Chitting USA — a Guide to Reunion with Your Stolen Child

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Reunion: Judging the Family Court is a book written to help protective parents in Australia demand the return of their stolen child.  Stolen by whom?  Why, by the Judiciary!

Now that we have heard that the United States is “Number One” in the contest for the most stolen children (with Mexico and the Philippines taking second and third place), I offer the book to American parents as well.

The ultimate problem seems to be that the public has not yet established a procedure for overcoming governmental criminality. Everyone, including myself, tries to sort out criminal issues by going to the proper authorities — police, courts, and the legislature. But all of those have apparently sold us down the river.

Police seem to work for someone whom we can’t even identify.  The judges are unscrupulous in their making rulings contrary to law — they don’t even stammer or blush. And while it is true that your legislature has a lot of power, including the power to dis-establish a court, the members don’t want to use their powers.

That is a perfect background to rampant child stealing.  Your neighbor may not believe your story, as he or she will think “This parent is unable to get satisfaction from the police, the court, or the local rep, so he or she must be guilty.”

In the Reunion book, I propose  a local committee of laypersons that can declare the law in a particular case. I do this as a practical solution, knowing that humans are inclined to accept an official thing and are reluctant to side with anything unofficial.

The Making of a Chit

The product that this layperson group will turn out can be called a chit.  According to the Collins Dictionary :

“A chit is a short official note, such as a receipt, an order, or a memo, usually signed by someone in authority. “

(military — Schrader initialed the chit for the barman.)

Other words, such a voucher or a pass-go, might do but hardly anyone uses “chit” for anything nowadays so it is available.

The plan is as follows:

1. Establish your local chit board. The suffering parent should not be a member.

2. Use the actual law (see below) to support your case.

3. Use the principles of law, such as the maxims, to capture the high ground.

4. Interview the child if possible.

5. Make a decision as to whether to “reunite” the child with the protective parent and write up your reasoning.

6. Include a description of how the reunion could have negative effects, and state how you would try to diminish the harm.

7. Present the case to a judge asking that he/she issue an injunction to fulfill the reunion.

8. If that is not possible, get many chit board members to sign the chit authorizing the protective parent to act, and accompany him/her on the reunion mission.

The Chit As a Piece of Law Currency

Think of some pieces of paper that carry weight in law: a writ of habeas corpus, a constitution, a certificate of immunity, a sworn affidavit. Those things didn’t drop from the sky. Humans thought them up. The same is true of any cultural object — a fish hook for catching fish, a clay pot for storing liquid. When something is needed, it manages to materialize.

Kansas

Here is an idea cooked up by sensible people in Kansas, USA – see douglascountyks.org. They’ve started a Citizen Review Board to overcome the problems of bad decisions by judges or child protection services. Quote:

“There are currently five Citizen Review Boards – CRBs — which meet monthly. Potential volunteers must submit a written application and go through a screening procedure.

“All must complete training requirements set forth by the Kansas Supreme Court before they can be sworn in by the Chief Judge to review cases. CRB volunteers are assigned to review child in need of care cases and to report in writing to the presiding judge.

“Volunteers meet as a group once a month and interview families and service providers and then deliberate in private before sharing their recommendations orally with the people in attendance. The presiding judge can use the CRB recommendations to make his/her own court orders.”

Even without ‘permission’ of government you can act. Are you worried this would be subversive? Stop worrying. Society owns the law. (Granted, the Kansas folks remain dependent on the court system, but the judge will feel constrained by the Board.)

Your strictly independent chit will be legal on the basis that it deals in a responsible way and does not offend anyone or any law. It implements law. The task is to gather some people together and focus on a few cases.

The chit should not contain a request for prosecution or be defamatory. Perhaps the parent who has been a perpetrator or abuser should be designated by softer terminology such as the LFG, the “less favorable guardian.” Be conservative.

When the court fails us (which indicates that the holders of court positions are negligent or are impostors!), we have to skirt around the court system. Be sure to let the public know that the trafficking issue is well documented. For example, refer to Senator Portman’s official report that tells how the US government traffics kids as slaves for farm labor.

Quote the Maxims, As Appropriate

Here are some law maxims that you could quote to strengthen your hand. A maxim is something from which the law should not deviate; it is a higher principle of law:

*To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due.

*When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature.

*We must have recourse to what is extraordinary, when what is ordinary fails.

*What necessity forces, it justifies.

*What is proved by the record, ought not to be denied.

*The safety of the people is the supreme law.

Quote Your Local Statutes on the Subject Matter:

Almost certainly the law in your locale is in favor of real protection of children. It is easy to find the law by googling for it, e.g., “Law of child custody, Kentucky,” or Child protection regulations, New York.”

