Follow The Money

In conversation this morning, I learned that a NYS employee who actually has to pay child support had done some research into the system.

On just a routine Family Court case (that does not involve CPS or false allegations), when child support is awarded and goes through their system, NYS gets about $2 in state and federal monies for every $1 that is paid in child support. (It is probably for "support", "equipment", or "infrastructure"...or some such blanket category that means it goes right into the state coffers.)

That's very ironic, since parents that receive child support in NYS have to pay an "annual fee" for the service they are being provided.

Again, where does that money come from? The taxpayers!

It is all a massive shell game. Robbing Peter to pay Paul...ultimately the taxpayers are funding one of the largest money shuffles in history, the social services system.

• Money is taken from the taxpayers to pay for these subsidies.
• Money is taken in child support from parents with children in foster care.
• Money is collected from parents receiving child support in "fees".

Parents who are paying child support on children in foster care have been double-dipped - as taxpayers first and then as support payers.

• Money is paid to CPS from parents with children in foster care (and when the kids are in kinship care - placed with family or friends - the money is not passed through to the kin).
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in subsidies for children in foster care.
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in adoption incentives.
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in subsidies to run the support collections units.
• Money is paid to CPS from non-custodial parents when the custodial parent is on public assistance, and only the money in "excess" of their benefits is passed through to the custodial parent.

Figure it out for yourself...CPS has the lock on a program that gets them large amounts of money with no accountability.

They can't be prosecuted for lies, false paperwork, perjury. They are almost impossible to sue.

Who wouldn't love a job like this - guaranteed security as long as you play the game and keep harvesting fresh cases to keep the system running!

Follow the money!

**********

Note: CPS is used in my blog entries as a generic term for the social services system that deals with children and families. The specific acronym varies from state to state and country to country, so to avoid confusion I stick with one set of letters.

PA - Consider the Source

During the course of this case, CPS relied heavily on the testimony of Ken Shaw to repeatedly inflict personal attacks on the mother.

And Ken Shaw was more than happy to comply. After all, he had over the years developed an irrational hatred of the mother because of her refusal to maintain a relationship with him after she realized that he was a habitual liar, with substance abuse and anger issues.

The man had even told his own parents that she lived somewhere in Canada when he first introduced her to them.

Ken Shaw, at the urging and instigation of his attorney, has continued those attacks to this day, including attempting to throw false allegations out in the chat session of a radio interview conducted with the mother on Friday night. (See the "Here We Go Again" blog entry - episode 3 for details.) It is interesting that although he (or his cohorts) could have called in to the show and had their attempts broadcast live, they realized that their voices would be on air and possibly subject to further action (similar to episode 1).

Meanwhile, for those of you who aren't sure what to believe, maybe the following documentation will help you.

At one of the numerous hearings that was held in approximately April or May of 2013, the Judge ordered that the mother be allowed to bring a third party supervisor IN ADDITION TO her middle daughter when she had visits with her youngest daughter. Both Ken Shaw, and his wife, and his attorney were present at that hearing and heard the order from the judge. They actually objected to the idea and were overruled on the matter, so they were very aware of the judge's ruling and order.

At the very next visitation, Ken and Mary dragged the child out by her wrist and screamed and yelled at the mother, telling the mother that she was not allowed to bring anyone else with her at all.

This was an email sent by Ken Shaw to the mother:

Which demonstrates that he apparently was refusing to listen to and follow direct orders from the judge. After the mother sent him a copy of the court order permitting a third party in addition to herself and her other daughter, his wife Mary sent this fax to CPS (she had also been present in court when the judge issued the order):

It is obvious that either the two of them were gaming the system and pretending ignorance and stupidity, or...they aren't pretending...

This might explain part of the problem. In addition to Ken Shaw admitting that he himself regularly takes lorazepam and other medications for his alleged anxiety at a hearing in February 2014, he disclosed this information about his wife:

However apparently "long-standing mental health issues" that require three different medications are not "psychiatric". 

