Exclusive: The Candid Truth on Child Protective Services and Family Court
Posted On September 25, 2019
RIGHT NOW at NRN w/Rachel Bruno: Stolen Angels
Earlier this year, I flew out to Colorado to speak with Angel mom Kathy Hall, who told me of the case of her granddaughter, Brooklyn King-Armer. After the tragic death of her daughter at the hands of illegal alien Sergio Rodriguez Larios, Kathy tried unsuccessfully to gain custody of her granddaughter. DHS in Arkansas had gotten hold of this family in November of 2015, when the Department of Child and Family Services accused Kathy of maltreatment of her daughter, Hailey King, and neglect of her granddaughter.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row column_type=”block” font_color=”light” background_type=”video” video_bg_url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSYPWIsNLq4″ video_bg_start_time=”139″ video_bg_end_time=”900″ video_bg_parallax=”true” add_overlay=”yes” overlay_opacity=”20″ bt_text=”CPS” bt_font_weight=”300″ bt_font_style=”italic” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ add_bigtext=”true” min_height=”100″ bt_max_width=”300″][vc_column][wvc_video_opener caption_position=”bottom” video_url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSYPWIsNLq4″ caption=”CPS Spotlight | Interview with RACHEL BRUNO”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The Allegation is the Proof
Based on this finding, which was concluded without any proof, DHS removed both her daughter and her granddaughter from her home. The child’s father terminated rights under the misapprehension that Kathy would have custody of Brooklyn, and had no idea the State of Arkansas had no intention of giving Brooklyn back to her family.
Writer and speaker Rachel Bruno knows why. “As usual, follow the money. It’s all about the money, and the federal incentives that states receive for removing children and putting them up for adoption through the law called ASFA, Adoptions and Safe Federal Act, which was signed in 1997 by Bill Clinton. The states receive anywhere from $2000 to $6000 per child.” She says family court does not follow the constitution, and that they have the power to do whatever they want under the guise of whatever is in the best interests of the child. “If the judge believes 51% of what Social Services has told him, then that’s it. He doesn’t have to hear your side.”
The incident took its toll on Hailey, whose life spiraled out of control. Before DHS got involved in Haileys life, she was happy and stable, taking care of her child and going to school. After DHS got involved, Hailey developed a drug problem and attracted the people whom Kathy believes caused her daughter’s death.
Subsequently, DHS ran Hailey through a series of hoops ostensibly for the purpose of getting her daughter back. One of these hoops was to go to a treatment facility called Havenwood. Havenwood, according to Kathy, at first told them that there was a bed available for Hailey. But the next day, Hailey was told there were no openings.
Jumping Through Hoops
Hailey was eventually allowed to move back with her mother, and continued to jump through a never ending series of hoops to try to regain custody of her daughter. Kathy relayed these things and provided NRN with records she had obtained through FOIA. DHS had made a series of accusations against both Hailey and Kathy, which had allowed them to keep Brooklyn away from both women. Rachel Bruno sums up what most people believe in this type of situation.
“People assume they’re [family court] going to do their due diligence, that it’s going to be investigated, that something is actually proven before they take away somebody’s children. And that’s not the way it works at all. The allegation is the proof.” Kathy was accused of doing drugs, an accusation which was disproved by drug tests. Hailey King also underwent drug testing to prove she was clean and on the right path. Those also turned up negative.
And that is where the story takes another ominous turn. Both women came up clean for drugs, however, Brooklyn’s test came out positive. The second time around. According to Kathy’s research, two sections of hair are usually taken in cases like this. The first is labeled section A, and is usually considered conclusive when negative. The only time section B is tested is to confirm a positive result.
Brooklyn’s section A sample tested negative on 12/30/2015 at 1:41 pm. Testing usually takes 24 to 48 hours to complete, according to what Kathy found out. But mysteriously, section B of Brooklyn’s hair sample tested positive for Marijuana and Amphetamines at 1:54 pm the same day section A tested negative. Hailey died without ever regaining custody of her daughter.