In Australia there is plenty of law to back up the reunification of children with their protective parent. For example:

Per Section 286 of Queensland’s Criminal Code:

(1) It is the duty of every person who has the care of a child under 16 years to (b) take the precautions that are reasonable … to avoid danger to the child’s life, health or safety; and (c) take the action that is reasonable … to remove the child from any such danger. [Emphasis added]

South Australia Criminal Consolidation Act, Division 1A, Sec 5E (1)14 provides a penalty of 15 years prison for neglecters. So the chitters can say they’re acting to protect themselves:

“A person is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if —
(a) a child… suffers harm as a result of an act; and
(b) the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; …and (d) the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken … .”

SA Children’s and Young Persons Safety Act says, in Sec 62:

“[The Child] must be given a reasonable opportunity to personally present to the Court their views related to their ongoing care and protection. [and] (63) (1) the legal practitioner must, as far as is reasonably practicable, act in accordance with any instructions given by the child.” [Emphasis added]

Note: Few people know that such a law exists, mandating that the child be allowed to speak! This is very helpful for chitters. Your panel can interview the child. If child is not contactable, you may present any past communications from him or her.

Major legal protection: Australia’s Family Law Act, section 70NAE, says you can act if it’s “necessary to protect the health or safety of a person.” No later section nullifies or even modifies that. I don’t know why lawyers don’t celebrate that wonderful point.

Aboriginal Strong Grandmothers

In Central Australia, there is already a banding together of grandmothers who oppose the states’ over-eager use of guardianship. Indigenous peoples who have been colonized have got greater awareness than others, of course, as to what governments get up to.

Aboriginal Australians see their children being removed as a scheme to end their culture. The group, which is called “Strong Grandmothers,” oversees the placement of a child into guardianship by finding him a home with relatives, or at least in the community. Like the Kansas Citizen’s Review Board, it acts as a check on runaway power. It conjures up an alternative authoritative source. Is anything more authoritative than Strong Grandmothers?

“Injunctionize” the Chit? Once you are armed with the chit you should use it. Time is of the essence. Your local court regularly issues emergency injunctions, such as restraining orders. You could petition for an injunction. Lawyers often provide the judge with the desired wording.

Example:

“It is ordered that James Bart Connelly, born June 5, 2013, be returned to his parent Mary Joan Higgins, born _______ no later than______[say, a few days hence, or immediately], and it is ordered that she become the guardian until James attains age 18. The current custodian may seek judicial review of this decision if he believes Mary Joan Higgins will not be a suitable guardian for _____. Evidence of that may be submitted to the Court within 30 days.” [Make it easy for judge to agree!]

Now I offer a “template” for a chit. But please don’t treat it as gospel. And remember, your Board is not depending on cooperation from the judge. If no injunction is issued you still have a right to reunite the child with parent. Once again please note, the crime is not in reuniting them; the crime, a crime actually on the books, is leaving a child in danger.

TEMPLATE FOR A REUNION CHIT

1. Name, date of birth, and address of child ____________.
2. Name, address, phone number of Protective parent ___.
3. Name and occupation of signers of this chit (many)______.
4. Who has custody? Name, address, phone number, and relationship of that person ________________________.
5. Date of last court ruling ______. (Attach the ruling.)
6. Which court to petition for injunction regarding the chit?___.
7. Is the child presently in danger? ___. Describe_________.
8. Give reasoning why reunion is appropriate ______.
9. List of efforts already made in the case, unsuccessfully ____.
10. Indicate measures that can be taken to avoid disruption of child’s life as a result of reunion __________________.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true to my knowledge and belief. Signatures of board members _______ ____and witnessing of them ________________. Date _____.

The Back Cover

On the back cover of the Reunion book I tried to sum it up in the following words:

After a while, people began to see that “child protection schemes” were criminal. They said Enough!

Some issues had been elucidated by individuals caught in the system. For example, Parental Alienation Syndrome (invented by a disturbed doctor) had been recognized as a ploy for judicial kidnap. And impoverishment via legal costs was seen as a way to weaken the already harassed parent.

In Australia, a law that could stop anyone from revealing what goes on in the courtroom was really a gag order to conceal crime (hence is invalid). Plus, police were told to refuse help to any injured child “if the matter was before the court.”

Parents of disabled children ran into a different trap by signing a “parent responsibility contract” that resulted in the state taking the baby away on the flimsiest pretext.

One day Protective parents stopped tolerating judicial kidnap. They arranged to have a Reunion with offspring as soon as humanly possible. (For many, that could be within weeks.) They gathered in cities and issued ‘chits’ to parents who met basic criteria for getting their child back.

Chit holders could go to the clerk of the civil court and obtain an injunction for the return of the child. A coterie of parents would supervise each handover. State authorities would be given a list of officials to arrest if necessary.

The pass-code for imbuing good citizens with the right to issue chits was “God is not mocked.”