Child Abduction By The State

Adoption bonuses and rewards should not be allowed for the states as an incentive to take children into states custody.

Under Missouri law statute 452.000 to terminate parental rights abandonment, abuse, or neglect must be determined.
In the case of A.M.S. these three elements were not determined in order for the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights.

Has this child been held by illegal servitude by the state of Missouri?

Should this case be brought to the media to expose the trail of how children can be taken into custody and then put up on the adoption block of the Missouri's state adoption program? 

This petition of the A.M.S. case contains the full timeline and paper trail of the state's unlawful act of acting on complete and total ignorance, and or having full knowledge of their deleberate intent to create and use a child for profit, bonuses and rewards. 

Which one is it, acting on ignorance or deleberate intent to set a child up for the state adoption program?

The State of Missouri Has proven by the A.M.S. case that they can select one child out of three for a state adoption.

Selecting children from a family should not be allowed for state adoptions.  
 
*The A. M. S. case, a case that was groomed, Judges making rulings out of carelessness, and recklessness,  endangering the child due to the judges carelessness and reckless decisions.

*Court appointed counselors creating false hood in order to shadow the judges mistakes and errors and or deliberate intents.
 
*A group of family court officers who teamed up together against the parent to acheive the same goal.  

*In the end the state of  Missouri collected adoption bonuses and rewards for the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, who was selected out of a family of three children.          
 
A. Judge Carolynn Whittington put the child in the home of the other parent, whom the state would use as their excuse to take the child into state's custody.    
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)

B. Judge Melvynn Weisman also committed the same act as Judge Carolynn Whittington.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)

C. Judge Melvynn Weisman did the termination of parental rights.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

D. Judge Susan Block did the adoption.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on the actual photo of when the adoption proceedings took place)

E. Appeals court Judges Lawrence E. Mooney P.J. Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, J.J. would throw out the appeals or dismiss it.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

C. Guardian Ad Litim Margaret Donnelly and Brian Dunlop.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
 
D. Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar reported that the other parents allegations regarding the Mother were outlandish and delusional.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

E. Following the reports of the Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar, the St. Louis family courts continued to proceed toward terminating parental rights and unlawfully putting the Mother's youngest child up for adoption. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court records)

F. The family courts noted in their reports that the Father made continuous hotline calls on a daily basis.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the reports made by social services and the family courts) 

G. The other parent was diagnosed with a mental desease that brought on suddent dullusions.
The St. Louis family court judges and social services had priviledged information regarding the other parents history, and still allowed the other parent to use their hotline as a means to harrass and make a full blown case out of that lead to parental termination and the child going up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the court records)

H. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported that they found evidence that the Father was fabricating allegations to harrass the Mother and held the evidence in their locker room.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police report)

I. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported to the family courts that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives report)

J. Following the investigation of the police detectives report stating that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed, the state of Missouri  still wanted to carry the case to terminate  parental rights to the Mother's youngest child, selected out of three of the Mother's children. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through records)

K. The state of Missouri dressed the Mother's youngest child in a costume shortly after they took her from the other parent whom the Judges gave instant custody orders too prior to taken the child.
(This is a factual statement that can be viewed on the photographs taken by someone who works within the system and the instant custody orders can by court orders)

L. The state of Missouri began to put the Mother into federally funded programs following the police detectives orders to close the case and that no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives reports and the state of Missouri's orders to begin their programs dated after the police report to close the case)                

M. On the witness stand, Social Worker, Becky Price testified that she signed a document knowing there was a lie written in it.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court transcript of her testimony and by the actual letter in which she signed)

N. The purpose of that letter was a response to the Mother's request that they would let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back sense she finished and competed all of their programs that they required her to do.
The state of Missouri's response was to "not put anything in writing to let the Mother know".
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the actual letters that the Mother sent requesting that they let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back along with their responding letter stating to the effect that they would not put anything in writing to let her know)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mother's youngest child, out of three was lined up by the state officials and instructed to stand up against the wall with other children who were also apart of Missouri's state adoptions.
The Mother's youngests child,  was made to stand in a long line as she watched the court officials take two children into a room at a time, where the child would observe two children at a time being adopted out by Judge Susan Block from the St. Louis Family Courts.
 Judge Susan Block has been noted in news articles along with Judge Melvynn Weisman who terminated the Mother's rights for their support together with an event called Adoption Fair Saturdays in St. Louis, Missouri. 

O. From Judge Melvynn Weisman terminating the Mother's parental rights, to Judge Susan Block doing the adoption of the Mother's youngest child,  to both judges working together on Adoption Fair Saturdays, gives the "ultimate impression" that they work together at acheiving the state of Missouri's adoption bonuses and rewards for children who they get adopted out.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by court records, news articles and from the memory of the Mother's youngest child who recalled the day of her state adoption)

P.  The Mother's other two children were attending school and living under her roof, under her care and custody when Gaurdian Ad Litem Margeret Donnelly, Missouri State Representative, who ran for the state of Missouri's attorney general recommended that the Mother's parental rights be terminated. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by school and housing records, and a court transcript)

Q. There was a rocking chair among many others placed in the small visiting room where the Mother was court ordered to visit with her youngest child who was held by the state of Missouri.
(The above statement is factual and can be seen on a photograph and the rocking chair was referred to in the phychologist, Lisa Emmenggar and social worker, Becky Price reports)
 
R. The court appointed psychologist, Lisa Emennaggar testified that the Mother rocked the child to sleep during one of the court ordered visits. Lisa Emennaggar stated to the effect that there was no communication between the child and Mother during that time which indicated to her that there was no emotional connection or bonding between the Mother and child.
(The above statment is factual and the testimony of Phychologist Lisa Emmenggar can be read on the court transcript in regard to the the Mother rocking the child in the rocking chair)

Under the Missouri law statute 452.00 in order to terminate parental rights, abandonment, abuse or neglect must be determined.
None of these three elements existed to terminate the Mothers parental rights.

S. The St. Louis Family Courts were allowed by the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights, collect bonuses and rewards for the child, and destroy the files after the crime was committed.
(The message left of the St. Louis family courts stating that the files were shredded can be heard in the video in the upper left hand corner of this petition)

Read the reasons to terminate the Mother's parental rights by the St. Louis Family courts, signed by Judge Melvynn Weisman.

1: Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.

2: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.

3: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.

4: There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.

(The above numbered four statements is factual and can be verified by the court records)    
 
T. Social Services blocked out sections of the Mother's files with a black marker and sections of the files were deleted. 
(The statement above can be verified by the actual files that social services provided)     

U. On the very same day the state took the Mother's youngest child from the other parent, the state dressed her up in a costume and began to make her stand around and pose for them while they photographed her.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by viewing the actual photographs, and if you view the video above in the upper left hand corner, you can also see them presented in the video)

Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition,

  Sonja De Vivo

     

                             
 

Adoption bonuses and rewards should not be allowed for the states as an incentive to take children into states custody.

Under Missouri law statute 452.000 to terminate parental rights abandonment, abuse, or neglect must be determined.
In the case of A.M.S. these three elements were not determined in order for the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights.

Has this child been held by illegal servitude by the state of Missouri?

Should this case be brought to the media to expose the trail of how children can be taken into custody and then put up on the adoption block of the Missouri's state adoption program? 

This petition of the A.M.S. case contains the full timeline and paper trail of the state's unlawful act of acting on complete and total ignorance, and or having full knowledge of their deleberate intent to create and use a child for profit, bonuses and rewards. 

Which one is it, acting on ignorance or deleberate intent to set a child up for the state adoption program?

The State of Missouri Has proven by the A.M.S. case that they can select one child out of three for a state adoption.

Selecting children from a family should not be allowed for state adoptions.  
 
*The A. M. S. case, a case that was groomed, Judges making rulings out of carelessness, and recklessness,  endangering the child due to the judges carelessness and reckless decisions.

*Court appointed counselors creating false hood in order to shadow the judges mistakes and errors and or deliberate intents.
 
*A group of family court officers who teamed up together against the parent to acheive the same goal.  

*In the end the state of  Missouri collected adoption bonuses and rewards for the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, who was selected out of a family of three children.          
 
A. Judge Carolynn Whittington put the child in the home of the other parent, whom the state would use as their excuse to take the child into state's custody.    
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)

B. Judge Melvynn Weisman also committed the same act as Judge Carolynn Whittington.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)

C. Judge Melvynn Weisman did the termination of parental rights.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

D. Judge Susan Block did the adoption.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on the actual photo of when the adoption proceedings took place)

E. Appeals court Judges Lawrence E. Mooney P.J. Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, J.J. would throw out the appeals or dismiss it.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

C. Guardian Ad Litim Margaret Donnelly and Brian Dunlop.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
 
D. Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar reported that the other parents allegations regarding the Mother were outlandish and delusional.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

E. Following the reports of the Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar, the St. Louis family courts continued to proceed toward terminating parental rights and unlawfully putting the Mother's youngest child up for adoption. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court records)

F. The family courts noted in their reports that the Father made continuous hotline calls on a daily basis.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the reports made by social services and the family courts) 

G. The other parent was diagnosed with a mental desease that brought on suddent dullusions.
The St. Louis family court judges and social services had priviledged information regarding the other parents history, and still allowed the other parent to use their hotline as a means to harrass and make a full blown case out of that lead to parental termination and the child going up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the court records)

H. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported that they found evidence that the Father was fabricating allegations to harrass the Mother and held the evidence in their locker room.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police report)

I. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported to the family courts that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives report)

J. Following the investigation of the police detectives report stating that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed, the state of Missouri  still wanted to carry the case to terminate  parental rights to the Mother's youngest child, selected out of three of the Mother's children. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through records)

K. The state of Missouri dressed the Mother's youngest child in a costume shortly after they took her from the other parent whom the Judges gave instant custody orders too prior to taken the child.
(This is a factual statement that can be viewed on the photographs taken by someone who works within the system and the instant custody orders can by court orders)

L. The state of Missouri began to put the Mother into federally funded programs following the police detectives orders to close the case and that no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives reports and the state of Missouri's orders to begin their programs dated after the police report to close the case)                

M. On the witness stand, Social Worker, Becky Price testified that she signed a document knowing there was a lie written in it.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court transcript of her testimony and by the actual letter in which she signed)

N. The purpose of that letter was a response to the Mother's request that they would let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back sense she finished and competed all of their programs that they required her to do.
The state of Missouri's response was to "not put anything in writing to let the Mother know".
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the actual letters that the Mother sent requesting that they let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back along with their responding letter stating to the effect that they would not put anything in writing to let her know)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mother's youngest child, out of three was lined up by the state officials and instructed to stand up against the wall with other children who were also apart of Missouri's state adoptions.
The Mother's youngests child,  was made to stand in a long line as she watched the court officials take two children into a room at a time, where the child would observe two children at a time being adopted out by Judge Susan Block from the St. Louis Family Courts.
 Judge Susan Block has been noted in news articles along with Judge Melvynn Weisman who terminated the Mother's rights for their support together with an event called Adoption Fair Saturdays in St. Louis, Missouri. 

O. From Judge Melvynn Weisman terminating the Mother's parental rights, to Judge Susan Block doing the adoption of the Mother's youngest child,  to both judges working together on Adoption Fair Saturdays, gives the "ultimate impression" that they work together at acheiving the state of Missouri's adoption bonuses and rewards for children who they get adopted out.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by court records, news articles and from the memory of the Mother's youngest child who recalled the day of her state adoption)

P.  The Mother's other two children were attending school and living under her roof, under her care and custody when Gaurdian Ad Litem Margeret Donnelly, Missouri State Representative, who ran for the state of Missouri's attorney general recommended that the Mother's parental rights be terminated. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by school and housing records, and a court transcript)

Q. There was a rocking chair among many others placed in the small visiting room where the Mother was court ordered to visit with her youngest child who was held by the state of Missouri.
(The above statement is factual and can be seen on a photograph and the rocking chair was referred to in the phychologist, Lisa Emmenggar and social worker, Becky Price reports)
 
R. The court appointed psychologist, Lisa Emennaggar testified that the Mother rocked the child to sleep during one of the court ordered visits. Lisa Emennaggar stated to the effect that there was no communication between the child and Mother during that time which indicated to her that there was no emotional connection or bonding between the Mother and child.
(The above statment is factual and the testimony of Phychologist Lisa Emmenggar can be read on the court transcript in regard to the the Mother rocking the child in the rocking chair)

Under the Missouri law statute 452.00 in order to terminate parental rights, abandonment, abuse or neglect must be determined.
None of these three elements existed to terminate the Mothers parental rights.

S. The St. Louis Family Courts were allowed by the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights, collect bonuses and rewards for the child, and destroy the files after the crime was committed.
(The message left of the St. Louis family courts stating that the files were shredded can be heard in the video in the upper left hand corner of this petition)

Read the reasons to terminate the Mother's parental rights by the St. Louis Family courts, signed by Judge Melvynn Weisman.

1: Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.

2: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.

3: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.

4: There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.

(The above numbered four statements is factual and can be verified by the court records)    
 
T. Social Services blocked out sections of the Mother's files with a black marker and sections of the files were deleted. 
(The statement above can be verified by the actual files that social services provided)     

U. On the very same day the state took the Mother's youngest child from the other parent, the state dressed her up in a costume and began to make her stand around and pose for them while they photographed her.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by viewing the actual photographs, and if you view the video above in the upper left hand corner, you can also see them presented in the video)

Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition,

  Sonja De Vivo

     

                             
 

Please Help Me Get My Daughter Back.