After her daughter’s death, Kathy Hall went through a long battle to gain custody of her granddaughter. She tells NRN that her first lawyer failed to represent her case as he was hired to do. She relates the story of the day her civil rights were violated in the worst imaginable way.
The day they went to court for their petition to gain guardianship, armed with proof the allegations against her were untrue, they sat in the courtroom and listened as the Judge and the social workers discussed Brooklyn. When Kathy heard the question “Is this child adoptable,” and the subsequent affirmative answer, she leaned over to her lawyer and asked him why he wasn’t saying anything.
Her lawyer told her this was not her case, and that they would be heard next. This was his standard answer all throughout the court proceedings. When the court recessed, he told her not to worry, and that it was just standard procedure. They would be heard next. A few moments later, the bailiff closed the doors to the courtroom, stating that was it. Court was over.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][wvc_audio_embed link=”https://open.spotify.com/episode/0WQA84Vvew6silZPvt86Ab”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Not once throughout that hearing did Kathy Hall get to speak, and she was only addressed once, when the Judge asked her if she had possession of Hailey’s death certificate. The hearing turned out to be an adoption hearing concerning Brooklyn, who was eventually adopted out to Ben Manning, an executive at Wal-Mart. Incidentally, Ben Manning was on the board of Havenwood, the facility Hailey had sought treatment at.
Kathy eventually passed her case on to then Senator Linda Collins-Smith, who took up her cause, as it related closely to investigations she was involved in. Kathy and Linda worked together to find out what exactly was happening in DHS and also to expose the corruption of the family courts and certain judges, one of which Linda had just divorced. Shortly after their divorce, recalls Kathy, Linda found a laptop in their former home which had very disturbing information on it leading Linda to believe Hailey King’s murder was not what it seemed.
Just recently, Kathy was called back to Arkansas by the State Police and the FBI shortly after the murder of former Senator Collins. After she spoke about the death of her daughter and the adoption of her granddaughter to an executive at Wal-Mart on a local radio show, Kathy was arrested for running a drug house in Arkansas, though Kathy did not live in Arkansas and had never done or sold drugs.
During her stay, Kathy endured coercion by the staff at the jail to allow them to give her a shot. She refused the shot, and also all forms of food she couldn’t be sure of. When I went to visit Kathy at her home, she was very weary and very hungry. I had the honor of speaking to Linda six months before she was murdered on the subject of illegal aliens and Kathy’s case. Kathy says Linda was on the verge of revealing all the information she knew publicly.
TruePundit reported in July: “With a murder suspect already in custody, however, federal law enforcement sources revealed Collins-Smith, at the time of her death, was probing child pornography cases linking to a child trafficking syndicate in Arkansas. ‘She had developed this information through contacts and people very close to her,’ a law enforcement source said. ‘The plan was to go public with all of it or hand it to law enforcement outside of Arkansas.’”
Creative Destruction Media also reported: “A verified source close to Collins-Smith told CD Media that she was about to go public with incriminating information on sitting judges in Arkansas, who were involved in taking children from poor women via the Department of Human Services (child protective services) in Arkansas and selling them to wealthy individuals. The source also disclosed that Collins-Smith believed the perpetrators were using illegal aliens to facilitate the crimes which included murdering the mothers of the stolen children.”
Rachel Bruno Reveals Child Protective Services Wrongdoing
None of this information was a surprise to Rachel Bruno, who contacted NRN, wanting to tell a similar story involving Child Protective Services, this time in California. Rachel Bruno is a speaker and writer with an MBA from Pepperdine University. She is an advocate for parents who were victimized by Child Protective Services. In 2015, Rachel herself was the victim of the tactics used by CPS to get children removed from their homes. Her story is one that is hauntingly familiar, though it ends way better than so many others.
