AFC = All For Cash

Actually, AFC stands for "Attorney for Child", and is a person appointed by the court to represent the "best interests" of the child.

Unfortunately, some of them make an entire legal career out of their paycheck as AFC, and develop inappropriate relationships with other Family Court attorneys and CPS.

Two of my children were adults at the time of the false allegations which precipitated this case, and so weren't even a party to the case or in need of or eligible for an AFC.

The only complaints that I have against my middle child's AFC are the following:

• Although she met often enough with my daughter, she failed to express my daughter's wishes to the court until my daughter sent an advocate into court also.
• Once my daughter turned 18, she quit the case and returned my daughter's file to her with the directive that my daughter had to find her own attorney. (That lead to a bill of over $20K because of how long they dragged out the case - it should have been tuition money for my daughter for a year.) Given that by that point in time a year had passed and it was VERY apparent that the case was a trainwreck, I really don't blame her in that respect.

The AFC for my youngest daughter was a downright disgrace. I'm not sure if she felt that as a supermodel's sister (and therefore related to a community icon) she had immunity from competence, but her conduct during the course of the case was a blot on the legal profession.

• Apart from a meeting with my youngest daughter within a few weeks of the false allegations, she did not meet or talk with my daughter again until December - almost five months later.
• When one of my family members requested visitation arrangements for Thanksgiving, the AFC stated "the father is not interested". This is called "ex parte" communication - representing the father's interest is in direct violation of her appointment and should be punishable by the ethics committee.
• By her own admission, the AFC was in frequent contact with Ken and Mary Shaw, and represented their interests and advocated for their position, not that of my daughter.
• The AFC sat in the CPS office consulting with them prior to most of our court dates.
• The AFC stated on at least one occasion that my youngest daughter was "her child".
• Most bizarre of all was that the AFC stated that ****** ******* was not my father to the judge and the other attorneys. By now you should know that I have a penchant for writing, and it prompted this response on my Facebook page - which I was aware was being monitored by CPS, the DA, the AFCs, and others.

• Unfortunately, because of that "public" admonishment of her, the AFC stated to the judge that she was "scared" of me and requested heightened security in the courtroom. (Sorry my dear, I am a firm believer that the pen IS mightier than the sword. I am also a practitioner of non-violence - my airsoft forays are with a camera and not a gun.)
• Finally, after those last three outbursts, she suffered some sort of "medical issue" and was no longer available for the dispositional hearing. I'm sorry, but incompetence is NOT a medical issue.

And finally there is the AFC for Ruby.  How shall I begin? 

• During the second year of our ordeal, Ruby's AFC announced her campaign for Family Court Judge. I'm sure she was thinking that she would ride the coattails of a false conviction to a landslide victory. Sorry, it didn't work out that way - most of the county knows that the allegations were false, and when you represent false allegations, you don't have much of a chance.
• It would be interesting to see if she billed Jefferson County for the time she spent sitting in the courtroom for Jon Massey's trial, because she was there for almost the entire five day 9-5 proceeding.
• The AFC lied to the judge on at least one occasion regarding Ruby's activities while in foster care.
• Ruby's AFC presented to the judge from almost the beginning of the case that RUBY wanted an Order of Protection against me and that RUBY wanted no contact with me. But then when convenient,  she repeatedly presented that I was the one who requested no contact. Honey, transcripts don't lie - so you shouldn't either. And we have all the transcripts.
• Ruby's AFC also repeatedly claimed that Ruby was "heartbroken" that she had lost all contact with her sisters - but her two older sisters repeatedly tried to call her at her foster home, and the CPS notes indicate that Ruby wanted no contact with them.
• Ruby's AFC wrongfully acted to unseal a Youthful Offender record, with full knowledge that it was sealed - but she portrayed to the judge that "she didn't know".
• This same AFC also was unable to correctly submit evidence to the court, and had to be taught step by step BY MY ATTORNEY how to do so. Such a wonderful skill set to be lacking while running for the position of judge (yes, that is sarcasm).

So, pardon me if I am cynical, but I think there needs to be a massive overhaul of the AFC program. Too many of these attorneys are only in the program for the cash and have no regard for appropriate legal practices. They treat their job as though their employer is Family Court and CPS, rather than the child for whom they should be vigorously advocating.

It is time for SWEEPING reform of the entire Family Court system, including CPS and the AFC program.

It's All About MORE Money!

For a preview of how CPS turned Ruby into a cash cow, read The Jon Massey Case

Within three days of Ruby making false allegations, CPS realized that their case was going to fall apart unless they acted. The coerced me into signing her into "respite care" which would put her under their control and from there they fast-tracked her into foster care.

But 'winning' an abuse case to avoid a lawsuit wasn't the only goal. Within weeks of having the judge move her from respite to foster care, CPS filed for child support against me and my ex-husband, Ruby's father.

Let's do the math: I paid them $386 bi-weekly, and her father paid them $629 bi-weekly. This went on for over two years (25 months to be exact)! Ruby was in foster care for 19 months. The per diem cost for foster care was less than $20 a day (the figure was researched and given to us by a county legislator). Ruby was covered under my insurance (dental, medical, and vision) with only a $26 co-pay.

Total cost for foster care? Approximately $11,500. Total collected from her parents?Approximately $51,000. Profit to CPS? Around $39,500. This does not include state and federal funds received by CPS for a child in foster care.

An additional issue is that CPS collected around $12,000 from Ruby's parents while Ruby was in kinship care for six months - and did NOT pass-through any of the monies to that individual!

What a racket! Why would they bother to tell the truth?

And this is definitely a reason why they would launch a full-out attack on any parent who chose to fight back and file a lawsuit against them (as I did).

It is all about MORE money!

It's All About the Money!

For a background, check out the Jon Massey Case.

Our case is a clear demonstration that first and foremost in the mind of CPS is promoting cases that generate revenue - even when they are false!

Ruby was placed into foster care almost immediately (within 3 days) upon making the false allegations because CPS quickly realized that they had made a mistake and wouldn't be able to control her behavior unless they had physical control over her. Controlling her behavior was necessary because even in that short period the case workers became aware that her allegations were most likely false.

Within a month they had asked her father, my ex-husband, if he would take her. This is the man who they had cited in 2001 with child abuse, who had never completed his service plan, and who had entered an Alford Plea on the charges.

CPS WANTED TO PLACE A CHILD WITH A PERSON THEY DEEMED ABUSIVE!

He refused to take Ruby, and within a few more months they had persuaded him to relinquish his parental rights. The DSS attorney claimed that they had someone willing to adopt Ruby.

This was a man who had been making $150K + per year, and his child support obligation was fairly steep, so when the DSS attorney gave him what appeared to be the chance to get out from under that obligation, he jumped at the opportunity. Who wouldn't?

At the hearing, the DSS attorney presented the matter to the judge in such a way that even the judge believed that Ruby was going to be adopted in short order. The judge said that he would terminate the support obligation at the same time.

Suddenly, the DSS attorney put on the brakes! He told the judge that they didn't have someone to adopt her yet, and that Ruby's father should continue to pay support until Ruby was adopted. What the DSS attorney didn't inform Ruby's father was that there was a kinship placement (NOT adoption) in the works.

So - Ruby's father continued to pay support, the kinship placement went through, CPS collected child support from Ruby's father for six months without passing it through to the family member, and he continues to this day to pay child support to the family member that Ruby has been placed with.

It is all about the money, folks! Don't let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.