There is a similar personal admission by his son on social media documenting that he has "long standing mental health issues" in which he apologizes for "hurting anyone". (Although I would attribute the son's problems to the PA that Ken Shaw inflicted on both his sons in regards to his ex-wife.)

In the January hearing, under sworn oath, Ken Shaw gave this testimony:

He uses semantics to try to deny that he lied to the police. In fact, his testimony in front of two separate judges was that the child had told his mother that the dog had scratched her. He also testified that after he "suggested" that it was from the mother (without even seeing it), both of his mother and his daughter changed their story (although his mother, repeatedly cited as a source by Ken Shaw has NEVER appeared to testify).

This is his testimony from a hearing in this matter in February 2014 regarding the same incident:

Not to state the obvious, but a characteristic of lying is that you are unable to consistently report the same thing over and over again, because it is not grounded in reality and true memories. Ken Shaw demonstrated that less than a month later, he was unable to recall his prior testimony.

Next are two excerpts from his testimony - the testimony of an adult, 50+ year old man, about how he talks to and about young girls.

Neither episode is an appropriate way for a father or an adult male to talk about or treat young females.

what comes next is VERY interesting. In the "Gaslighting" blog entry I talked about Ken Shaw making false reports to the local police. Here is his testimony regarding that incident a year later, after initially claiming that he actually heard Jon Massey's voice because he was on speakerphone:

That last line from Ken was him stating that the youngest daughter heard it, not him. That he heard the mother's voice and that the child allegedly said she heard Jon Massey. This is a big change from his insistence a year prior that he heard Jon Massey himself, not only on that occasion but on others.

Another glaring example is the following testimony - which completely contradicts his subsequent reports:

When Ken Shaw made false allegations against the mother as part of his campaign of Parental Alienation, he repeatedly reported that he witnessed abuse. Yet this piece of testimony under sworn oath directly contradicts his reports.

Now here's where it gets interesting. There is this documentation that at the time he got temporary custody, he was $3K in arrears in child support.

And Ken Shaw's own testimony regarding child support and the fact that he stopped paying after his March 2011 support payment:

But somehow, despite the mother getting no moneys from him for support, Ken Shaw and his wife were able to post this to his Facebook page in March 2012.

Yet Ken Shaw claimed that he had "overpaid" the mother $3K, both in statements to CPS and in a formal notarized petition filed with the court.

Starting to see a pattern here?

Let's finish it up with this final piece of testimony from this oh so reliable source (sarcasm fully intended):

Here we have the testimony of this man who has admitted lying to the police, failing to pay child support, documented perjurer has demonstrated his own motives - a custody grab (and a subsequent filing for child support).

I think this speaks for itself!

Its All About OUR Money!

Apart from the child support that they can collect from parents when they seize children, CPS also has other cash incentives available to them.

The Federal Adoption Incentive provides cash awards to states according to specific guidelines. Children under age 9 earn $4000 each, and over age 9 earn $8000 each.

There are additional state and federal subsidies for maintaining children in foster care, not the least of which is providing Medicaid coverage, regardless of insurance available through the parents.

From 1998 (when the incentive was enacted) through fiscal year 2013, there has been $450,310,154 shelled out to the states.

But where is all this money coming from?

After all, the child support collected by the local CPS agencies stays in the accounts of the local CPS.

And why is there an escalation in the number of children seized and fast-tracked into adoption?

Lately, story after story is making the news about children being seized from parents without reasonable cause. Almost all of the stories include documentation that not only are no reunification attempts made by CPS, but that the children are deliberately alienated from their parents in order to facilitate termination of parental rights and adoption of the children.

This is due to a clause in the Federal Adoption Incentive.

A baseline was set for each state based on the number of adoptions that the state had in 2007. The incentive is only paid for each child OVER AND ABOVE that baseline number that is adopted in each subsequent year.

When you examine the data in the earning history table, it becomes obvious that states go through cycles of being ineligible for the monies available, followed by an upswing in earning incentive monies once again.

Under this plan every child counts, because each child brings the state one closer to meeting its "goal" of exceeding the baseline for adoptions and earning cash incentives.

