The Reality behind the Bewick Family Tragedy
A
Need to Review Child Protective Services in Sacramento
In May 2000, the Bewick children, ages 5, 8 and 10, were removed unjustly
from a good home and loving parents by Child Protective Services of Sacramento.
This story illustrates the powers given to CPS that violate due process of
the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. Virtually every family in California
could be subject to false accusation and their children taken and placed in
"protective custody" while the "system" proceeds ponderously
to a final conclusion that an error had been made. This problem is not limited
to California.
See similar case in Oregon at
Government Child Theft
Child Protection Services across the country, on the basis of unfounded allegations
of abuse, have virtually unchallengeable rights and authority to remove your
children from their homes, including even those children who come from good
families. This is a fearful process which may find excuses for the control
of our children in future generations on grounds other than abuse.
The case below illustrates the consequences to such a family when the social
workers for CPS and the Prosecuting legal system for CPS are in league to
distort the truth, with the benefit to the Prosecuting Counsel of getting
a conviction and to CPS of receiving federal funds to support their system.
It boils down to an issue not of truth and justice, but to a matter of dollars,
and in this very public case to protecting not the family but the system.
January 24, 2001. There will be continuous updates on this WEB page
Having been Exposed for Medical Lies, CPS now Attempts to Create Psychological
Lies
Note: the Bewick 8-year old son and the 11-year old daughter have refused
to meet with the Professional Counselors, who were to take the stand during
the January 8,9 hearings to aid in the continual retention of our children
by CPS. As of the last appointment date the boy requested to no longer his
counselor, stating he was bored with her and wanted to come home (to his parents;he
is presently with the grandparents.) Of course his request to return home
was heavily questioned and scrutinized by the Counselor. The daughter refuses
to see her Counselor for the reasons described below under good reason.
Update January 5, 2001 Prosecutor, Rebecca Subtell, has been replaced (commentary
forthcoming on the extreme tactics used by this CPS servant). "She has
also been relocated to another county where she will be allowed to continue
her practice under the umbrella of obscurity provided by CPS?"
Financial cost to the Family The Bewick Family has been forced to sell their
home to pay for attorney's fees. CPS is now going after them for child support
for the 6 months the 3 children were in foster care.
Update January 3, 2001: The present course of action being chosen by the Sacramento
Child Protective Services now places in jeopardy the professional and political
futures not only the participants who willfully and falsely contributed to
the illegal and illegitimate removal of the Bewick children from their home
9 months ago, but also those who have knowledge of this case and willfully
allow this travesty to continue. CPS knows that it made an egregious error
in interfering with the lives of a good family, and it now fears the political
fallout of a multi-million dollar counter suit. Any attempt to cover up that
error by generating a new set of falsified "evidence" against the
Bewick family will arouse the most harsh exposure and criticism from this
source. The full and forced public scrutiny of CPS and its agents will be
assured. Indeed, unassociated observers who have been made aware of the details
of this case are outraged at the cynical disregard CPS has shown for the rule
and spirit of the law and the principles of common decency that are expected
to prevail within and issue forth from that agency in our free and democratic
society. CPS and its legal branch have blatantly converted a mandate to "protect
children" into system of political corruption which flaunts the intent
of every constitutional principle in which we believe and which has been instituted
to protect and ensure the private citizen with due and just process.
False Medical Reports CPS's so-called medical experts were unable to interpret
the most elementary medical data and indeed were willing to provide false
medical conclusions in their initial reports against the Bewick family. When
challenged in Court, CPS withdrew its charges (see medical rebuttal, also,
below). Rather than have testimony introduced into the Court record a compromise
was presented to the bench wherein the Prosecuting Counsel would not present
their (falsified) claims of nutritional neglect.
Now, an Attempt to Generate False Psychological Reports? With this clear precedence
of illegitimacy and malpractice on the medical reports, Dr. Susan Fossum is
strongly advised by this writer for the well being of her professional credibility
not to react at the behest of CPS in following a path of malpractice with
falsified claims on psychological evaluations. In her report of June 7, 2000,
she asked this little girl "what three wishes she would most like to
have come true" and the child responded with "1) 'To get everyone
to believe in Jesus'; 2) 'To give money and stuff to the poor and food'; and
3) 'To not let people be foolish, like rich and they make fun of other people.'"
