RESPONSE TO RESPONSE

Dear Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of California, I am humbled by the might of your honorables and the thought of the importance this case is to the future of our Great State and Country. I am at the same time saddened by the lack of humanity shown by the County Council of Solano and many others before them. In favor of my argument, let the past be the best predictor of the future, my children have never and would never be at risk of harm with me. I also would like to suggest to your honors, keep in mind the argument presented by my opponents is all fruit of illegal apprehension , false accusations, and unaccountable hearsay throughout the Department of human and /or(health) Services of Sacramento and Solano County. I am the only party in this case that is of first person witness account throughout its entirety, besides father, therefore, my perspective should bare more weight of truth than those in opposition. For the department to claim failure “contest” anything by the mother is mere proof of how frivolous and inaccurate their claims are in whole. The entire timeline of this case is a week off. My children were removed from my custody on January 20th 2017, not on January 27th 2017. My ignorance to the DHHS at the start of this does not give the Department a free week before they have to obtain and serve a warrant & file for emergency custody. The Department of Health and Human Services used Sheriff’s force to break into my home knowing no one was inside, after my children were confirmed to be with my nanny, as they yelled to me we don’t need a warrant. I went to the Citrus Heights Police Department the week of the 20th to try and have them enforce the written custody orders already obtained for my other children, and they told me there's nothing they could do and CPS was “ like the law, and to be careful”. I asked everyone including the juvenile court what is “like the law?” I have come to the conclusion it means they're actors under the color of law and use force of law enforcement and other law resources to serve whatever temporary re-reform the newest manager has implemented, ethical and lawful, not important.. From the beginning in Sacramento, CPS could not decide whether my home or myself was the cause of seizure, as you see in the case file, to support this as evidence, there are three addendums in addition to the original report. Sacramento could not solidify actual charges against me, so both counties eventually accused me of everything hoping something would stick . Sacramento (Ben Worrall) claimed it was my messy home during in person meeting at his office, the same day I begged all of them to take my daughter to Mercy Hospital. I gave them a Residence Inn reservation for one week to resolve this as the issue, Scott gave them a new address as home in Fairfield, CA. Every time we would offer these 2 solutions to Baby K’s safe home claim, the false paraphernalia accusations regurgitated. It was two weeks before the first hearing of July 21st 2017 Father was stricken from all allegations and mother was in the pre-trial stage at our last appearance in Sacramento.. Both my appointed attorneys were aware of my contest to all, and not once throughout this whole case have I indicated I am allowing the Department to label me as a bad mother. I emphasized to all, including the opposition, I would automatically lose my other 3 children if I lose this Dependency case. The only timeline absences in the juvenile case can be filled with me filing cases with risk management in Sacramento, my federal case, my case against my mother for withholding my equity from the sale of my home in Sacramento or the concussion the Sacramento Sheriff's took 3 calls to take after an armed security guard hit me with full force from behind at a hotel.(Medi-Cal was improperly charged and hospitals aware) I chose homelessness so my baby could be with her father. That's how much I love my kids, I would give up my shelter safety stability my life in a heartbeat for them to be happy and healthy.. but I do not I want my children to you grow up in a world where they are not safe in their own home, I cannot have them returned to me with the fear this can happen again, because in reality, this can happen to anyone. they have crossed that line in which no one is safe now. I also will not impose services, that hold zero value or relevance, upon my family in our lives. There is not a more pertinent argument in which a social worker should be honest other than in a court of law. If they do not understand the implications dishonesty imposes upon a court, they should not have any words accepted by the court as default truth. We all expect a Social worker to be honest, they should be. Their job is to protect a child, not create a fictitious villain out of simple cultural differences. Sacramento should have immediately dismissed this case because social worker Rodriguez entered the courtroom with “unclean hands”. No one has denied he illegally entered my home using Sheriff's Force then obtained a warrant 7 days later. That warrant should not have been granted, Rodriguez should have been fired immediately for breaking into my home, and the fact that no one was arrested for this paraphernalia he lied about in his report should be proof in itself that it did not exist. 