"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back " (Major Update, October 14; critical clarification, May 15, 2011)

(See updates below.)

 The "Petition for Abuse/Neglect" filed on behalf of Cheyenne Irish by New Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleges that the baby, who was born on October 6, was "neglected" by her mother on that very day in the hospital where the infant was born.

What this means is that Stephanie Taylor's act of "neglect" was to give birth to her child, and that the only way she could have avoided that charge was to have Cheyenne killed in utero. Because Stephanie had neglected this supposed duty, the DCYF kidnapped Cheyenne a little more than 16 hours following her birth. 

Barring a near-miraculous outcome, Cheyenne's parents will never get their daughter back. So testifies New Hampshire resident Dorothy Knightly. Between August 31, 2005 and February 3, 2006, Dorothy (who prefers to be called Dot) saw three of her grandchildren abducted by the DCYF on the basis of spurious child abuse and neglect allegations. 

Dot's grandson Austin (who is now ten years old), was so traumatized by the kidnapping that he attempted suicide. As a result he was institutionalized and "medicated" with dangerous psychotropic drugs. Two of Dot's grandchildren have been adopted, and the DCYF won't permit any contact with the grandparents. Ally was placed with her father.

All of this began on August 31, 2005, when Dot's daughter Candy gave birth to a daughter named Isabella. At some point in the pregnancy Candy developed a condition called placenta previa. Although this usually requires that the child be delivered via C-section, Candy was put on a morphine drip and Isabella was delivered normally. Predictably, this meant that a urine test found morphine in Isabella's bloodstream -- a circumstance easily explained as a result of the circumstances of her birth, but was maliciously depicted as evidence that Candy had "abused" her baby through pre-natal drug use.

Isabella.

Believing that this matter would be quickly and easily cleared up, Dot and her husband applied for temporary custody of Isabella in their home. They eagerly and cheerfully cooperated with the DCYF out of  the common but tragically mistaken belief that agencies of that kind are operated by people who actually care about children, governed by laws, and burdened with scruples.

"We let those people into our home," Knightly lamented to Pro Libertate. "We opened the door and greeted them with smiles. We offered them coffee and treated them well. We trusted them. We assured our daughter, `don't worry -- they're not going to take your baby.' We assumed that we had rights, that the law meant something, and that the people in the DCYF would have to obey the rules. We'll never make that mistake again, and we hope other people won't either."

Two weeks after Isabella was born, a false child abuse report was filed with the DCYF alleging that Austin and his sister Ally had been molested by their father, who was married to Dot's other daughter, Holly.When they were notified of the accusation, Dot and Holly immediately took the children to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center to be examined for evidence of molestation. A comprehensive screening revealed no evidence of abuse of any kind.

Nonetheless, during a preliminary hearing regarding custody of Isabella on September 26, 2005, DCYF official Kate McClure unflinchingly committed perjury by claiming that the medically debunked molestation charge had been "confirmed," adorning that lie with a critical decorative detail: The purported act has supposedly taken place in the grandparents' home.


Once that charge had been made by the DCYF, the fate of Dot's grandchildren was settled, in everything but the details.

A DCYF document entitled "Notice to Accused Parent" explains the ground rules that govern New Hampshire's "family law" court system: "All Court hearings and records of abuse and neglect cases are confidential. The hearings are not open to the public and only people involved in the case, or invited by the parties and approved by the Court, will be admitted to the Court hearings." In practice this means that DCYF banishes from such hearings anybody who can speak effectively on behalf of the accused.
  
A "preliminary hearing" can result in the DCYF being awarded "protective supervision or legal custody" over a child, "which would give DCYF the right to temporarily remove your child[ren] from parental care and custody and determine where and with whom your child[ren] will live," explains the document.
 
At no point in the process is it necessary to prove that abuse occurred. Even at an "adjudicatory hearing" -- the equivalent of a criminal trial -- the standard is a "preponderance of evidence," rather than a requirement to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the threshold for a judicial decision to award custody of a child to the DCYF is merely the presentation of "evidence."