Later in the report Dr. Fossum referred to the "odd religious beliefs"
of this family (In fact, Baptists represent a highly credible and well respected
Christian faith.) Arguably, there is a question as to the source of the sociopathology
here. All the children are reestablished with family members, and they are
happy and normalized because they came from a responsible and loving family
environment in the first place. I have previously addressed issues of conflict
of interest with the psychologists' involvement in this case. Furthermore,
when the psychologist has placed herself in an adversarial position with the
Bewick parents, and indeed with the oldest daughter who refuses to see her
for any more counseling meetings and for a good reason, her attempt to foist
herself on this family through Court order as counselor for both parents and
children is obviously motivated by other than appropriate professional interest
or any form of wisdom whatsoever. Such logic would be analogous to a proposal
that holocaust victims receive psychological counseling from their Nazi tormentors.
I have drawn similar parallels before in CPS's treatment of the Bewick family,
and I assure you they are valid. This has become a case of emotional tyranny.
Any attempt now at a psychological indictment of any member of the Bewick
family would be no different than the mentality of those corrupt governments
that engage in the imprisonment of their political opponents through Court-mediated
psychological condemnation.
As a message to the remaining members of the CPS system, and those prosecuting
and persecuting the Bewick family, I strongly advise that you review your
positions carefully and back off.
Update December 30, 2000: Repeatedly, the Court has ordered Child Protective
Services to provide an update on the progress of the Bewick children who now
reside successfully and comfortably with the grandparents (the two older children)
or the parents (the youngest child.) And repeatedly, in hearings held in October,
November, and December, CPS has failed to provide those reports, because those
reports would be favorable to the family. Instead, CPS and the prosecution
have attempted to revive reports that from the beginning have been proven
false and contrived. CPS has chosen to be in contempt of court rather than
acknowledge and report on the truth: that the Bewick children were never abused
in the first place, and that CPS has acted outside of and in violation of
its mandate. It is not insignificant that several bungling components of the
CPS system have been replaced or demoted, but it is disappointing that this
case has evolved into one of political protectionism. That will not be tolerated,
and I suspect that if the replacement judge, Judge Peterson, were privileged
to voice a private opinion, his too would be one of dismay and disgust.
Update November 9, 2000: Finally, the youngest daughter has been returned
to her parents; two remain with the grandparents. All three had been held
hostage for more than 6 months by CPS in separate foster homes with strangers,
good as they were! An experienced foster parent privately declared that it
was clear the children had NOT been abused -- I repeat, NOT abused!
The takeover by CPS could have happened to any normal, healthy family in Sacramento
-- and beyond. The past Administration increased Federal funding to encourage
adoption of foster children with states receiving $6,000 to $10,000 per child.
There is a financial incentive here, and the stated policy of CPS in Sacramento
favors adoption over family reconciliation, which is justified in extreme
cases of abuse, but one must be diligent to prevent mistakes. The intensity
of both Social Workers within CPS and the ongoing attempts of the Prosecution
to win their losing case demonstrate that "diligence" will not come
form their quarters.
Update October End: Having lost virtually on all fronts, the prosecution for
CPS, Rebecca Sudtell et al now pursue the question, "Is spanking cruel?"
Is there no more dignity or erudition to the thought processes of this prosecutor
and CPS than to continue the harassment of the Bewick family with the absurd?
No, spanking is not cruel when a parent loves a child. Spanking as a form
of disciple is a universal cultural heritage and greater argument may be brought
to bear that spanking builds character and discipline when applied with love.
Is there an issue of cruelty to the parents when CPS "legally kidnaps"
their children for over 6 months? Is the system cruel when these children
cry alone at night for their parents? Is it cruel to emotionally disrupt the
bonding between parent and child? Is it cruel for CPS agents to undermine
the parental image? Is it cruel to denigrate Christian values before the children?
Is it cruel to disempower parental authority? Is it cruel to disrupt the family
unit without just cause as now is being proven? Is it cruel to tear a crying
child from her father? Is it cruel to deny a mother visitation with her children
because she prays with them that they will soon be returned to their home?
The issue of cruelty is owned by CPS and its incompetent agents who have engaged
in poor judgement, lies, deceit,manipulation and finally all for personal
gain and ego satisfaction, or is the system just plainly corrupted with a
fundamental incompetence?