The saddest part of this whole program is that the incentive was designed to increase the adoption of children who were already in foster care, children who are considered "unadoptable" due to a variety of reasons (medical conditions, behavioral problems, or simply not belonging to a demographic that is desirable based on gender, age, or ethnic background).

Rather than using the incentives to develop programs that locate parents willing to take on the children most in need of a permanent, stable home, the states are now on an aggressive campaign to locate "adoptable" children, often by seizing them under false pretenses from loving parents who provide appropriate environments and nurturing for their children.

And where does this money come from? Taxpayer dollars of course. The government is kidnapping taxpayer's children at taxpayer expense to pay themselves with the proceeds.

What an amazing money laundering scheme! It is nice to know where our money goes!

Listen Up!

Friday, April 17 @ 10 pm EST (9 pm CST)

The Jon Massey Case

(A CPS/Family Court/Criminal Court Travesty)

on

Parenting Revolution

Archived Interview Link:

https://soundcloud.com/parentingrevolution/special-guests-liz-scanlon-michael-volpe

(Note - during the show, Ken Shaw and his acquaintances got on the chat and kept posting comments, which is why Tim announced that people should call in if they had any questions or statements to make. As usual he and his friends did not, because they prefer to lie and start problems without people knowing who they are. For more information on Ken Shaw, you can see the "PA - Consider the Source" post and the "Here We Go Again" post to get an idea.

Say What?

Part of the technique that CPS uses to influence the court and other parties is their choice of language. To understand how they do that requires awareness of the difference between "denotation" and "connotation".

Denotation is the strict definition of a word - the dictionary version. Connotation is the understanding that has developed about the meaning of that word over time, and it carries emotional weight.

A good example of the difference is in the comparison of the synonyms thin and gaunt. Although both words mean the same thing, the word gaunt conjures up images of emaciated, starving people - most likely victims of some type.

When you read carefully through the paperwork that is prepared by CPS (and presented to the court, the AFCs, and entered into CPS database records), caseworkers routinely use words that portray their own actions most favorably, and give the worst possible portrayal of the parents and families.

As an example, CPS caseworkers repeatedly used the word "paramour" to portray the relationship between Jon Massey and Ruby's mother.

By definition, paramour means "an illicit lover, especially of a married person" (Dictionary.com) Even the dictionary definition these days includes the notion of "illegal" behavior, and the connotation of the word implies something sleazy and unsavory.

Yet the relationship was described by the two of them as "partners" and "domestic partners", and was referred to in the same terms by almost all their friends and family members. Even Ruby referred to Jon as her "step-father" (a description that doesn't match the implication of being "an illicit lover").

More to the point, neither of the two was married to anyone else, so the second part of the definition - implied in the first part - doesn't match. Their relationship extended far beyond being "lovers", the two shared household duties and expenses, and worked together to develop and maintain a positive family relationship - even when Ruby repeatedly thwarted their attempts to maintain reasonable guidelines and standards.

The use of the word "paramour" was a deliberate word choice by the caseworker(s) who prepared the paperwork - it was intended to cast the worst possible light on the two in order to prejudice the court (judge) and the AFCs to act against them. The word "paramour" minimized the relationship and portrayed it as being illegal.

Jon and Ruby's mother repeatedly objected to the word choice, and finally brought a dictionary to a meeting, pointed out the definition, and threatened a lawsuit based on defamation of character.

At that point, CPS revealed something very enlightening - the caseworker stated that they are given a "menu" of word choices in their computerized system as part of a database provided by the state. The caseworkers choose specific words and phrases based on what is available to them that best fits the situation.

When you examine carefully any documents prepared by CPS, the word choices are very informative - they imply use of physical violence when there was none (the word "forced" is often used), and whenever possible the words imply illegal behaviors - even when none exist. The intent is to influence the court and the AFCs from the onset to rule in favor of CPS and to demonize the parents and family members.

CPS is a firm advocate of "the pen is mightier than the sword" - when it can be used to their own benefit. Words can hurt, and an agency that is allegedly dedicated to supporting families deliberately uses word choices that harm or destroy family relationships.

Speak up against CPS - time to use your words to expose their corruption!

Urban Dictionary Part Deux

In the previous entry regarding Ken Shaw's attorney, we reviewed some of her unethical conduct and legal misconduct. However in addition to the things listed previously, this attorney has demonstrated that she is a cyberbully of the worst type.

The DSS attorney was fined $1000 for failing to follow a direct order of the judge in our case. Ken Shaw's mouthpiece capitalized on that fine to engage in a systematic pattern of harassment against him AND the director of CPS.

What followed from Ken Shaw's attorney, masquerading under a false Facebook name, was post after post targeting the director of CPS, interspersed with insults aimed at the DSS attorney, other attorneys, and even the judge.

Now apart from the fact that the use of a false name on Facebook not only violates Facebook policy, but also the Social Media Ethics Guidelines for NYS attorneys, the use of social media in this context is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as it functions to disrupt the functioning of the court.

I think these posts speak for themselves about the maturity and mindset of this attorney - no wonder Ken Shaw is her client, after all, birds of a feather flock together!

Gaslighting

Ken Shaw is a master at gaslighting - however the only people who believed him were those who were less intelligent than him, the DSS attorney and the AFCs.

One of the nastiest stunts he pulled was filing a false report with the local police department, as described below:

Let's start with the obvious - Jon Massey was not at the house and had not been at the house since the onset of this matter when he was served with the orders of protection. Not only was he NOT at the house, at the time in question he was at an appointment with his therapist, and then making the follow-up appointment with the receptionists (yes, plural).

In fact, what should stand out is that while Ken Shaw was calling the police, his wife Mary had already gotten on the computer, logged on to the website for the local police scanner, and had put on headphones to make sure she heard what happened.

I'll add another layer of context for you - Ken and Mary live in another country, approximately three hours away. In order for Mary to even know that there was a police scanner website for our locality, the two of them would have had to research it IN ADVANCE. Just as she was ready IN ADVANCE to listen to what happened as a result of the false police report. That sounds like pure premeditation.

It is odd that when the police actually showed up at the house, neither my daughter nor I were here - I had left to deal with some insurance issues with my son, and my daughter had left to pick up a friend from work.

More to the point, neither of us had EVER told Ken Shaw that Jon was sneaking into the house - what he had been told in August was that Jon was living with his mother over 20 miles away.

As to "Jon's car"? It was actually registered to his mother, and while living with her, then his sister, and finally a friend of ours, he had no need of the car as others were available to him. So his mother had allowed my daughter to use the car to transport herself to the local college and her job, as Jon was no longer available to do so.

In fact, at visitations on at least three occasions prior to the false report, IN FRONT OF Ken and Mary Shaw, my daughter had told her youngest sister about driving the car to and from school and work. Additionally, the caseworkers had seen the car parked IN THE DRIVEWAY OF OUR HOUSE on two home visits they conducted.

But what truly gives this away as completely premeditated was this email from the DSS Attorney to the caseworker - dated 20 DAYS before Ken Shaw's attempt at filing a false police report:

The person who approached the DSS Attorney was Ken Shaw's attorney, obviously setting the stage for the false reports.

Once Ken Shaw was unsuccessful at his initial attempt, the CPS caseworkers jumped right on the ball and directly contacted the head detective at the police department with the following email:

She sent a copy of Ken Shaw's email above, and received the following cc - the head detective contacted the second in command at the police department:

The result was that our house was raided at about 3 am Sunday morning - searched top to bottom by police officers who tracked mud all through the house. And once again, Jon Massey was not there. Why? Because unlike Ken Shaw (who has lied to police by his own admission under oath and by his actions above, has lied to a judge under oath, and who has a long history of being a scofflaw) Jon Massey believed in playing by the rules.

Rules which were violated not only by the DSS Attorney, but also by the ADAs and the judges involved in the Jon Massey case.

Ken Shaw lit a torch that helped lead to an innocent man's death. Playing with fire...