Objections and corrections draft

[Parent’s Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State Zip Code]
[Phone #]
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARKE
SITTING IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION
AS THE JUVENILE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOHNNY DOE, JR (DOB 4-5-1992)
JANIE DOE (DOB 2-3-1996)
Persons alleged to come
within the provision of
the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OBJECTIONS
AND
CORRECTIONS
TO THE
REPORT OF
THE
CHILD
WELFARE
CASEWORKER
(get numbers
from YOUR
paperwork)

Clerk No.
[33637, 33637]
Detention Date:
March 21, 2000
Disposition
Date: June 2,
2000
Review Date:
December 15,
2001
To the Honorable INSERT JUDGE’S NAME HERE IN CAPS, Judge of the [Superior] Court
of the State of [California], in and for the County of [Los Angeles]:
[Double space the rest of the text. Indent paragraphs ten spaces.]
The Honorable Court above-named is hereby advised that the REPORT OF THE CHILD
WELFARE CASEWORKER herein, as prepared and typed is ERRONEOUS AND
INCORRECT in the following particulars, to wit:
[Here’s where you get to be creative. Go through your caseworker’s court paperwork and
find every error, no matter how trivial. Even trivial errors show how incompetent the person
is. You will list each error separately with corrections as in the sample. This sample is
derived from an actual case I worked on in 1991. The names, dates, and some details were
changed. The case I worked on was dismissed after similar paperwork was given to the
judge. Remember to double space everything below.]
1. Page One: JOHNNY DOE is not 8 years old. He was 10 as of April 5, 2002.
2. Page One: Mother’s name is ELIZABETH SMITH, not Doe. Address given by caseworker
is incorrect.
3. Page Two: COUNT 1: “On or about March 21, 2000, minors were found to be dirty.”
Minors were out playing in the yard, climbing trees to get fruit, and doing what most kids do
when playing outside, getting dirty. There was nothing abnormal about their being dirty.

4. Page Two: COUNT 2: The caseworker erroneously stated, “Mother has recurrent mental
problems that periodically render her unable to care for children.” Mother’s mental problem
was temporary due to stress from her husband’s deportation, her father’s death, and the
detention of her children by CPS. The problem is not recurrent and does not “periodically
render her unable to care for the children” as suggested by the caseworker.
5. Page Three: “November 15, 2000″ court date given by the caseworker is incorrect. The
correct date is November 12, 2000.
6. Page Three: The Doe children were not taken after the mother was admitted to Bellview
Mental Hospital. A caseworker arrived to detain the children from their grandmother’s
house and then advised the mother to allow herself to be admitted to Bellview because she
was grieving and upset.
7. Page Three: On March 21, 2000 when Janie and Johnny were detained from their
grandmother’s home they were not injured, neglected, or abused in any way.
8. Page Three: Problems with police officer on November 1, 1999 occurred when police
arrived to arrest Mr. John Doe, Sr. for deportation and the mother was cuffed and beaten by
the arresting officer. This arrest does not affect or reflect on the stability of her current
home life with her new husband, Mr. Thomas Smith.
9. Page Three: Mother quit her job on June 20, 2001, not “shortly after her marriage” as
stated by the caseworker. The job is no longer needed for support of the family as her new
husband is earning enough to support them and is willing to do so. Mother is needed at
home to care for the children.
10. Page Three: Date of marriage to Thomas Smith is incorrect. The correct date is
November 29, 2000.
11. Page Three: “Mrs.”, not “Ms.” – The caseworker knows that Mrs. Smith is not separated
from her husband, but throughout the report she implies that Mr. and Mrs. Smith are not
together.
12. Page Three: While her husband was visiting family in Nevada, Mrs. Smith called Dr.
Hoar only twice for advice during a two week period, not “frequently” as stated by the
caseworker, and those calls were only about Johnny’s behavior, not about both children.

13. Page Three: Mrs. Smith has not only “largely complied” with the Reunification Plan, she
has completely complied with all aspects of the plan.
14. Page Three: Mrs. Smith never told Dr. Hoar that she “couldn’t handle Johnny anymore
and wanted to give him up,” as stated by the caseworker. What actually happened is that Dr.
Hoar tried to talk Mrs. Smith into giving him up and putting him in a mental hospital. Mrs.
Smith did not want to do that. During the session Mrs. Smith did not state that she had been
upset.
15. Page Four: Janie does not have “sporadic behavior problems” in her home or at school as
suggested by the caseworker. At home the mother has never seen indications of such
problems and has received no such reports from Headstart. Attached please find “Exhibit A”
– a letter from Headstart stating they have not observed or complained of any “sporadic
behavior problems” from Janie.
16. Page Four: Johnny’s behavior problems are only occasional and not a “continuous
problem” as stated by the caseworker in her report. Attached please find “Exhibit B” – an
evaluation of Johnny’s behavior by Dr. Goodman in San Francisco, dated November 3,
2001.
17. Page Four: The improvement in Mrs. Smith’s parenting has been going on for years, not
just for the last few months. Attached please find “Exhibit C” and “Exhibit D” – certificates
of completion provided by parenting class instructors in January 1997 and November 2000.
18. Page Four: There has been no “substantial, recent regression” due to a separation from
Mr. Smith. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are still living together; he simply took a two week vacation
to Nevada to visit his sick mother. Therefore this should not be used as a basis for the
caseworker’s request for another six months of services at taxpayers’ expense.
19. Page Four: Dr. Hoar wants the case prolonged for another six months because once the
case is dismissed the mother will find a different therapist, and Dr. Hoar will no longer be
receiving CPS money for seeing her and her children. Therefore, Dr. Hoar’s report should
not be considered by the court. Mrs. Smith intends to find another therapist for the children
when the case is dismissed as the children do not like seeing Dr. Hoar as therapist, and are
even afraid to tell this to him. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely the children will
progress adequately in therapy. For these reasons, Mrs. Smith’s request to have Dr. Hoar
removed from the case can hardly be called “an indication of poor judgement” as stated by

the caseworker. She did so solely for the benefit of the children and with concerned regard
for their psychological functioning.
20. Page Four: Recommendation that the minors be readjudged dependents of the Juvenile
Court is inappropriate as the family has been functioning well during the last six months
that they have been together. The case should be closed at this time.
21. Pages Four and Five: Recommendations 2, 4, and 5 are also inappropriate as the case
should be closed.
22. Pages Six and Seven: Service Plan for mother and caseworker is inappropriate as the
case should be closed.
Executed 10 December 2001 at Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
(Signature) Elizabeth Smith

Objections and corrections draft

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Objections and corrections draft (20)

More from screaminc (20)

Objections and corrections draft