2 years later, regurgitation of lies from strangers is what the Department of Social Services Solano County is presenting to the highest Court of California. I am insulted by what this evidence implies. Some I believe are guilty of crimes of perjury or more. I trust your honors to do what's just for all, and take the law out of the hand of the Social Worker. Allow Social Workers to work on this States Social issues (much needed), and allow the Law enforcement teams to enforce laws including child neglect or harm. In response to summary pg 10 1) Petitioner was under contest, no appeal was offered because still waiting for trial 2) Appellate court clerk delivered writ to Supreme for me because I could not afford to send a new one ( see declaration to solano and emails ) 3) same as 2 4 ) see emails and motions 5) a- When a code/ or entire book is unconstitutional in nature and actors under such codes are incentivised with GRANTS TO GIFTCARDS TO GREAT HOLIDAY PARTIES/PAY or those who do “not” act in behavioral popularity norms are actually penalized with “lack” or “deficiency“of potential incentives, the code is unjust as a social guidance tool. b) - special unit assignment is micromanagement and not of the burden of the Supreme Court to oversee, or implement, but for a quasi-statistical social study to be perceived as detrimental risk is as factual as 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel. (1944 New York Times Advertisement) Freedom as an ultimatum to some class or group placement is not of Common free Law of any democratic social agency or scope. Only guilty parties of harming children should be penalized as criminals, not the innocent parties, that have to prove themselves innocent to keep the simplest familial rights and due process rights. 6) If the scope of a court's authority is to allow any government actor to obtain a piece of a person's body, a person that has not broken laws , not of physical illness or altered mental state, and most of all allowed this on axc happy and and healthy baby, than God help us all. Legal Argument My Prayer for release of my child's body and truly my entire family's body as a single unit is not substituting any appeal, but to prevent many appeals in the future. I cannot have my children returned to me knowing we are not safe in our own home. I will not give my children a world that makes what happened to us just. I cannot allow this agency to destroy a dream of happiness, individualism, equality. and freedom I truly still believe in. If there is a conflicting case in appellate court, I do not wish to waste anyone's time and money, it will be in front of the Supreme Court because this is that important and my case is that ridiculous. The entire case stems from illegal breaking and entering by 2 actors under the color of law that can not solidify any of the claims so they do the social worker shuffle so none can be held accountable. all just regurgitated words of an illegal immigrant( charged in Florida under Rogelio Rodriguez for illegal entry in the US), and another one that fled to Mexico to avoid perjury charges. While on topic, Jason Tastetides of C-DAT, the departments expert in drug testing, is a criminal that has on his facebook page, the intern Wendy Smith took on sample day, sitting on his lap. He has no medical training, and his father is the owner. Not concerned enough to call Wendy on the 15th, or anyone in DHHS, about a 1 year old having 77 times the level of test. Drug activity was never witnessed in fathers home. The argument and cross-examination was never allowed, again literal regurgitation. All arguments made with legal backing, by the Department and County Counsel are of drug offense parents with actual charges and Injuries to coincide with the dependency proceeding do not exist. The entire WIC is written assuming all people entering the court are of a certain lower social grouping they have created. At least every section even close to my case is based on prior charges for crimes or actual harm of a child has occurred. This includes State drug testing law, drug testing law of minors, family custody law and court. None indicate the parties to be normal educated home-owning non criminals that a social worker/s disagreed with about his scope of law and duty. The argument in section 4 is not relevant, it does not state "risk of" . Neither parent in this case has ever neglected or harmed any of our 5 children in any way. The case states the same as fact. removal was due solely as a RISK of an outcome. All based on false assumptions and culturally uneducated bias state actors with no more than 30 days total in social training legal training lie detection child specialist and societies desirability compus.. I am insulted by the poor response submitted by Solano to your honorables. I wonder if they are so arrogant they don't even respect the highest court? Submitting codes as case law not even arguable or listed in complaints of their own employees. And separation of powers, kettle is calling ... If we all wore the proper hats, we wouldn't be having this debate, Thus the true intent on checks and balances of our seperation of branches. ARTICLE 9. Dependent Children—Hearings 355. (d) This section shall not be construed to limit the right of a party to the jurisdictional hearing to subpoena a witness whose statement is contained in the social study or to introduce admissible evidence relevant to the weight of the hearsay evidence or the credibility of the hearsay declarant. (a) At the jurisdictional hearing, the court shall first consider only the question whether the minor is a person described by Section 300. Any legally admissible evidence that is relevant