WARNING: CRIME ALERT! CPS "Child Protection Services" is kidnapping children! Stop Organized Crime! View San Luis Obispo Children Non Profits: http://www.box.net/shared/cnp6fok9i8 View your county: visit: www.guidestar.com

Monday, January 26, 2009


Violation of the following:
WIC 300(A) , 361(D)
CAL GOV CODE 820.21(2)(3)
TITLE 42, USC SECT 1983, 14141,
USC TITLE 18, SECTIONS 241, 245(3) 1203, 241, 242, 1001(1)(2)(3), AND 1203(A)
Civil Codes 1569(1)(2)(3), 1570(1)(3), 1571, 1572(1)(3)(4)


The report CPS generated on January 22, 2008 which states Jenny should stay with her Mother and reunification is set for July 28th. Yet 3 days later, on January 25, 2008 she took Jenny from school. This occurred 43 days after the first removal. Amy listed fraudulent reasons for this second removal. She had not performed any investigations and her claims were based on “here-say”, which is unlawful.

1)No “protective custody warrant” was issued before removal as required by law. There was no “Imminent Danger of serious bodily injury” for minor was in school at the time. WIC 300(a)
2)The message received on my voice mail from the assistant principal, Ms. Donahue at Atascadero High school states Jenny was in school all day on January 25th. They state they had no prior knowledge of a removal by any social worker. Jenny didn’t come home from school that day. Was my daughter “Kidjacked”?
Section 300a of the Welfare and Institutions code states:
Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court:

(a) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted not accidentally upon the child by the child's parent or guardian. For the purposes of this Subdivision, a court may find there is a substantial risk of serious future injury based on the manner in which a less serious injury was inflicted, a history of repeated inflictions of injuries on the child or the child's siblings, or a combination of these and other actions by the parent or guardian which indicate the child is at risk of serious physical harm.

(c) A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents or guardian or guardians with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, and, in an Indian child custody proceeding, paragraph (6):
(1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physical custody. The fact that a minor has been adjudicated a dependent child of the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 300 shall constitute prima facie evidence that the minor cannot be safely left in the physical custody of the parent or guardian with whom the minor resided at the time of injury. The court shall consider, as a reasonable means to protect the minor, the option of removing an offending parent or guardian from the home. The court shall also consider, as a reasonable means to protect the minor, allowing a nonoffending parent or guardian to retain physical custody as long as that parent or guardian presents a plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that he or she will be able to protect the child from future harm.
(3) The minor is suffering severe emotional damage, as indicated by extreme anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward himself or herself or others, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s emotional health may be protected without removing the minor from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.
(4) The minor or a sibling of the minor has been sexually abused, or is deemed to be at substantial risk of being sexually abused, by a parent, guardian, or member of his or her household, or other person known to his or her parent, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor can be protected from further sexual abuse or a substantial risk of sexual abuse without removing the minor from his or her parent or guardian, or the minor does not wish to return to his or her parent or guardian.
(5) The minor has been left without any provision for his or her support, or a parent who has been incarcerated or institutionalized cannot arrange for the care of the minor, or a relative or other adult custodian with whom the child has been left by the parent is unwilling or unable to provide care or support for the child and the whereabouts of the parent is unknown and reasonable efforts to locate him or her have been unsuccessful.
Section 361(D) of the Welfare and Institutions code states
(d) The court shall make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from his or her home or, if the minor is removed for one of the reasons stated in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c), whether it was reasonable under the circumstances not to make any of those efforts, or, in the case of an Indian child custody proceeding, whether active efforts as required in Section 361.7 were made and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful. The court shall state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based.
1)Amy removed Jenny even though we complied with the “case plan”. We both completed the mental evaluation; I went to Drug and Alcohol for assessment and both obtained counseling.

Section 362.1(1)(A)  States:

Subject to subparagraph (B), for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well being of the child.

Subparagraph (B) basically states the child will be safe and consistent with 3030 of the family code

My daughter has been continually alienated from me from the start. The return date kept being extended while she was shuttled around into 5-6 foster homes. There was never any reunification attempts. They planned on transferring custody from the start based on FALSE charges. Again, tests proved the allegations were FALSE, yet CPS failed to return my daughter.

Section 300b of the Welfare and Institutions code states:

“…the court shall give deference to the parent’s or guardian’s medical treatment, non treatment, or spiritual treatment…and shall not assume jurisdiction unless necessary to protect the child” - I was sick with Anemia when they took my daughter yet they refused to allow me to seek medical treatment before making court dates and giving me a "case plan" to follow which was impossible to follow. *Medical tests prove this fact. This is probably why my house was broken into - to remove the proof.


820.21. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with malice:
(1) Perjury.
(2) Fabrication of evidence.
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence.
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of
The Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section
1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section
1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is
Intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury
To the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the
Person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious
Disregard of the rights or safety of others.


Amy Sensenbach originally took Jenny on 12/9/07 over the door incident. She returned her on 12/14/07. She took Jenny again from school 43 days later without good cause. She did not have a “protective custody warrant and no other incidences occurred. She removed minor solely on “hearsay and then went on a Witch hunt” against the mother to justify the removal. She omitted facts and misled the Court. She failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and the removal was not done properly.

TITLE 42, USC SECT 1983, 14141,
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia 

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.
Section 2235. Search warrant procured maliciously Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.
Section 2236. Searches without warrant
Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $1,000; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
        This section shall not apply to any person -
          (a) serving a warrant of arrest; or
          (b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or
        attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has
        committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having
        committed a felony; or
          (c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the
        consent of the occupant of the premises.

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2)any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

The appeals stated I did not get DUE PROCESS. Judge Garrett who heard the appeal ignored this and gave custody to the father. This case was flawed from the very beginning. CPS ignored this fact. They also ignored my daughters pleas to go home. All they wanted was the MONEY


I wonder how much money they made off Jenny

No comments: