• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

civil rights/possible harassment

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

makaha

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Florida

I am looking for information on appropriate grounds to file civil suit for harassment and/or civil rights violations.
The main incident involves the Florida Attorney General’s Address Confidentiality Program. While I was originally in counseling and parenting classes at Haven, the legal advocate assisted me with the ACP papers. I have been in this program since July 2002. This is supposed to be used for everything. Even the DMV has that address.

The reason I qualified for this program is that I fled Tennessee to get away from my husband who had physically abused me & my son, who was only 3 at the time, so he could not find me or our children and bring them or me harm.

This information was placed in my file at DCF by my caseworker at that time. Later on, in June 2003, after another case worker was assigned to my case, she needed my true physical address to do my home study. On the updated papers from the June 30, 2003, hearing instead of my ACP, address my true physical address was listed. Not only do I get a copy of these papers, but my husband does also.

Since this "incident," I have been placed under undo scrutiny by "the powers that be." I need any information I can get of the Harassment Statutes for the state of Florida and the Civil Rights Policies so that I will know if I have grounds for a civil case. I have been told by several people that I do.
I would appreciate any assistance.
 


S

seniorjudge

Guest
You forgot to put in your post any damages you suffered. So, I would have to say you have no case.

Anyway, start your investigation by Googling section 1983

Also, hire a civil rights lawyer to look over your complaints to see if he thinks you have a case. You haven't stated any facts, just some conclusions.
 

makaha

Junior Member
reply to seniorjudge

Right now the damages are that my children keep being told by one party (not me or their foster parents) that they will be coming home to me and then the GAL assigned to the case comes up and says that I have taken too long or that I have "blown it" and the kids won't get to come home.

The facts are that the first time the children were awarded back to me, the case worker DID NOT notify me. Two weeks after she was notified, I went to her office to notify her of a problem with the landlord [whom at that time had just received a check from the state for rent assistance (1st, last and security) signed for in my case workers office] whom had just had the utilities turned off. When I told my case worker that she said, "Well, I guess you don't get your kids back now like you were supposed to."
After that, I returned to counseling at the Haven. Upon doing so, my case worker was notified of her mistake with my address because of the repercussions it could cause. After that, every residence I looked at (I had not gotten a new residence yet and was staying with friends) was disapproved by my case worker, not in an official capacity, but she had agreed to "advise" me as I was looking so that I would not waste money renting a place she could not approve. I knew about the residence where I am now because of a guy I worked with. He and his wife were about to move. It is a three bedroom, single wide trailer. My kids are 1 boy and 1 girl. I am required to have three bedrooms. In May last year, the judge in the case over-ruled the DCF disapproved home study. The reason for the disapproval is the canal behind my house. I have completed all of the rest of my case plan requirements.
The only other "problem" is, I have failed two drug tests in three years. (My drug of choice is marijuana.) I also have two that show as positive because I did not take them in the time limit. The reason for the last two was that I work third shift and the places listed on my paperwork did not say that they only did drug tests after a certain time. Both places and both times, I fell asleep in the waiting room only to be told that I would have to either wait (usually two or three more hours) or leave and come back. Having had no other sleep, I never made it back. I have never been high around my kids nor smoked pot in front of them. Also, at that time, my case worker was not calling me for "random" drug screens. I knew that the next one would be on court day. The day the judge awarded the children back to me, instead of asking if it could be "pending a negative drug test," she (and the GAL and staff)agreed and THEN on the way out she stopped me and said, "Oh, by the way, I need you to take a drug test." That was the second positive. The reason for it was that one month before, I had told the GAL that I was about three weeks from my new residence and she told me, "It doesn't matter. Even when you get that you're not going to get your kids back." She said the EXACT same thing to the kids foster mother in front of the kids. I have also been informed by a comprehensive assessor assigned to evaluate this case that, from the information that she gathered, my error in decision was also caused by the misdiagnosis of my having cyclothymia. At that time I had just been diagnosed and the doctor I was (and am currently) seeing had just changed my meds the week before.