to the circumstances or acts that are alleged to bring the minor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received in evidence. (c) (1) If a party to the jurisdictional hearing raises a timely objection to the admission of specific hearsay evidence contained in a social study, the specific hearsay evidence shall not be sufficient by itself to support a jurisdictional finding or any ultimate fact upon which a jurisdictional finding is based, unless the petitioner establishes one or more of the following exceptions: (A) The hearsay evidence would be admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding under any statutory or decisional exception to the prohibition against hearsay. (Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 71, Sec. 181. (SB 1304) Effective January 1, 2015.) duct of fraud, deceit, or undue influence. (D) The hearsay declarant is available for cross-examination. For purposes of this section, the court may deem a witness available for cross-examination if it determines that the witness is on telephone standby and can be present in court within a reasonable time of a request to examine the witness. Habeas corpus originates with proper jurisdiction over a body of a person.The juvenile court to take constitutional rights from parents and children is a constitutional issue and therefore juvenile courts should not have jurisdiction over the dependency cases, only juvenile criminal cases. Juveniles that broke the law are not the same and should not be treated the same as law abiding non criminal children and parents. the dependency is actually creating a larger criminal section of this court in the contrary to rehabilitation of any child. The rehabilitation of the dependency court has the intent to form cultural norms considered desirable, which leaves undesirability to become a crime left to opinion and perception. Criminal court for minors with questionable history is not the same as a baby that has parents with malicious circles around them willing to say whatever a social worker wants to hear to meet agendas and/or quota's. If a minor can be held accountable for murder in an adult courtroom based on the crime, than a minors harm and a parents guilt of imposing it should be too. The levels of proof do not equal the levels of punishment, which causes the Juvenile Dependency court to not balance justice evenly. The Supreme Court is the proper branch to judge what is just in the justice system, the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court is entrusted to interpret the Constitution of our land and state and distribute such rights amongst the courts under its jurisdiction. And the Supreme Court of California has Supreme Jurisdiction in CA, even over federal court, when such issues arise within. (YOUTUBE=supremecourtswearingin) The Legislature has provided for juvenile court jurisdiction over dependent children. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 300 et seq.)2 The primary goal of the dependency statutes is "to ensure the safety, protection, and well-being of children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, while preserving the family whenever possible." (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 824, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 411.) Let us analyze risk of abuse in original home vs after DHHS , to come to a more accurate legislative intent and definitional actuality of this paragraph beyond statistical risk factors the Department imposes on families. Determination of a child to become dependant is & actually should be based on a pre-jurisdictional finding in criminal court of the parent/s found guilty. Criminal court will refer children of assailants to the Dependency Courts once deemed a dependant by criminal court proceedings.( A child becomes a piece of the adults body amputated from detriment of a criminal host ) "The right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 11), and regulated by statute ([Pen. Code] § 1473 et seq.)." (In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 824-825, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d 391.) "Through a habeas corpus proceeding, a court may grant relief from various forms of constructive custody, as well as from physical restraints." (People v. Romero(1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 737, fn. 3, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270, 883 P.2d 388.) "The statutory purpose of the writ is to inquire into the lawfulness of a person's imprisonment or other restraint of his or liberty." (Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2006 Update) Writs in California State Courts Before and After Conviction, § 2.143, p. 484, citing Pen.Code § 1473.) Habeas corpus may be "used in various types of child custody matters." (California Criminal Law, Procedure and Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2006) Writs in California State Courts, § 42.22, p. 1303; see, e.g., In re Darlice C. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 459, 466, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 472 [parent is "entitled to seek review of the termination order by petition for writ of habeas corpus"]; In re Carrie M. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 530, 535, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 856 [same].) The "writ will lie when a person entitled to custody of a minor child is denied possession thereof." (In re Barr (1952) 39 Cal.2d 25, 27, 243 P.2d 787; cf., Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 857, 867-868, 245 Cal.Rptr. 1, 750 P.2d 778.) In such cases, the person having custody of the child may be a proper respondent. (See, e.g., In re Lukasik(1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 438, 446, 239 P.2d 492[grandmother, who had physical custody of children, was respondent in habeas proceeding brought by mother seeking custody]; In re Macedo (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 276, 277, 257 P.2d 743 [mother, who had actual physical custody, and probation officer, who was given custody by court, were served with an order to show cause in habeas proceeding brought by father seeking custody].) In addition, the reform of the Juvenile Court and all of that which falls under the guide of 300(b), is in full force and effect per EXECUTIVE ORDER signed by our GREAT PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ON APRIL 10TH 2018. The County Counsel of Solano County , and all involved in this case in Solano County, have been enlightened to its importance several times by myself. Due Process in the Juvenile Court, with many other codes and rules, is currently not quantitative or deadlines that do exist are not enforced if not to the department advantage. The Initial request To amend the welfare and institutions code of complaints is appropriate because this case would not exist if fiduciary standards by social workers was enforced. many of the cases at the higher courts would not exist if social workers were upheld to a standard of honesty to the courts.. I see no more relevant argument then my case that a social worker needs to be honest to the courtroom. Crossing out dates, shuffling report pages, unfiled things, lost things, and lies about test. All crucial to the existence of this entire case. The longer the social worker is able to and force unnecessary Services upon families imposes more federal and state debt to services and affiliate partners. Waste of time and money for everyone. I view Reunification Services as an extension of time for a social worker to gather the evidence needed to justify the illegal actions done by apprehending and withholding children initially. Nowhere in the ability to amend a case a total of 5 times minimally Translate as the best interest of my child. nowhere and the law does it state clearly that a court may take the person at the age of 1, not under duress or showing symptoms of possibility of duress, never having been harmed, being subjected forcefully by an American Court to a medical invasion that is not life-saving. To try and argue “risk” is as fraudulent as statistics of success for this Agency. I blame the department for our current economic situation, the homeless epidemic, the human trafficking epidemic, and the confusion within the whole system of America and what proper rolls each agency is supposed to hold. they initiated the confusion of titles and have held jurisdiction of American children as collateral for power and money. the Department of Health and Human Services, with each threat of possible reform, just re-labels, reshuffles, and allocates funds to confuse an already confused social and economical status of our state. They have gone as far as this case shows, and I am only presenting what I can solidify in evidence. I am excluding all of the preponderance of attacks that has accompanied the last two years of my life-including code enforcement , police departments, Private investigators, hired trolls, utility companies, education boards, probation departments, medical facilities, and psychiatric facilities and more I’m sure. . exhibit a - notice of Hearing on petition = This was filed on September 6th 2017 for a disposition hearing to be held on the 19th for a petition 300 B has been filed. also States Jazminka Rainey, social worker in Sacramento from Rodriguez's office, as the one that holds the information pertinent to this 300b and it's filing. Sacramento no longer had jurisdiction especially that office. Jasminka took it upon herself to use Solano County Police Department to force entry into Scott's Home unannounced and after it had been cleared multiple times by other social workers. Rainey's dishonesty is clear as she states “dirty carpets in father's home yet only hardwood and tile existed. Exhibit B -Notice of hearing on petition filed on the 6th for court date September 19th 2017 as more evidence to the petition being filed prior to the 15th. Exhibit C- addendum to transfer in disposition report 342 detention report notice of change in recommendation .Notice the hearing date of September 11th 2017. Notice it is not crossed out. notice the footer difference from page 1 to the rest of the documents provided to the Supreme Court of California. and the Department's response it is exhibit N. Exhibit d - Juvenile dependency petition version 1 = signed by Wendy Smith with the date of September 11th crossed out and made the 18th. Exhibit e - C-Dat test results notice the bottom-right case number 2017 09 14 14968. this is test results of September 14th 2017 case/ lab number ending in 149688. are the levels that indicates even the department State 77 times the positive standard, if this was true then why did it take 3 days over the weekend for those most concerned with a child's well-being to file an emergency petition to apprehend her because it imminent danger. if this was true she would have been in the hospital due to these levels would not be breathing and I would hope C-Dat being the professional and