A Report on a System of Confidential Files,
Closed Court Proceedings, and Some of the Most Serious Violations of American
Civil Liberties in US. History
A true story that continues to date (1995?)
By: Connie Jo Winslow
Tulsa, OK.
In a recent conversation at the Office of Juvenile Justice, an attorney said, "The
only reason DHS has the power it does is because of its Cloak!"
DHS is "cloaked" with confidential files.
The Juvenile Court process is "cloaked" in closed court
proceedings....
It has been said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is a story about how DHS confidential files, complete immunity, and a
closed court process violated the rights of thousands, while the general public
stood back and applauded them because they were told, and they believed that it
has all been done in the "best interest of children," and if they
should ere, the ere would be on the "side of the child".
Call it what you will but in the end, it's still a violation of American
Civil Liberties!
I have been the victim of a brutal and savage rape. It was not a physical
assault but one that impaled my very soul... going against the laws of Nature
and the laws of God. It was an assault on the “Basic Civil Rights of Man”.1
Rights that have been deemed essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness2,
and rights that have been said to be “more precious than property rights”.3
I allege that the state of Florida has committed reprehensible crimes against me
and it is the perpetrator in the initial report made here. However, the
state of Oklahoma is also guilty as it has become a willing participant in these
violations of civil rights. It is for this reason that I choose to inform
you of the facts contained in this statement.
According to the United States Constitution's 4th Amendment, citizens in this
country have the right... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
On March 2, 1987 my infant son of six months, John Thomas Winslow was seized. I
had nursed this child since the day he was born. The agony I experienced
as the result of having him seized is near impossible to fathom. I can
assure you, and do solemnly affirm to you, that I was never served with a
warrant supported by Oath or affirmation that particularly described the person
to be seized. I was never charged with a crime, and the state never had
evidence which indicated that I had been the perpetrator of any wrong doing
whatsoever. Neither did they have any evidence which would support the
claim that perhaps my husband had been the perpetrator of any wrong doing.
My child was taken upon suspicion or speculation alone. There is no such thing
as a full recovery from a trauma such as this, just as there is no such thing as
a full recovery for a women who has been brutally and savagely beaten and raped.
I was deprived of my child’s “companionship, care, custody, and
management” as well as the right to “bring up”4
my child. In fact, I was deprived the right “to enjoy those privileges long
recognized as common law”.
According to Meyer v. Nebraska5, the
Supreme Court noted that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment included "the right of the individual to establish a
home and bring up children ... and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long
recognized as common law and essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
free men."
So, even though I was never charged, I was in fact deprived of the liberties
described here. In my opinion, the action that took place denied due
process of law by the state of Florida.
I can think of no more heinous crime than child abuse. Child sexual abuse
connotes an even greater degree of repugnance and disgust. Why even convicted
criminals hold child molesters in the lowest regard of all prisoners. So
to be charged with child abuse is to be charged with a heinous crime.
According to the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor be deprived of
life. liberty. or property. without due process of law.'
Let us carefully examine this amendment in reference to the process of child
protection and the juvenile court process "which is mandated by state law.
In the state of Oklahoma, parents are deprived of the civil liberty of
"family" when there are allegations of abuse. The design of the
juvenile court system has in my opinion, violated this amendment consistently,
as it has seen fit to circumvent justice, and deny parents due process of law by
presenting a petition that alleges the child "deprived."
But these are erroneous allegations because the charges
are clearly made against the parents. The parents are clearly compelled to
answer the charges or otherwise defend themselves in order to regain custody of
the children or to have these liberties restored. I find it appalling to
think that parents have had their parental rights terminated when no formal or
direct charges have ever been filed against them, where they have never been
arrested... or booked, and where they have never been convicted of a crime!!!
Is this not clearly depriving them of civil liberties without due process of
law?
In a step by step analysis in reference to the 5th amendment, this statement
intends to examine the process and then ask these questions:
1. Since No person/citizen shall be
held … Are the parents in juvenile court being held?
2. Since no person/citizen shall be held to answer ... Are the
parents in juvenile court being compelled to answer?
3. Since No person shall be held to answer for an infamous
crime … Would child abuse be considered an infamous crime to the majority of
the public? And are parents therefore being held to answer for an infamous
crime?
4. Since no person/citizen should be deprived of life liberty
or property without due process of law... are the parents being deprived of
liberty, and if so are they receiving due process of law?
1. Are the parents being held'?
Unequivocally Yes! The parents are held by something of far greater strength
than prison bars. It is a force greater in power that a grand jury
indictment could ever be. This force compels them to appear in court even
though they have never been arrested or officially charged with a crime. Parents
are held by the "intangible fibers which connect parent and child”.6
According to the New York State Supreme Court these fibers are “are woven
through the fabric of our society providing it with strength, beauty and
flexibility. It is self-evident that they are sufficiently vital to merit
Constitutional protection”.7
They are held by one of the strongest instincts known to the entire animal
kingdom, that of a parent/mother to protect her young. The children have
been seized by the state and held in an unknown location and the ransom set to
have the children released is that the parents must show up in court.