In substantive terms, an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse qualifies as "evidence." In the same fashion, "temporary," as defined in New Hampshire child abuse cases, is a synonym for "indefinite." Once a judge has granted custody or protective supervision to the DCYF, the matter is placed beyond judicial remedy, and the child's fate will be determined by the child-snatcher bureaucracy. 

After Candy was charged with "neglecting" Isabella by receiving a morphine drip during a difficult delivery, the grandparents were forbidden to present evidence at either the preliminary or the adjudicatory hearing. On October 3, 2005, the DCYF seized Isabella, who at the time was a little more than one month old. She was never seen again by her grandparents.Candy was allowed brief, sporadic visits until March of 2006.

One particularly provocative aspect of this case involves Candy's refusal to apply for DCYF-administered welfare benefits. On September 2, 2005 -- less than a month after Isabella was born -- DCYF employee Melissa Deane tried to persuade Candy to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Candy refused to do so, pointing out that she and Isabella would be living with the grandparents and wouldn't need welfare aid -- or the invasive government supervision that would come with it.


On September 28 -- two days after the preliminary hearing upheld the neglect charge against Candy -- Ms. Deane signed the application and filed it herself. A few days later, DCYF kidnapped Isabella from the hospital, eventually arranging for her adoption to another family. 


Dot Knightly points out that as long as Isabella remained with Candy, the DCYF would not be able to obtain federal welfare funding in her name. That problem was "solved" by filing an application over the objections of Isabella's mother, and then stealing her child.

  
The DCYF then turned its predatory attention to Dot's other daughter, Holly, and her two children, Austin and Ally. 


On January 19, 2006, Holly went to the hospital following a friend's suicide attempt. While there she was arrested for "belligerent behavior" by a police officer who believed that she was intoxicated. Although she was on various prescription medications (she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder), a test confirmed that there was no alcohol in her system at the time of her arrest. Regardless of that fact, Holly was charged with "child endangerment."


The arresting officer, Patrolman Josue I. Santia, delivered Holly's children Austin and Ally to Dot's home. Santia noted in his report that he and his partner "felt comfortable leaving the children in [the grandparents'] custody." On the following morning the grandparents were awarded temporary supervisory care over the children while the child endangerment charge was examined. That charge was eventually dropped, but DCYF wasn't willing to end its pursuit of Holly's kids.


Darren Hood Tucker, an attorney employed by DCYF, went "judge shopping" and "found another Judge willing to modify the court order" granting temporary custody to the grandparents, Dot Knightly recounted to Pro Libertate. Tucker was able to suborn a judge into ruling that it was inappropriate for Austin and Ally to have contact with Dot's daughter Candy -- whose only "offense" had been to give birth to a child who was later abducted by the DCYF. 


"They sent four police officers to our home and took those children away at gunpoint," Dot recalls. "Poor Austin was literally dragged down the street kicking and screaming as the neighbors looked on." Shortly after the siblings were placed in a foster home in Merrimack, Austin -- who had no previous record of behavioral problems -- tried to hang himself. 

News of the suicide attempt sent Holly rushing to the hospital, where she was intercepted by DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore. The caseworker "threatened my daughter Holly by stating that if Holly didn't sign Austin's admission to Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital ... the Judge would sign a court order terminating Holly's parental rights," Dot Knightly relates. 


Just days earlier, Austin had been a bright-eyed, friendly, cheerful little boy.
Austin's disposition and physical appearance changed dramatically after he was seized by armed strangers and forced to take mind-altering drugs.


During the four months that DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore was on maternity leave (remember that detail; I'll return to it momentarily), Dot, her husband, and Austin's mother were able to have one brief phone call with Austin and his attending physician at the Psychiatric Hospital. The doctor told Dot that "after Austin spoke to his family his whole demeanor changed ... and he was not the same violent little boy as when he was admitted." When DCYF Supervisor Tracy Gubbins learned of that phone call, she issued instructions that there would be no further contact between Austin and his grandparents or his mother. 

Austin with his Grandpa.

The only reason Dot was able to talk to her grandson was because the newly single caseworker was on maternity leave. Dot believes that Anna Salvatore -- who is now known as Anna Edlund -- may have become pregnant as a result of an affair.