experienced in the matter would have brought this to the attention of the department. the truth is I held a rally FCPS at the courthouse on September 18th 2017, this is why they took my child. they push the paperwork through after my rally was successful they knew I was going to be holding it via emails to the administration office at the courthouse and flyers around town. preparation for this rally and it's success where made on the 6th of September 2017. Exhibit f- Continuance memo = Evidence the matter was on the calendar for September 19 2017 for a petition 342 stamped and dated the 15th of September, before. said results according to the Departments current stance exhibit G- Proof of service to alternative family of a notice of hearing on petition = stamped September 15th for court hearing on 9-19-17 this was in my file and I returned it to the clerks for confidentiality purposes but kept a copy as evidence to the possible case they may have intertwined mine with. Exhibit h - Addendum report dated for hearing 10-10-17 =Another addendum another transfer in hearing another jurisdictional dispositional? Exhibit I - minute order for August 22nd 2017 = Evidence to show transfer in should have been August 22nd 2017. transcripts will confirm the department lied about just receiving the case they asked for the continuance so they can review the case but they had the file since the 11th of August 2017. Exhibit J - Minute order for August 29th 2017 = Shows the court reprimanded mother about checking her mail when the court wasn't full knowledge of her checking her mail at father's residence prior to this. Court order the hair strand test which was opposed and not acknowledged opposition or contest as usual by the dependency courts. Notice on the top-right the stamp once again Solano County crosses out and re-writes dates. Exhibit k- Transfer in dispositional report dated 9-19-2017= The major flaw with the report is it is imposing orders that have not been ordered yet. Sacramento County had released father of all allegations. Baby K was at his discretion in regards to safety and care, and was told as long as I do not live with him I can live next door for all it matters. So until Solano County accept a jurisdiction of what was supposed to be a final hearing and disposition, it was absolutely inappropriate of them to launch a private investigation against father Talbot, and use orders that did not exist yet against him in the report not yet signed by the court. exhibit L-Minute order for hearing on September 19th 2017 = At the bottom it says continued to October 10th 2017 for a jurisdictional disposition hearing but as shown in exhibit m the findings and orders after detention hearing it was a detention hearing not a jurisdictional disposition hearing. Orders after orders after detention hearing stamped September 21st, several days after the hearing, also State the transfer in addendum to jurisdiction disposition report was filed on 9-15-17. and that the social worker Wendy had a report submit it dated September 18th, the one that is actually submitted the 11th, I believe is what they are referring to. Other question I ask of this report is why did it take so many days to be filed after signed by the judge on the 19th when none of the other documents have such a time span in between signing of a judge and stamping by the Clerk. Exhibit N- Minute order for hearing October 10th 2017 Jurisdictional disposition continued again until October 24th 2017 , marked incorrectly in stating continuance being requested by me. Exhibit O-Minute order for hearing dated October 24th 2017 jurisdictional disposition hearing =Neither parents were present, yet the minute order States both parents requested a continuance. matter to continue once again to a dispositional jurisdictional hearing Exhibit P= Findings and orders after dispositional hearing on November 14 2017= Time-stamped 903, date of 919 crossed out and made 1114 page 2 States a report filed fairy 24th 2017 there was a transfer in addendum to just diction disposition report filed which is completely incorrect. Our first Hearing in Sacramento was February 1st 2017. We did not transfer out of Sacramento until July 21st but officially August 4th when they had the exit out hearing without us present and change things. on page 2 number 3 it also States on September 15th and 18th and 5th or addendum filed. from this line alone there should be 4 addendums in existence per Solano County. the inconsistencies on page 2 will hopefully display the chaotic inconsistencies The department has been using against my family since minus 7 Days of the 27th of January 2017. the final going I would like to make is on page 4 line 17 the six and 12-month review we're scheduled for May 8th 2018Notice on page 4 of 7 in the dispositional attachment The Crossing out of March 13th 2017 and the handwriting of 5/8/18. notice the same markings on Page 6 of 7 with the same dates crossed out and hand Written. Exhibit Q- The same findings and orders after dispositional hearing but stamped 901 and not signed. Exhibit R- Minute order for November 14th 2017 jurisdictional disposition hearing =Notice it's another jurisdictional disposition hearing once again setting the 366.21(e)&(f), In the forth section, Uncontested hearing but in the following line immediately after it checks objects / submits and does not Circle either. Exhibit S- Certificate Affidavit of mailing dated November 17th 2017 = States a minute order was mailed that was filed on the 17th of