arrested for convicted felon in possession of fire arm and endangering welfare of a minor 2 counts and none of It true dismissed year later but lost b

[angeleyes500001]

What is the name of your state? Arkansas
I was arrested for convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and 2 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor. I was not a convicted felon, and they got into my sealed records under act 346 first offender act around 22 years ago. And they searched my house without permission. And the babies my 2 grandchildren 1 I had guardianship of since she was 2 weeks old and the other one I was raising not on paper they were never in any harm or danger. My sister took my granddaughter I had guardianship of from me right then and the courts let her and I got 2 hours every other week visit and a year later everything was dismissed and I was charged with disorderly conduct. I still don't have my baby girl and I would love to know how I can sue Lonoke county for this and the city ward and Cabot district court because when I went there they said I couldn't have a public defender and said I didn't need to hire a lawyer for myself and when I went to court I had to defend myself and lost had to appeal to Lonoke circuit Court and pay lots of money for it to be dismissed except disorderly conduct. This all happened in 2017 March. I have been trying to figure out what kind of lawyer would handle this kind of situation for this state and I can't please help thank you

 

[quincy]

You wrote in your other thread that you want to sue DHS.

I think you might want to contact Legal Aid of Arkansas for legal assistance. Legal Aid of Arkansas recently represented a group filing suit against DHS and, if they can't help you, they should be able to direct you to someone who can.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to Arkansas legal services:
https://arkansasag.gov/consumer-protection/resources/column-one/legal-resources/legal-aid-services-information/

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to your other thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/sue-dhs-government-office.650258/

 

[angeleyes500001]

Here is a link to Arkansas legal services:
https://arkansasag.gov/consumer-protection/resources/column-one/legal-resources/legal-aid-services-information/

Thank you so much I have been trying to get some kind of help for over almost ,2 year's and I just want my baby back

 

[quincy]

Thank you so much I have been trying to get some kind of help for over almost ,2 year's and I just want my baby back

I can understand how desperate you must be to have the children back in your care.

What happened the night of your arrest is a bit of a confusion. Sealed records can be unsealed for the purposes of an official investigation, so I am not seeing that particular aspect as too unusual. The fact that the charges against you led to the children's removal, only to have the charges later reduced to disorderly conduct, seems to indicate that mistakes were made by officials, however.

Good luck.

 

[Ohiogal]

You have issues. You had a gun. You were drunk. The police were called. The level of proof to substantiate a DHS investigation is lower than that for a criminal investigation. The children were endangered by your actions. You state you don't drink in your other thread but you admit to being extremely drunk. You don't understand how that endangers CHILDREN? Seriously? Putting children in a dangerous situation is abusive. These children are NOT yours -- they are your grandchildren. They have parents. And I disagree with Quincy about mistakes being made with removing the children because the charges were later reduced.

 

[FlyingRon]

Hard to follow things in your post, but the first thing you need to work on is your CRIMINAL charges, then the children, then you can worry about suing the DHS (which as indicated is unlikely to get you anywhere and certainly isn't going to either get your kids back or undo the criminal charges).

While PDs are not available for family court matters, I guarantee if you are indigent and facing felony charges, you are.

 

[HighwayMan]

To me it sounds like the OP's criminal case has concluded and ended up being a discon (although OP states "charged" and not "convicted" - probably in error).

 

[quincy]

To me it sounds like the OP's criminal case has concluded and ended up being a discon (although OP states "charged" and not "convicted" - probably in error).

It sounds to me, as well, that the eventual result of the arrest was a disorderly conduct conviction.

I also understood the posts as saying there was NO previous felony conviction that would lead to a problem with gun ownership.

It sounds to me as if the children were removed from the home solely based on an erroneous belief that angel was a convicted felon in illegal possession of firearms.

A disorderly conduct charge should not (necessarily) result in loss of children.

But I admit to having some problem understanding exactly what the situation was and is.

 

[Just Blue]

It sounds to me, as well, that the eventual result of the arrest was a disorderly conduct conviction.

I also understood the posts as saying there was NO previous felony conviction that would lead to a problem with gun ownership.