Rachel’s seven week old son awakened her at 4 in the morning crying and refusing food. She asked her nanny what was wrong, and the nanny told her that the baby was just gassy. So she sent the nanny home and set about finding a way to help her child. She gave him skin to skin (a method of soothing a baby by placing them on the mothers bare chest clad in a diaper), and it seemed to soothe him. But soon after, the baby began to scream again. After several hours of not knowing what to do, Rachel called the pediatrician. He was not there, and the nurse told her that she would have to wait to see him for a few hours.
Rachel told the nurse that she didn’t think that was feasible as the baby had already been screaming and crying for hours. After relaying the baby’s symptoms, Rachel was directed to take him to the emergency room. It was there that Rachel’s nightmare began. After her child was examined, the doctor reported back to her that he had blood draining from his head due to a cranial fracture. Rachel had no idea how it had happened, and thought he had had a seizure. Rachel has had epilepsy since she was a child and was prone to them herself. So she assumed she may have passed it on to the baby.
Shortly after the baby’s operation, Rachel had visitors to his room. A police officer and a social worker came to her to “help” her figure out what had happened to her son. Rachel was told by the officer that what had happened to her son was worse than getting hit by a bullet. During the course of her “interview,” Rachel was asked by the social worker if it was ok for them to go check on her son David, then twenty months old, who was staying with her mother. Rachel gave consent, still under the impression they were there to help her.
It wasn’t until the next day that Rachel learned from her husband, who had been out of town during the incident, that the social worker had taken David from his grandmother. Rachel’s mother was visited by the social worker and a police officer at two in the morning. They checked out the refrigerator, did an inspection of the house, then walked into the room where David was sleeping. The social worker flips on the light, waking him up. She looks him over and despite finding nothing concerning, she tells Rachel’s mother they are taking David. Not surprisingly, Grandma said “No, you’re not.” After threats of arrest and a permanent record, Rachel’s mother felt there was no other choice but to give David to the social worker.
What followed was a lengthy battle to get back with her children. Rachel recalls the day her lawyer dropped a couple of bombs on her. “He tells me to sit down, and he says, ‘You have no idea what you’re in for. This is not a joke. I know where they took your son. I know where he is.’ I’m like, ‘Well what do you mean? How can they just take my son?’ He said, ‘This is a criminal investigation. What happened to your son was criminal.’” He told Rachel her saving grace was that her husband was out of town during the incident, and that he was going to petition the court to allow him to gain sole custody. He told her that this would mean she would have to leave the house during the time it took to clear things up.
Rachel, of course, told her lawyer that she didn’t do this to her son, and he said he believed her, but that he wasn’t going to bother fighting for her because that would keep her from getting her children back. Rachel endured having to take several classes for a crime she did not commit, and forty days after her ordeal began, she signed a sheaf of papers, none of which stated she was guilty of anything, and the court let her go home.
Give Them Back to Their Mother!
Rachel found out that, during that time, the social worker had approached her mother about adopting the children. Naturally, Grandma said “No. Give them back to their mother, to whom they rightfully belong.” The social worker said they did not know how Rachel’s case was going to go, and that they could help Grandma with funding. She would receive $670 a month per child, along with food stamps and all other attendant social programs, including WIC.
Rachel shared with NRN that out of the 20 to 30 people she went to the required classes with, only three received their children back. Not only that, but as in her case, there was no proof they deliberately harmed their children. In one case, a lady she is still very close to had her rights terminated, again for no reason. The State gave her child to the child’s father, even though he had a criminal record and stood to be arrested if he came back to California. She says the friend got pregnant during her ordeal with CPS, and that the baby was taken from the labor and delivery room by CPS. There was no warrant, nor were there any court orders, which is illegal in the state of California to do.
No. Think Mom
Rachel eventually sued everyone involved, and won her case. In doing so, however, the State had to produce records for discovery purposes. Rachel tells of finding out that the social worker and detectives involved had already decided her guilt on the way to the hospital to meet with her. In text messages provided to the court, the social worker told her supervisor about the baby’s injury, the fact it was reported he was with his nanny when the episode began, and that she was on her way to the hospital. According to the record, the supervisor texted back “OMG, do you think it was the nanny?” The social worker answered, “No. Think mom.”