November 2017. Exhibit T = Substitution of attorney = Kenneth Lee left the public defender's office to join David Myers group DLS. Exhibit U = My email and letter to Solano County DHS and County Council My letter informing the Department of Health and Human Services Solano County of the facts to the meeting with Orozco and Pope, That they had zero value on services they were holding as an ultimatum to the custody of my child, and Inform them any further non-valuable services required by me would be considered treason in accordance to Executive Order dated April 10th 2018. Exhibit V = Addendum to status review report Corrections and Omissions = In this report I dissected every falsehood and omitted fact social worker or roseco presented to the court and her report this will stamped April 30th 2018. Exhibit W = Formal letter rejection to exhibit V Exhibit X = First email communication for transcript request Exhibit Y = Proof of service for 366.21(e) & 366.21(f) Filed April 20th 2018 Exhibit Z = Minute order filed May 8th 2018= confirms contested hearing continue to June 26th for another 366.21(e) & 366.21(f) Exhibit A2 = Caregiver Report = Concurrent planning notified grandmother of a permanency team meeting for a scheduled date April 20th at 9 a.m., yet the following page 3 so the envelope was not mailed until April 23rd 2003 days after the meeting. Exhibit B2 = Stipulation and Order to Continue and Combine Contested Hearing = Did not know, or authorize this change. Received on the June 26th 2018 Hearing date after I learned it was canceled and I went upstairs to clerk. Also learned the file was sent to Judge Scott Daniels. (he was in another courthouse and clerk confirmed it was not sent incorrectly from them upstairs) Social Worker Claudia Orozco was not available so they all, without both parents, continued the matter so Orozco could be cross examined. (She still has not returned) Exhibit C2 = June 4th 2018 jv180 + exparte for disclosure + jv183 = The Exparte and jv180 were both declined. I was informed all parties must agree to an Exparte, and the jv180 was rejected because a 366.21(e) & 366.21(f) contest was set for June 26th 2018 Exhibit D2 = Motion to Supress Evidence and Memorandum 1 & 2 + jv180= Declined again for purpose of set 366.21(e) & 366.21(f) contest was set for June 26th 2018. Exhibit E2 = Order for a Hearing to Release Case File jv573 + jv569 + jv570 + Motion for pretrial discovery + jv571 = Hearing scheduled for July 17th 2018, canceled without notice, permission or reason. I showed up and was not on roster. But was on Calendar upstairs with clerk still. Exhibit F2 = Notice of 6 Month Review Hearing = Signed by Charity Howard because Social Worker Claudia Orozco has not returned from Mexico. (Notice of 6 month Hearing?) (To terminate services again?) Exhibit G2 = Certificate of mailing from Sacramento and received by Solano = The WIC 826 Notice dated August 4th 2017 was neither sent or received. I have a complete digital copy of Sacramento’s file before it was sent in which it is not in, and I confirmed with the clerk in Solano it is not in the case file in Solano. I was told it was not a big deal, it pertained to privacy of my child. DISSECTION OF REPORTS EXTENDED From August 4th 2017 to August 22nd 2017 the minimal dates and between Sacramento to Solano jurisdiction. Really July 21st 2017 to August 29th 2017 according exit and acceptance paperwork. Before July 21st 2017 father's home was confirmed by social worker Ben Worall of Sacramento and social worker Urriz of Solano County. As of July 21st 2017 father was tricking from all prior allegations. On July 21st 2017 mother was scheduled for pretrial. Final disposition was scheduled in Solano County August 22nd 2017 but never occurred as a final disposition. As of July 21st 2017 father had discretion over minor baby K. This included visitation with mother. The only restrictions that applied were she was not to live in home with them. On July 19th 2017 the home in Solano County was cleared for safety. July 20th released and baby K picked up July 21st 2017. On July 31st, Jasminka Rainey of Sacramento in the same building as Rodriguez, did a non scheduled an authorized surprise visit to father home and Solano County and accompanied by Fairfield PD. And between the dates of Father's clearance of all jurisdiction by both counties Ivan investigator from Solano County accompanied Wendy's Smith for a said confirmation of address #4 + surprise visit. Disection of report dated August 29th 2017 hearing disposition 9/19/17 set. Visit ordered supervised just visit but DWS discretion to dad and mom supervised visits August 29th 2017 before any evidence and after Sacramento judge cleared father. Dammit August 26th 2017 then cross tell and made August 29th 2017. I'll just 23rd 2017 mom request file . Page 22 - As of the timber 15 2017 services recommended by wendy Smith of family maintenance for father. Line 13 quotes Sacramento report date April 27th 2017 addendum. Combat of with Sandra on dates February 7th February 9 and 23 and March 8th 2017. April 27 2017 addendum States 13 visits missed. ( I have video evidence showing the no-show by Sasha and time and counter sign in sheet in video as daytime evidence. Line 22 prior to March 3rd 2017, requested separate visits, wouldn't that indicate to separate cases. Line 25 327 Sacramento visit report quoted page 23 one 314 prior to hearing on August 22nd 2017 Desiree lived on and off in home not true purpose fully moved out Sakura could go home to