It sounds to me as if the children were removed from the home solely based on an erroneous belief that angel was a convicted felon in illegal possession of firearms.

A disorderly conduct charge should not (necessarily) result in loss of children.

But I admit to having some problem understanding exactly what the situation was and is.

Op and the adults at her home were plastered and caused a ruckus ...Police were called, responded and found a bunch of drunk adults and a couple of toddlers. Children were removed because the drunk OP placed them in a dangerous situation. The charges may have been dropped but the State still found cause to keep OP from having custody of the children. As it should be. IMO.

 

[quincy]

Op and the adults at her home were plastered and caused a ruckus ...Police were called, responded and found a bunch of drunk adults and a couple of toddlers. Children were removed because the drunk OP placed them in a dangerous situation. The charges may have been dropped but the State still found cause to keep OP from having custody of the children. As it should be. IMO.

You could be (probably are) right. As I said, the posts were a bit of a confusion to me.

Legal Aid should be able to sort out the facts to see if DHS erred in removing the children from angel's care.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Op and the adults at her home were plastered and caused a ruckus ...Police were called, responded and found a bunch of drunk adults and a couple of toddlers. Children were removed because the drunk OP placed them in a dangerous situation. The charges may have been dropped but the State still found cause to keep OP from having custody of the children. As it should be. IMO.

That's how it sounds.

OP apparently decided to go on a bender and asked the mother of one child and the father of the other child to take care of the children so that OP could have some "adult time".

Of course, the problem with that request was that the children were living with OP because of their parents' less than stellar life choices in the first place, so it calls into question OP's judgement. OP is wise enough to realize that sober parenting is tough enough that back up is needed if one is going to not be sober. However, OP then asked people who could not be trusted to stay sober. That these people were her son and daughter, each a parent of one of the children in question, is problematic.

In movies (or on TV) people get away with doing this - making a dramatic gesture, and the wayward children show that yes, they can miraculously straighten out, struggle a little but take care of their children for the evening, and when the long-suffering angel emerges from their adult time, the wayward children greet angel, say they don't know how angel does this every day, shower angel with gratitude, and the closing credits roll with everyone hugging.

OP has found out that life is not like the movies. And that at least channeling a Calgon commercial would have caused less legal trouble, with no hangover. It's rare for people to call the police about a bubble bath.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to the Disorderly Conduct, Class C misdemeanor charge under which (I think) angel eventually was convicted:

https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-71/subchapter-2/section-5-71-207/

I continue to have some concern that children were removed from angel's care by DHS. I have a problem with someone losing custody of children based on unfounded "felon in possession of firearms/endangering children" charges.

I admit to having a bias against DHS. I have personal experience with a family whose young boy was removed from his parents home based on an unfounded charge and, although the son was returned to the family after lawyers stepped in to offer free legal assistance to the parents, the incident was traumatic for the family (especially the child).

Obviously we do not have all of the facts here, and the facts we have been given are confused, but I worry about those who cannot afford an attorney to represent their interests. No one should be forced to fight DHS on their own.

 

[Just Blue]

Here is a link to the Disorderly Conduct, Class C misdemeanor charge under which (I think) angel eventually was convicted:

https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2017/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-71/subchapter-2/section-5-71-207/

I continue to have some concern that children were removed from angel's care by DHS. I have a problem with someone losing custody of children based on unfounded "felon in possession of firearms/endangering children" charges.

I admit to having a bias against DHS. I have personal experience with a family whose young boy was removed from his parents home based on an unfounded charge and, although the son was returned to the family after lawyers stepped in to offer free legal assistance to the parents, the incident was traumatic for the family (especially the child).

Obviously we do not have all of the facts here, and the facts we have been given are confused, but I worry about those who cannot afford an attorney to represent their interests. No one should be forced to fight DHS on their own.

I have a HUGE bias against DHS as well. HUGE. But per OP's own posting the children were removed with cause. Although the original charge was dropped/modified she was still drunk and apparently was behaving in such a manner the police had to be called. She is not, per her own words, a fit caregiver to these very small children.

I agree she NEEDS an attorney if she is going to try and clear her name with DHS. She does not express herself well...at least in writing. Perhaps she is more verbal.