The last couple of days, we've been reviewing a 4-hour interview of an ex-CPS administrative assistant going by the name of "April," and the revelations, even for veteran readers of this blog, have been nothing short of astounding. The most revealing comments surround the mechanism of "adoptability" which seems to guide all of CPS's interactions with families, at least in the state where April lives and worked. Children who are truly "needy" in many of the standard meanings of that term (as well as a few extras--such as being on Schedule II prescriptions) are NOT the ones CPS is interested in, but rather, those who will be attractive to the adoption downstream from which they can draw very rich remunerations indeed.
Today, we will simply move on to the end of the actual interview segment (the last two hours being mostly just replies to callers.) Segment three starts off with the startling claim that CPS never sees a decline in the number of children in government custody of one form another. This, despite laws that have been passed for decades requiring CPS agencies, nationwide, to return children to families as quickly as possible. The fact that the total number of kids in custody never seems to go down also leads to the constant calls by CPS for more money from taxpayers, which they invariable do get because most politicians are afraid to be accused of not being willing to "do it for the children," (when, what they are really doing, of course, is enabling real child abuse via government proxy.)
The discussion then turned back to the courts. One of the interviewers named Jane spoke of being somewhere where she could overhear a judge addressing defense attorneys. She said she was behind a curtain and observed judges smirking and laughing and belittling defense counsel (presumable state-appointed) for actually doing their jobs and getting certain children returned to parents. Jane said that she also witnessed a judge "training" attorneys how to lose their cases on purpose, while preserving some semblance of "having tried." She said that families are routinely "set up" to lose in the quasi-courts whose business it is to support CPS seizures. Jane also said that the few "good" caseworkers who witness this bias and who try to fight it, are not only fighting their own corrupt employer who doesn't want to follow the law, but also a court system that doesn't want to do so either.
The discussion then turned next to psychotropic drugs, and how big pharma is also part of the CPS swamp. Once kids are in the clutches of CPS, most of them will be drugged to create "special needs" (i.e. a child who is harder to remove from the CPS system) and that big pharma benefits greatly from the psychiatric/CPS/court web. I wanted to hear if big pharma actively lobbies on behalf of child interventions and CPS, but that topic was not covered.
Next, April said that the CPS department she worked for never accounted for missing children in their official numbers, even if they had no idea where missing children were, and even if the paper trail was totally missing. This is, of course, a form of fraud-- when federal funds are based on reported numbers of children in "CPS care," and when many of those children are nowhere to be found.
The quality of CPS new hires was the next topic. April said that the numbers of undocumented illegal aliens who are being hired to take children from American couples is a growing problem. She claims to have personally witnessed CPS staff creating fraudulent documents for new hires, such as social security cards, driver's licenses, etc. She said many of these new hires could not read or speak anything but very broken English, and that none of them were college educated or had any qualifications to be a CPS "professional." Most illegal immigrants hired as caseworkers were given new names, as well, to make their identification and connection to other illegal activities harder to connect.
April next made the point that so much more taxpayer money is being spent on the adoption pipeline, than funds actually spent (or received) to actually help children who may truly be in need of interventions. She then reflected on her belief that a lot of the judges in the quasi-courts may be involved in Satanic activities as well, and actually acting as the enablers of international child sacrificing rings. She brought up the example of the so-called "airport adoptions," (a subject new to me.) Apparently, a very senior CPS administrator went to Romania a few years ago, and worked with the Romanian government to set up a streamlined adoption system where children were brought to the airport, the adoption completed on the spot, and parents were told with pictures who would be adopting their destitute children in America. Gradually, the parents discovered that their children were not ending up with families, could not be contacted, and just disappeared. She feels this was an indication of occult/satanic activity, and the Romanian authorities thought so too, and ended the program.
"CPS is not a government entity, but a private corporation" was the theme of the next section, although there wasn't any indication of how we might discover that to be true. As a personal aside, I am just assuming they are talking about the fact that even the "U.S. government" has been shown by some to be a megacorporation, no longer under the Constitution. But, this is a rather esoteric topic in which I am not all that well versed. They made the point that this is another reason that our laws and standard court procedures are continually skirted by CPS and their quasi-courts. They discussed the sad fact that when some families do eventually get their kids back that they are usually no longer anything like the kids they lost, that they no longer love them or their siblings, and that they come back with all sorts of new problems they never had before. Reports are ubiquitous of CPS staff (or foster care staff) lying to children constantly, and telling them that their parents "abandoned them," and that they don't love them, etc.
CPS also targets children who are three-years-old, or less. That is because they are more "adoptable and adaptable," and because their testimony is not admissible in "court." April said that there was no definition of "abuse" within the agency, and that this was a source of continual frustration for new hires, and for those few caseworkers who stayed on in an attempt to "make a difference." When CPS workers asked for definitions, they were told that they are to always simply use their own intuition and judgment, and that this was so that the agency itself could always have a wall insulating upper management from the "mistakes" of their underlings, and so that a wider net could be cast (without accountability) for a range of excuses used for seizing children.
The discussion ended with a pointed question..."How can CPS be brought under control and reformed." April insisted and reiterated what she had said once before, and that is that PARENTS NEED TO BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. While, she admitted that may SOUND terrible at first blush, and couterintuitive, she exclaimed that what it really means is that most parents will likely be found innocent, and never lose their children in the first place. This is because the jury trial comes into play, and jurors are automatically less corrupt than CPS, and will side with parents and have empathy with the parents-- certainly more than they would have with a bureaucracy that can't prove anything, constantly botches their record-keeping, is easily caught in lies, and so forth.
Again, this is a seminal interview, the information within which should be given to every politician who has any oversight responsibility over federal funds doled out to CPS.