dad. 918 supervised and unsupervised perfect dismissal of Scott. Line 20 August 22nd 2017 advisement to supervised visits until see WS could review case so one week of supervised visits were ordered by judge Daniels until August 29th 2017. Page 24 line 1 visits declined CWS referred to attorney. Page 24 line 4 through 9. Baby case have sibling and baby K lived in Solano County Residence as of of September 15th 2017. Line a maternal amp and grandma mentioned. So I'll do and foster for 1 week was not necessary when did they try to reach maternal family? Answer, they did not, mother contacted maternal grandmother and then a baby K was moved. During baby kays day at Aldi she was drugged. The details on this matter still have not been released to mother after multiple request verbal and written. My name grandparent visits at discretion of father per CWS. More evidence they were aware of maternal family. 923 crystal Ponce as of September 5th 2017 CALWORK stabilization program. Page 25 line 1 through 5 September 5th 2017 referral to Solano. Confirmation a mother not confirmed or denied. Not met with Wendy Smith to sign or ever sign release of confidential assessment. September 5th 2017 Aldea referral. September 11th 2017 Danny help in PBS process to begin help in and Wendy conversation. Also child Haven a better way? September 5th 2017 email to mom from Wendy Smith for services. Hey 26 Line 28 what conditions not specified. What are of concern pertaining to the structure of house and it's relation to safety did the Department have on September 15th 2017 when signed? After cleared 5 times. As of September 15th 2017 conditions for removal not present. Lines for through 5 states 3 weeks. No sense August 29th 2017 or August 22nd 2017? Page 27 line 6 through 8. Page 27 line 6 to 8. The only harm, emotional, is being caused by the Department. It's interferences must be discontinued in order for mother and father a baby k2 guarantee and provide her was safety and stability. 912 as of September 15th 2017 tag knowledge is Desiree was homeless. Recommends Ryu navigation. Subpoena all contacts since with in the system. Not even close to being done. The Department must have fine safety and factual factors to make such determination. Page 27 line 24. Should have attached case plan department as Court to accept finding the orders by department in report September 15th 2017 signed and submitted on September quenstionable 2017. Attached to report sign set timer 15 2017. Dissection of JV 415 finding then orders one original petition January 27th 2017 to a disposition hearing report definitely done before hearing of September 19th 2017. March 13th 2017 would equals 6 months. Possible 361 Point for 9 section 4 case law. We're is transfer in addendum report stated to beef filed on favorite 24 2017 and transfer and addendum report filed September 15th 2017.? How is the minute order field out before court has happened? How can and fine orders requested September 15th 2017 heard September 19th 2017 be held against a party prior to the judge signing the order? 825 Lyons 17 September 6th 2017 or September 12th 2017? September 6th Wendy referred mr. Father and baby k2 Aldi confirm receipt of referral Leia fern subpoena Communications all of them. Page 26 September 12th the time frame and determine a bowl for results of panel actually incorrect / notes of evidence of calls made to i3 and quest Diagnostics. Taste size requested file from i3 in November per conversation with i3. September 7th a referral to drug court with Courtney email. September 12th request update from Courtney and Wendy line 10 WIC three 6 1.5 925 States non cooperative hesitant not non cooperative define need be ability and willingness to follow order not set is impossible. And managed once when judge showed inability to can strength ability to read his mind when he authorized the checking of mail by mother who was waiting for needed funds to survive on the streets. Notice of review hearing dissection last notice received on August 13th 2018 to terminate family Yuri you enough acacia even though this is exactly the same as June 26th 2018 hearing and Mark 6 months. JV 573 disclosure hearing file June 28th 2018 cancelled without notice her permission can we already dismissed up cancel evidence to this dismissal can be confirmed through the three court clerk that had to verify the NC 05019 edible to the juvenile dependency Clerk office. I am not familiar with those three ladies names but I'm sure the computers will have it documented. JV 570 file June 28th 2018 disclosure request page to not in Solana file or motion page 1 to & 3. Proof of service June 28th 2018 JV 5693 page with blank 572. Both JV 180 filed June 12th 2018 and JV 185 June 28th 2018 both State taken by three 6 6.2 one NF hearing are scheduled for the contest of this case. Stipulation in order to continue stamps May 11th 2018 until given copy on June 26th 2018 after discovery of cancels contest caring. May 8th 2018 status review 366.26 schedule for September 4th 2018 family Reunification services terminated ( not signed) recommendation as of April 20th 2018 signed by Claudia and Pope. May 3rd request email. April 30th 2018 Corrections in emissions submission to court was refused receipt by Claudia and the court refused acceptance also. April 30th 2018 request for transcripts for dates of August 22nd August 29th September 19th October 10th October 24th November 14th 2017. April 23rd 2018 Court reject letter. April 18th 2018 letter to DHS Solano Staff. February 22nd 2018 order for transcript. Denial to take pictures of file and cost to me at 50 Cent's per copy for file. February 16th 2018 request for transcript Fairbury 15 2018 JV case copy request December 14th 2017. February 14th 2017 EX parte to travel signed by wendy Smith & brandy Lockhart which states on August 4th 2017 sustained petition January 27th 2017 that September 18th 2017 a 3/4 to filed on November 14th 2017 hearing jurisdiction disposition all we're 342 was the stayed nectarine on calendar was scheduled May 8th 2018 36621 E 6 months expert a yes agreed. November 17th 2017 has to stamps what you didn't times it states in original position was filed on January 27th 2017 disposition all hearing for September 19th 2017 which was Bancroft out and made November 14th 2017 transfer in addendum filed September 15th 2017 and favorite 24th filed to jurisdiction disposition all transfer and addendum? State addendum filed September 18th 2017 and addendum filed October 5th 2017 it's states the evidence that it accepted for report are gestational disposition file to February 23rd 2017 which is incorrect it is very 22nd 2017 and a then them filed July 20th 2017. Court reported then the file June 22nd 2017 reported in the filed April 27th 2017 detention report filed January 31st 2017? Text and 12 months hearing set for May 8th 2018 dated November 14th 2017 ever findings as of November 14th 2017. Minute order November 8th 2017 filed November 17th 2018 at 9:03 but hearing was on November 14th 2017. Specific finding then orders attachment page to Scott presume father as of February 1st 2017 which was not the case in Sacramento. Approved Melinda of caretaker out of Solano on November 8th 2017 signed November a 2017 stamped November 17 2017. Disposition attachment dated November 8th 2017 stamp for November 17th 2018 States 300 be cleaning convincing evidence based on 361 see one for both parents reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate removal based on fax removal from parents the county made diligent efforts locate relatives the mother enable unavailable unwilling to participate so County did not solicitor integrate into Kaif plan and put a mother approve foster which wasn't needed stating appropriate and necessary. Rihanna vacation ordered November 8th 2017 stamped November 17th 2018 to both parents and permanently plan estimated date was March 13th 2017 witches crossed out and made May 8th 2017 page for number 23 alleviate in and Medicaid effort States none for mother three six 1.5 a1c 6 months set for March 13th 2017 crossed out and made me a 2018 warned of a 36626 hearing and said three 6621 S 12 months schedule for May 8th 2018 dated November 17th 2017 November 14th minute order for November 14th mother was present father was not this was the hearing it was Daniels coached CPS and threw paper and trash. Mark and contested by Court which was not true that's mama Jetson miss be to neither was circled 300 be with cleaned allegations amended be to be to sustain Viper Fondren I was told Kim testing findings did not we're not affected or connected to do in Services mother granted rihanna vacation services not father finding an order signed as proposed and approved as to form 6 in 12 reviews combined been continue to May 8th 36621 AMF November 14th 2017 attorney Kenly leaves public Defender's Office and goes to private dependency attorneys Office. October 24th 2017 neither pants present States continuance requested by parents continue to hearing of November 14 2017, set for jurisdiction old disposition all hearing. I told her 10 2017 mother was present continued to October 24th 2017 not a request of mother's. But then don't dated October 10th 2017 date September 21st and December 27th know concerns with mom at visits States week of September 17th idea contact the Scott September 26th email from child welfare a staff October 2nd father responded. Incorrectly States half brother a baby K and his whereabouts were unknown so AC WS referral for him existed. Yet Amy furlough of the department Solano County violated HIPAA on October 4th 2017 to half brother and half brothers mother. October 10th 2017 States remove from other not father 9:15 Page 10 cancer and disposition all filed September 15th 2017 where's gates mother lived with fatherLine 15 page 10 transfer and disposition report filed September 15th 2017 at states mother lived with father in home which was incorrect line 19 is false never said she frequently lived there line 21 reference report file September 15th 2017 transfer in this position or report community members statement line 22 request for contest and good for private investigator stocking evidence and federal case pending. October 10th 2017 addendum continued August 29th 2017 father conversation page for page 6 rupees Sacramento statements page sick line 11 State subsequent petition filed on September 19th 2017 which is incorrect is not a subsequent petition it is a petition against so Lili father for the first time. They've be to written but be one should have been documented mind 16 page 6 September 15th States hair positive need the time of receipt and by who in the Department. Line 20 page 6 or 1st to addendum filed on September 18th 2017 for results of hair strand test dates results attached and we're very high. They were actually deadly hi and not possible for a toddler her age. Page 1 for addendum titled disposition of report and hearing on October tent 2017 was a gestational disposition all 300 and 342 continued