If there are any other details or facts you need, let me know. Right now, I am searching for information. I have already tried to contact several civil rights lawyers but have had none to reply.
 

makaha

Junior Member
current update

In May 2003, I rented a 3-bedroom house in Central Florida. As per her offer & verbal agreement to (not written), the landlady left the utilities were left on in her name until I had the money for the deposits.
On June 30,2003, at a Judicial Review, the General Master (Judge Joyce Miller) decided that upon approval of my home study, which had been done & the formal decision was pending, and at the discretion of my caseworker (by now, Donnalee Crawford) my children would be returned to me. According to my information, the home study was approved on July 10, 2003. I was not informed of this until AFTER July 24,2003.
On July 24, 2003, my landlady informed me that she wanted the utilities out of her name. Within 24 hours, the water was disconnected & a disconnect order was placed for the electricity. According to what I was told at BOTH utility companies, she had stated that she had moved and needed them turned off. She did not tell them that I was living there & had been since mid-May.
This led to a court case between she & I.
Eviction proceedings wound up costing her $3000 in fines and damages.
After that, I returned to counseling at The Haven Shelter of Lake & Sumter Counties with Lynn Chamberlain. Her office has brought to my attention that there have been some violations of my civil rights.
The first involves the Attorney General’s Address Confidentiality Program. While I was originally in counseling at Haven, the legal advocate assisted me with the ACP papers. I have been in this program since July 2002. This is used for everything, even the DMV.
I qualified for this program 'cause I fled Tennessee to get away from my husband who had physically abused me & my son, who was only 3 at the time, so he could not find us.
This information was placed in my file at DCF by my caseworker, Ron. Later on, in June 2003, after Ms. Crawford was assigned, she needed my physical address to do my home study. On the updated papers from the June 30, 2003, hearing instead of my ACP, address my true physical address was listed. Not only do I get a copy of these papers, but my (ex)husband does also.
At this time there is a petition by DCF for Termination of Parental Rights. This is where I noticed some SERIOUS misrepresentations & mis-statements by my caseworker. In the hearing in front of Judge Hale Stancil of Sumter County, in November 2003, it was requested that a Guardian Ad Litem be appointed. This request was made at the beginning but was denied for "lack of available staff." Why now?
Then, on May 11, 2004, custody was returned to me with only 10 days of school left. When I conferred with Lynn, my son's counselor, she said that the best thing would be for us to wait the 10 days for the benefit of the kids. Upon hearing this Dana Wiekel, the GAL, told me, "Oh no, if you wait until the end of school you WILL lose your kids."
Then I find out the paperwork from court on May 11, 2004 was not sent to court, signed by the judge, OR filed at the clerks office until JUNE 11,2004.
On my court hearing on June 30, 2004, Scott Wynn, Esq., was assigned as my attorney. On my July 30, 2004, Mr. Wynn requested that DCF/KCI be "mandated" to keep up my drug screens since I had had to call to have them done and it was so ordered. I was given drug screen papers as I left that day. At court, Aug. 30, when Mr. Wynn asked that my children be returned to me pending a negative drug screen, he was told by Mr. Gish, Esq. GAL lawyer, that the department was still going to terminate my rights. My Hearing was scheduled for November 17, 2004. My MAIN concern is for the Emotional well being of my children, which is at a great risk at this point at the hands of Donnalee Crawford, Caseworker DCF/KCI, and Dana Wiekel, GAL.
On November 17, 2004, I had a court date. I called the Clerk to confirm may time, 1:30 p.m.
After hearing the "morning round" of cases, the judge decided to go ahead and hear the afternoon docket. The clerk, when my name was called, stated that I had called. At that point the judge said that I would be excused for missing the appointment and that since my lawyer was present, he could speak for me. My case was rescheduled for JANUARY 5, 2005! I do not understand why DCF/KCI seems to want to keep me from my children when there are cases in this very office where children are being returned to their abusers.
On January 6, 2005, there was a "reunification staffing." In attendance were: Ms. Mendicino, Ms. Chamberlain, me, My attorney, Scott Wynn, attended by conference call due to a prior commitment at his office. Former General Master & present Head of Legal for KCI, Joyce Miller; a KCI person I didn't know; a Contracts Officer for KCI; a rep for Cynthia Curtis (she came in later); William ?, a KCI case manager supervisor; Jim Davis, rep for Kelly Rogers; Richard Gish Lawyer for "the Department" (and former GAL lawyer); Dana Weikel, Guardian Ad Litem.

