third child was held in March, after which Downing ordered adoption.
The Williamses, who live in Alabama, have traveled back and forth to California for the hearings on their children’s custody at their own expense. At one point, the Edelman Children’s Court raised the possibility of a $10,000 payment to Roosevelt for reimbursement of his travel expenses which was never remitted. “We haven’t gotten one red cent,” Kanika Williams told The Post & Email recently.
Roosevelt said that the claims made against his wife and him by DCFS social workers and the appellate court in its opinion are false and that his outspokenness with social workers to try to regain custody of his children has been held against him. Both parents have said that they will never cease their efforts to have their children returned to them and that they have never abused or neglected them in any way.
The Williamses are not alone in their criticism of the Los Angeles child-protective agency, as evidenced by the cases of “Michelle Robinson” and the Henderson family, also extensively covered by The Post & Email.
Haunting and disturbing stories of how children have reportedly been removed from good parents by child-protective agencies are a concern throughout the country. Many parents fighting the system have been bankrupted by the process and have seen their children placed in the custody of known abusers.
…Removing children from their homes, separating children from parents, and creating conflict within the family unit is ‘Good Business’ for the judicial officials and has become what the Family and CPS Courts do best.
Court officials heavily profit from these induced conflicts. They have learned how to milk the system for financial gain, by targeting the protective (FIT) parent instead of the abusive (UNFIT) parent, resulting in children getting placed with pedophiles, sadistic sociopaths, and narcissists, in life-threatening environments. Although “the State” will pay the court officials if a low-income or poor family is involved, the system forces protective parents who are middle class or wealthier to foot the bills for all court services. Either way, rich or poor, court officials have made a big business out of family conflicts, using children as currency.
Of his own story, Roosevelt Williams told The Post & Email in a recent interview:
I have email after email with each social worker we had where I told them, “If you have a problem with me, we need to sit down and talk, because this is about my kids.” But the social workers didn’t do their job. They were mad at me because I was the type of person that would email them and say, “Hey, you’re not going to treat me like this. Your job is to do this…” but they refused to do it.
One of his email exchanges with a social worker reads:
From: Lia Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:33 PM
To: ‘roosevelt williams’
Subject: RE: CK89770 Visitation with XXXXXX & XXXXXXX Williams
I have been at my desk all day and have not received a call from you. This is the last email I am sending to you regarding this matter. I have asked your continuously to refrain from emailing me and call me desk phone at 310 263 2039 like every other client on my case load.
You are free to contact your phone provider if you feel that is necessary but you could make things less antagonistic by just calling when you are available to discuss your concerns.
From: roosevelt williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:30 PM
To: Lia Jones
Subject: RE: CK89770 Visitation with XXXXXX & XXXXXX Williams
Dear Ms Jones
I receive your email stating that you attempted to call me. Would you advise me of the number that you attempted to reach me on? Because per our conversation when i ask you to communicate with me strictly through email, to avoid any miscommication, you indicated at that time you perfer to reach me by phone. I complied with your request and made sure you had the correct number of 251-XXX-XXXX. I have had my phone with me all day today and I have not had any miss call or messages. If you are suggesting that you call me today then I will be contacting my phone provider to get a record of my phone activity log and to see why I’m not receiving your calls. Again, I am requesting that in the future either we communicate via email or if you prefer to speak to me directly then I am requesting you to send me an email with the date and time I should expect your call. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. I look forward to hear from you soon.
Rosevelt Williams Jr.
I attempted to contact you this morning and did not receive a response. As always, I can be contacted via telephone at 310 263 2039.
Roosevelt and Kanika further told The Post & Email:
Judge Downing said we weren’t cooperative with the social workers, that we changed judges, but we ended up with her because our attorney advised us to ask for a different judge. Judge Vazquez, who was the second judicial officer to see this bogus, frivolous lawsuit, was going to detain XXXXX, so we were told by our attorneys, “You need to file this peremptory challenge to transfer the case to another courtroom.” We didn’t know any better; we just followed their advice, trusting that they knew which judge would be fair. It’s an example of the lack of uniformity of the Children’s Court because the appointed attorneys knew which judge was fair and which was not. The parent knows nothing, only that their children are in danger and they are in danger, so it is necessary to navigate through the Courts to have your children returned. This business thrives on ignorance.
This is what was said to us by our attorney. So with our attorneys saying this, we went to Judge Downing, but we knew we were in trouble when she agreed to detain our third child on a petition of the social worker who didn’t even allege that either her mother or father had abused, abandoned or neglected her.
The Court of Appeals Judges – Judge Manella, Judge Epstein and Judge McMillan – would not even augment the record. We told them on numerous occasions that the clerk of court assigned to our case refused to include all of the records and give transcripts to us.
Judge Downing is the most corrupt judge we have experienced out of the three Judicial Officers that decided Case CK89770. We have had to fight against bogus lies and atrocities dressed up like “justice.”
We respect the law and have followed it. The laws are good and show that our family has been severely violated both legally and morally. It’s the corrupt actions of the Court Officers and aides purposefully deciding to enter into conspiracies, ignoring their oaths, and lacking integrity that has prohibited Justice from being served to not only our family but millions of other families.
They refuse to admit evidence; Judge Downing refused to recuse herself. An appeals judge, Judge Manella, had the nerve to say that Roosevelt Williams filed a federal lawsuit to get Judge Downing off the case. But what relevance does that have to her upholding her oath, to uphold the laws of her state and act with integrity?
[Editor’s Note: Downing was the presiding judge over the cases of the eight Henderson children, all of whom were placed in foster homes and, to our knowledge, later adopted.]