2. Are parents held to answer?
They are compelled to answer the charges in the petition. This case will
never be decided on the true guilt or innocence of anyone, but only the
probability that acts occurred or were committed. There is no doubt in any
parents mind that they have been compelled to answer the charges.
3. Would child abuse be considered "infamous" bv a majority
of the public?
Child abuse has very often been referred to as a heinous crime. In fact,
in looking up the definitions of infamous and heinous there are some strong
similarities. Both have the word odious as a definition. Odious is
then defined as: exciting hate, repugnance, disgust; offensive; abhorrent.
Justice Hugo Black stated, (in reference to juvenile court petitions which
allege children "deprived") that when a petition is filed the parent
“is charged with conduct--failure to care properly for her children--which may
be viewed as reprehensible and morally wrong by a majority of society”8
And as previously stated, even criminals hold child molesters in the lowest
regard. So- if child abuse is a heinous crime... are parents therefore
being held to answer to allegations of an infamous crime? In my opinion,
undoubtedly they are…
4. Are parents being deprived of liberty and if so are they receiving
due process of law?
In child abuse cases where children are held the National average states
that they will be confined or detained for an average of 20 months while the
morass of legal proceedings occurs. There are thousands of convicted
criminals who spend less time than that behind bars. In addition, in
criminal cases bail is set in various amounts, and the alleged criminal is
presumed innocent until a jury of his peers finds that the charges made have
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and he is guilty. In juvenile court
parents do not enjoy the luxury we call presumption of innocence, and they have
no right to "bail the children out of foster care" until a jury of
peers finds them guilty. In fact the burden of proof falls on the
defendants because the standard of proof in juvenile court says that if the jury
concludes that these acts probably occurred, or the scales tip by a 51% margin,
then a guilty verdict is required. So, the parents are denied the right to
"family." and the right to raise their children for an average of 20
months. Without the presumption of innocence, my opinion is that these
parents have in fact been deprived of civil liberties protected by the
Constitution without due process of law.
You see, when someone in this country' is charged with a
crime, there are procedures which must be followed. For example: A warrant
is issued for the arrest of the alleged criminal the person is arrested, and
booked. These things never occur before parents/citizens of this country
are deprived of rights and liberties guaranteed protection by the Constitution.
These rights and liberties have obviously' needed protection in the past, but
case law states that the Supreme Court of this land held them to be “far more
precious than property rights”9
In conclusion I would add only a quote from Griswold v. Connecticut.10
The safeguarding of the home does not follow merely from the sanctity of
property rights. The home derives its preeminence as the seat of family
life. And the integrity' of that life is something so fundamental that it has
been found to draw to its protection the principle of more than one explicitly
granted Constitutional right. The entire fabric of the Constitution and
the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees that the rights to
marital privacy and to marry and to raise a family are of similar order and
magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected.
1 Besharov; D. J. (Former director of the
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect) Responding to Child Sexual Abuse:
The Need for a Balanced Approach. The Future of Children Sexual Abuse of
Children Vol 4/No 2—Summer/Fall 1994 p.136 Stanley v. Illinois. 405 V.5.
645.651(1972)
2 Whitehead, J. W., Parents’ Rights: How to Fight Back. The Rutherford
Institute, Charlottesville, VA p.1 Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 U.S. 399
(1923).
3 Besharov, D.
J., Responding to Child Sexual Abuse: The Need for a
Balanced Approach, The Future of
Children; Sexual Abuse of Children Vol 4/No
2--Summer Fall 1994 p.130
4 Stanley v. Illinois 405 U. S. 645 (1972) as found in Parents'
Rights: How to fight back!. The Rutherford
Institute. Charlottesville. VA p.3.
5 Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 399 (1923)
6 Roberts, L. K, McDonald V. Wrigley. A case note regarding
grandparental intervention into divorce cases. Oklahoma Family Law
Journal,
September, 1995 p.92
7 Lehr v. Robertson 103 S. Ct. at 2987 as cited in the
Oklahoma
Family Law Journal, September 1995 p.91,92
8 Kaufman v. Carter, 402 U.S. 964.969 (1971) (Black, J., dissenting
from a denial of certiorari). As referenced in The Future of
Children,
Summer/Fall 1994 p. 136 (quote) and p.152 (reference)
9 Stanley v. Illinois. 405 U.S. 645.651 (1972) In
The Future of Children,
Sexual Abuse of Children Vol 4/No 2 Summer/Fall 1994 p.136
10 Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479 (1965)