When I talked to Kelly Rogers yesterday (1/5/05), I expressed a concern that since Joyce Miller had prior knowledge of my case, I wanted to know if there would be any sort of conflict by her being at the meeting. Kelly Rogers told me, that Joyce Miller would not be sitting in for that reason. She ran the meeting.
At first, Kristen was told that, "This is an INTERNAL STAFFING," and that I would not be allowed to sit in. Kristen provided a copy of the KCI contract and stated that Ms. Rogers had said that I would be allowed to be there. After a "conference" between Ms. Miller and the contract officer, Jim Davis, and Kristen the meeting was started. My lawyer attended by phone. Ms. Miller had everyone introduce themselves so he would know who was there. Then, Ms. Miller explained that this part of the meeting would be to bring out the reasons for the meeting and to allow Ms. Chamberlain and him to offer a professional opinion and for me have my opinion heard. After which the meeting would be adjourned and Mr. Wynn, Ms. Chamberlain and I would all be dismissed, after which the "internal staff" would have their meeting and decide whether to move forward or not.

Ms. Weikel spoke first. When she finished, "the floor" was opened for questions. Then, Ms. Chamberlain spoke after which there were some more questions. Mr. Wynn allowed me to answer a couple of questions that, since he has only been on my case since July, he could not.
When the meeting ended, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Wynn to speak his turn. He said that upon reviewing my file and what had just been said that he did not feel that there were LEGAL GROUNDS to terminate my rights and that he thought that any Judge we went in front of would feel the same way.
Later I was told that after the "second part" of the meeting, from which Kristen was excluded, Jim Davis informed her that they were going to pursue TPR anyway. "Officials" like Jim Davis and Joyce Miller are the reason GOOD case managers cannot be kept in these positions. My children are at the mercy of a well-meaning but SERIOUSLY flawed system that is stopping my children from being able to heal from the wounds of the past.
Ms. Weikel's statement of "concerns" was at least 6 months out-dated. The issues she mentioned in it have been handled and are not even present any more, plus the fact that my daughter is only four years old. She is trying to say that normal childhood issues for a four year old are because I have been a bad mother.

As of this date, I have had a second drug and alcohol evaluation and am currently attending treatment sessions. At the last hearing, “the department” asked for a continuance because “they had been unable to serve the father.” The original petition was filed in DECEMBER 2003 and I was served in January 2004. There have currently been 3 advisory hearings and 2 pre-trial hearings as to ME. The department keeps postponing these for my children’s father because “they have been unable to have him served.”

Ms. Lynn Chamberlain, counselor for my son and me, received a call from the attorney for KCI, Richard Gish, to make sure she had been informed that the hearing scheduled for 3/28/05 had been cancelled and rescheduled for 4/25/05. He also informed her that the April hearing “would not be the final hearing” as there will be a “permanency” hearing in June.

After receiving this information, I contacted my dependency lawyer, Scott Wynn, to find out why the subpoenas had not been sent yet. I was told that, according to the paperwork received by his office, the 4/25/05 hearing is only an advisory hearing and that the TPR trial is not set until August.

Things like this are the reason that I am at my wits end. I feel like KCI is trying to push me to see if I will have a breakdown so that they can keep my children from me. They do not realize the psychological damage that they are doing to my children.

I have been told that, after my children are returned, I should file a civil suit.
At my last court hearing, it was brought to the attention of the court that a copy of the "approved" home study, which my lawyer had requested at the previous hearing, had been faxed three days after the court ordered it done. The issue is, before faxing the legal documentation, the "result" of the study was "visibly altered" to show the results to be disapproved. I must also note that the "governor's investigator" has since been "terminated." Also, Jim Davis has resigned.

Don't know if any of this info will make a difference, but I hope it will.
I will post more info as available.

Thank you for any help or info ( and at least not making fun of me).
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top