This picture shown above was taken of me and of my youngest daughter who became a victim of an illegal state adoption, shown on the left of the photo, with my son on the right of the photo.
We were at the Division of Family Services on that day while we were on a court ordered visit of just one hour.
My oldest daughter, who was there to visit her little sister took the picture of the three of us.

After the visits at the state DFS office were over, my older daughter and son, including myself, were allowed to leave together and go home.
The Social Worker would transport my youngest child back to Foster Care.

At the end of the court ordered visits, all three children had to suffer the emotional trauma of becoming separated, not knowing why or where their sister was being taken to.

The youngest daughter was dragged off by a social worker's hand, while she had to watch her other two siblings get in the car with her Mother to go back home.

As the social worker drove away with my youngest daughter, we could always see my daughter pressing her face up against the window pane of the social worker's vehicle trying to get as close to us as she could while the social worker drove her away from us.

The children were all traumatized by these acts and had to live many years watching the abuse committed by the state officials.

The state had it set up to where they would continue this act until the 15 months were up.
They could use the "time law" to terminate my rights to my youngest child by stating that since they severed the bond between the mother and child there was no reason to return her.

I was allowed to keep two of my other children ( age's 7 and 15 ) in my care and custody with out any demands by the same individuals who terminated my rights to my youngest daughter who was age (5).

Should this be allowed in the United States to use these reasons to terminate a non-offending divorced parent's parental rights of their child?

Read below the listed items used by the State Officials to terminate my parental rights from my youngest child.

1; Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.

Note: (the courts used the time law to their advantage)

2; There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.

Note: (the courts could have turned this around easily and said that the mother had a mental illness, but the fact is I did not have a mental illness)

3; There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.

Note: (the courts could have easily said that the Mother suffered from a chemical dependency, but the fact is that I did not suffer from a chemical dependency)

4; There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.

Note: (the courts could have said that the Mother has committed abuse, but the facts are that I never did commit any form of abuse)


This termination of parental rights shows you that the courts do not even have to find you as an abuser of any kind to take your child. Also, if they want to, they have the freedom of writing what ever they want to about you if they feel its necessary to get your child.

The judicial courts and social workers have the ultimate freedom to write what they want without proving their statements.

A suspected killer has more rights in America than a falsely accused parent in the system.
A suspected killer has more rights than our own children do in the system.

Read below to learn how my youngest child ended up in the system.

The state of Missouri's Child Protection Services failed as they continued to allow a disgruntled ex-spouse use their hot line as a means of harassment.

The St. Louis Family Court, Guardian Ad Litems, and Child Protection Services all failed my daughter, by placing her with the offender, who was the one making all of the false hotline calls while she was in his care on a daily bases and who was adjudicated for abusing her by the same courts who allowed him to have custody after having full awareness of his history with past mental illnesses and institutionalized stays.

(They never put a stop to his daily false hotline calls, while using his mental instability while leaving the child at great risk of harm so to have reason to justify why they would take the child.


The St. Louis Family Court and the Child Protection Services removed my daughter from the offender's custody after leaving her there long enough to cause damage.

Child Protection Services violated my Child's rights even more so, by placing her in foster care immediately after rescuing her from the offenders care, denying her the love and care that she needed from her natural mother.

The St. Louis Family Court, Child Protection Services, the Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litems, and the CASA Advocacy Group of the St. Louis Family courts, did the ultimate damage to her, denying her from her own mother, sister, and brother who still remained to together as a family unit.

She was lined up and instructed to stand up against the wall with the other children, while standing in a long line, as she watched the court officials take two children in to a room where they would be adopted two at a time.

My rights were terminated based on the time law, and the bond, not the false allegations that were made by the father.

Child Protection Services stated that the bond was severed due to the amount of time the child was in the system, which was their fault in the first place, plus the bond was never severed.

The Court Officials and Child Protection Services had to find other reasons to terminate my rights, because I was the non-offending parent.

Child Protection Services is a state agency with the power to 'Kidnap With Impunity.
They can create a destructive file on any fit parent without any laws in place that would require them to prove their written statements unlike a criminal court whereby a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Fit parents do not have the same rights as a suspected killer does.
This is why fit parents are dragged into the Juvenile courts so that court records will be sealed and no one of the outside will ever be able to see the destructing methods used to justify their reasoning for legalized kidnapping.

If Child Protection Services returns the child to the non-offending divorced/single parent, what kind of financial incentive is there for the state? There are no financial incentives for giving a child back to the divorced/single non-offending parent, that's why my little girl is not with her family today.

Please help us to return her back into her own home, with her real Mother, brother and sister who love and miss her.

We are grateful for your signatures!

Mother of three, still have two, while missing one,

Sincerely,

Sonja

petition over