"Holly and her husband had been having problems, but after this whole mess began they actually moved into a new apartment and seemed to be starting over," Dot told Pro Libertate. "The caseworker, or `home-wrecker,' Anna Salvatore found out about this and had them separated again within a week. Then Salvatore started to visit Holly's husband on nights and weekends, with or without the children, which eventually ruined her own marriage. And then she ended up divorced and pregnant -- after tearing my daughter's family apart." 

The record should reflect that Ms. Edlund strenuously and categorically denies this aspect of Dot's account.

After Austin was placed in a "pre-adoptive" home, Dot -- with the help of the new caseworker -- was able to arrange a few brief, supervised visits with Austin. During one of them, the traumatized little boy quietly informed his grandmother:  "They told me that Holly's not my mother anymore."

"Honey, Holly is still your mother and will always be your mother," Dot replied -- thereby triggering the DCYF's retaliation reflex.

"From that time, all further visits were canceled," she recalled to Pro Libertate.

Not even this could be considered the crowning act of cruelty inflicted on this long-suffering family by New Hampshire's child "protection" racket.

By 2008, Dot -- who still hoped that she would be permitted to care for her grandchildren -- had completed her coursework to be a state-certified foster parent, but was refused a license. She was told by DCYF official Lorraine Bartlett that she would never be permitted to care for Austin out of fear that she would take him off the toxic psychotropic drugs he was forced to take. 


Through a steady series of dilatory and obstructionist maneuvers, the DCYF made it impossible for Dot to qualify as a foster parent for her grandchildren. When it was decided that Austin would be adopted by another couple, Dot and her husband were instructed by Bartlett to write a good-bye letter to their grandson in order to bring "closure" to the atrocity. This gesture reminds me a bit of the way that firing squads employed by Ethiopian despot Mengistu Haile Mariam would force families of the victims to pay for the ammunition used to murder their loved ones.


Dot insisted that she would continue her legal efforts to get Austin back.


"Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original essay; some details have been changed in the interests of clarity.)

UPDATE --

According to a source on the ground in New Hampshire who is very close to the principals in the story, Cheyenne Irish was not sexually abused. She was rushed to be examined by a specialist dealing with victims of child sexual abuse; that specialist reportedly concluded that no abuse had occurred.

In interviews today, Jonathan Irish's father has made it abundantly clear that he considers his son to be a disturbed and potentially dangerous individual. That view is reportedly shared by other people long acquainted with Mr. Irish. Assuming -- for now -- that  there is merit to that characterization, we're still left with this question: If the father is the problem, why was the mother charged with neglect for the act of having the baby?

UPDATE, October 14: Sometimes, They Do Get Their Kids Back...

... if the parents in question can create a nation-wide controversy over the kidnapping. Reports the New Hampshire Union- Leader:

"Johnathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor emerged from a closed family court hearing Thursday afternoon with smiles on their faces and indicated they may be getting back their daughter Cheyenne, whom state officials took from them hours after her birth last week."

A local TV report unequivocally states that Cheyenne has already been returned to her parents:

Interestingly, Johnathan Irish's mother was on hand in what appears to be a supporting role. This contrasts sharply with the attitude of Mr. Irish's biological father, who has conspicuously approved of the DCYF's action in abducting Cheyenne.

Point of editorial privilege....

This report relies heavily on a significant quantity of documents not available on-line. I intend to archive them and make them available as soon as possible. 








Thank you for helping to keep Pro Libertate on-line!

For updates on this and other stories, tune in this Saturday evening (8:00-11:00 PM Mountain Time) for Pro Libertate Radio on the Liberty News Radio Network.

Dum spiro, pugno!

Jury Rights Day

“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today?" wrote Henry David Thoreau in 1849. "I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.”

Thoreau's assessment was inspired by his disgust over Washington's war of aggression against Mexico, and -- what was much the same thing -- the entrenchment and expansion of chattel slavery.

He would almost certainly reach the same conclusion regarding the proper relationship between people who cherish justice and the ever-growing malignancy we could call the Homeland Security State. Thoreau's comments about the servility on which the State depends have likewise been vindicated by time.

"The mass of men serve the state ... not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies," he lamented. "In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well."

Thoreau allowed that there are a handful of people --"heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men" -- who distinguish themselves by serving the government "with their consciences," which unavoidably means that they "necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it."

Although he declared "war with the State, after my fashion," Thoreau was not a pure anarchist, explaining that where it was possible and compatible with his principles he would "still make use and get what advantages of her I can...."

One form of association with the State that liberty activists should embrace and should exploit -- without fear of disgrace -- is jury duty.

"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison," insisted Thoreau in one of the numerous radiant epigrams adorning his masterful essay. As a matter of lamentable history, he's right. But as a matter of principle, the true place for just people in such circumstances is the jury box, where they will interpose themselves between the State and its innocent victims. This principle was elucidated in compelling detail by Thoreau's fellow abolitionist Lysander Spooner.

The fact that juries possess plenary power to judge both facts and law -- the latter giving a jury the power to nullify the enforcement of bad laws -- is perhaps the most carefully guarded secret of our current legal system. For the first century of our existence, it was commonplace for juries to be informed of that fact before being sent to deliberate. Today, a defense attorney who mentions that fact in open court can often expect to be censured by the presiding judge or even hit with a contempt-of-court charge.

Rescuing this fundamental check on government power is the mission of the Fully Informed Jury Association, which commemorates this date (September 5) as "Jury Rights Day." This observance is held in remembrance of the 1670 acquittal -- through jury nullification -- of Quaker leader William Penn on the charge of preaching an "illegal" sermon in London. The heroic holdout jurors, led by Edward Bushell, were imprisoned and tortured by the presiding judge (through what today's practitioners would call a "restricted diet" -- others call it deliberate starvation and dehydration), and set free when England's highest court upheld the right of jury nullification.

"Trials are too important to be left to juries," insisted high-octane jury consultant Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) in the legal potboiler The Runaway Jury. In fact, in many cases the only worthwhile jury is a "runaway" jury.

One very telling measure of the Regime's fear of jury nullification is found in the efforts expended by prosecutors -- who have become a veritable human pestilence -- to prevent cases from going to trial.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who masterfully dissected the contemporary "justice" system in his 1998 book (co-written with Lawrence M. Stratton) The Tyranny of Good Intentions, points out that "the vast majority of felony cases are settled with a plea bargain...."

Most conservatives made aware of this would react with a snort and complain about excessive leniency, ignorant of another important fact: Many, perhaps most, "felonies" today involve no offenses against persons or property, no criminal intent, and are usually a product of an opportunistic prosecutor's malicious creativity in confecting a criminal offense.

It is common for prosecutors to multiply charges as a way of terrorizing an innocent defendant into accepting a plea. Very rarely do we see a defendant with the means to defend himself in such circumstances. An exception that proves the rule is the wealthy Republican Senator Larry Craig, who was manipulated into a guilty plea on a ridiculous charge, and has tardily decided to put up a fight.

But for the average citizen who finds himself targeted by an ambitious prosecutor, a plea bargain usually seems like the only relatively palatable alternative to the expense of a trial and the possibility of a long time in prison. At the bargaining table, "I'm all in" for the prosecutor means that, should he lose, he would sacrifice a little prestige, with the taxpayers absorbing all of the expenses; the defendant stands to lose everything and faces the prospect of utter ruin.

This is why so many innocent people are willing to deal. For the State, the most attractive feature of such arrangements is the fact that it keeps such cases away from juries. And we're left with a "justice" apparatus that functions, in the words of legal scholar John Langbein, like "the ancient system of judicial torture," which relied on self-incrimination through duress, rather than conviction on the basis of sound evidence.

The ardent desire of our rulers to minimize the jury system -- with the ultimate objective of abolishing it -- underscores the importance of rehabilitating the only government institution worthy of unqualified support: The fully-informed citizen jury.

Video bonus

The following three-part program, produced roughly two decades ago, offers additional background and insights regarding the need for, and critical importance of, jury nullification as a check on government power:

Part One:



Part Two:



Part Three




Be sure to visit The Right Source and the Liberty Minute Archive.