That happened on the way to the hospital. Rachel had not even been interviewed before the determination was made. Rachel also discovered her son David was forced to endure 13 vaccinations at once, underwent a full skeletal x ray, and an anal wink test (used to determine whether or not a child has been sexually abused. There were no accusations at all of sexual abuse in Rachel’s case.) without even her husband’s knowledge or consent. All of this is a violation of both the parents 14th amendment rights, and David’s.
The police officer and the social worker eventually admitted to breaking the law, and doing so deliberately. However, Rachel’s lawyer explained to her that when a social worker is sued, it is usually a good thing for them. They are considered too much of a liability to have in the field, so are promoted to a desk job. Normal thought processes would tell us this is not a good thing, because it gives that worker more authority to do exactly the same things they did in the field, only they would be directing it, instead of enacting it.
Rachel found out the police and the social worker had also spoken to the nanny. When they went to the nanny’s house, they found her one year old had a black eye. When asked why, she said the girl had fallen off the bed, and the authorities believed her. She was asked a few questions about the baby, whom she said was doing perfectly well at the time she left him. Next, she was asked to take a polygraph test. The results were inconclusive, which means she failed it. She was asked to do so again and refused.
Follow The Money
When asked if she felt she was in danger because of the advocacy work she does, Rachel told me she did not. One reason was because she had asked her lawyer if she could be safe talking about all that had happened. What he said shouldn’t shock anyone who has been paying attention. He told her that those who cannot hurt the money aren’t a threat to those involved in this corruption.
Again, States receive $2000-$6000 per child for each child they physically remove from their families and place with foster care, or adopt to others. This is because in 1997, then President Bill Clinton signed the ASFA act into effect. This isn’t the only thing states receive funding for tearing families apart for. I interviewed Kash Jackson in August, and he said states receive Title 4D funding from the Social Security Act based on their performance in collecting child support.
Jackson said judges set the scene for child support by driving down the amount of participation the absent parent has in their child’s life. So visitation can be set at “every other weekend and a few hours on Wednesday. You have now become, in essence, a visitor to your children. So now, because you only have the children 20% or less of the year, that’s what justifies the judge saying ‘Ok, Dad (or Mom), you don’t have the kids as much, the custodial parent does. So we’re gonna need you to pay child support.”
There Is Hope
Family court is not held to the standards of the constitution, as all other court systems are. In fact, the court can remove a child based on accusations alone, place the child in foster care, and then adopt the child out after six months. Rachel’s lawyer told her they definitely would drag the case on to last more than six months. Rachel’s lawyer knew that if he fought for her, instead of going the route of her husband, she would never get her children back. In family court, the allegation is the proof. And if the judge believes 51% of what social workers are telling them, they can do what they wish to with that family.
There is hope, however. And it came in the person of President Trump. The president signed into law the Family First Act on February 9, 2018, which completely overhauls the child welfare system. More funds are given to promote programs aimed at keeping families together, such as parenting classes, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment. USA Today reported in May of 2018 that “The law, called the Family First Prevention Services Act, prioritizes keeping families together and puts more money toward at-home parenting classes, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment — and puts limits on placing children in institutional settings such as group homes. It’s the most extensive overhaul of foster care in nearly four decades.”
This means the funding that states receive for removing children from their homes (or forcing absent parents out of children’s lives to create a need for child support) is greatly reduced, due to the fact that they are now required to spend funding to maintain the family unit, instead of tearing it apart. This should make Democrats very happy, as they are forever against the separation of families.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Patriot911News depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Mary Freeman is a publishing editor and writer for NRN. She thrives on political dialogue and seeks to communicate truth. Freeman loves President Trump and wants her country back. She's grounded in her Christian faith and enjoys networking with like-minded friends online.
"At NRN, I feel as if I am actually doing something for myself and my country, and it has changed my life."