Update October 13, 2000: Child Protective Service placed great emphasis on
official medical reports in their charges against the Bewick family.They alleged
that the oldest daughter was found in a state of dehydration and suffered
from "acute starvation." These medical allegations permeate official
reports. When confronted with the possibility of professional rebuttal in
court, the prosecuting attorney declined to hear testimony from an expert
witness. A compromise was reached wherein the prosecutor Rebecca Subtell agreed
to delete CPS medical allegations in her closing arguments. For part of the
testimony that would have been presented see Medical Rebuttal.
Update October Beginning, 2000: Following an internal investigation by CPS,
Claudia Boyd has been assigned to the job of Home Evaluation for the placement
of foster children. Since she has been the Court Investigator on the Bewick
caes, does this change in responsibility reflect a demotion?
Update August 30, 2000: The Court Referee (judge), Susan Aguilar, has now
been forced to disqualify herself from the Bewick case -- as of August 30,
2000. She had no choice! She would have been disqualified (removed) by a higher
Court. She is not exempt, however, from censure and permanent removal from
the system by the Judicial Council for the State of California. There are
extensions of the August 4, 2000 letter on "Repression" (See The
Court Represses the Truth), which should assure that outcome -- if integrity
may be realized at higher levels of judicial authority in this State. (This
update may be expanded.)
Note: This case has now been brought to the attention of higher authorities
in the system that are genuinely concerned and appropriately sensitive to
the situation at hand, and I feel not simply for the obvious political reasons.
But, the Court operates independently of CPS. The only correct course for
the new Court to take is to return these children to their parents and to
their home in the most expeditious manner possible.
Update August 29, 2000: No, the criminals are not all in jail. And some deeply
sick types are loose and functioning in CPS. What other conclusion could be
drawn when a little girl, the one in the picture, in the custody of CPS is
forcibly examined for sexual abuse. A month ago this 5-year-old daughter of
the Bewick family kicked and screamed with such resistance to examination,
I mean internal examination, that at least one sane physician refused to proceed.
The agents for CPS have been unable to come up with any real evidence of child
abuse against the Bewick parents. No history of drugs. No history of alcohol...just
a history of decency. So they have sought to discover evidence of sexual abuse.
The one primary individual who is already on the ropes for other misbehavior
in this fraudulent case is the CPS social worker in charge of the case, Claudia
Boyd.
It is Claudia Boyd and perhaps et al who, in the true spirit of a brilliant
sleuth(s), put two observations together and concluded that there was a red
flag for sexual abuse. The two observations? First, the little girl was afraid
of having her picture taken. Second, she was afraid of a male teacher who
was to escort her into the classroom on her first day of school. From these
two quite dissociated events, the most brilliant Claudia Boyd, enigmatically
deduced that the child had been sexually abused. Therefore, she must be examined.
And she was, finally! At present, the circumstances of that examination, approximately
two weeks ago, are a 'black box.' Children's rights must be protected. On
this second round did the child protest? Was she crying? Was she kicking and
screaming as in the first attempt? We do not know. The mother was not allowed
to be present.
My umbrage lacks control as I write this piece. The news has just been relayed
to me. The most honest and dedicated Claudia Boyd et al previously tormented
the parents by announcing that the child was to be taken to the UC Davis Medical
Center for the examination on a particular day. The parents arrived, very
distressed. The sister of the mother was also present. There was a verbal
confrontation -- naturally -- all quite calculated by the infamous CPS agents.
The sister now has lost her visitation rights with all three children because
she supposedly interfered [Another issue to be explored.] However, the little
girl was not present, nor was she to be examined that day. It was a set up!
Then, on an unannounced day, the examination was performed. As I stated in
this update, there are 'criminal' (qualification 'cruel') types among us!
The outcome of that examination? Absolutely negative evidence for sexual abuse!
But what have they done to a child, truly innocent in every sense of the word,
"innocence." The conclusion that CPS agents emotionally abused this
child is indefeasible, and sexual overtones of abuse may find linkage to a
sociality contrary to normal family functioning. The behavior of the principles
in this case, their cruelty, inhumanity, and the suffering, which they have
caused to the members of this family, are beyond outrage. Or, if any reader
does not agree, become the mother for a moment, or the father, both helpless
to defend their children, or the little girl, and read the full contents of
this WEB site.
Update August 12: As a sequel to August 11, the KOVR-13 News reported that
the mother was going to fast until her children were returned. Transcripts
of the court proceedings will refute this allegation, but the report is characteristic
of Susan Aguilar's distortion of fact (here creation of fact) and manipulation
of the media. It is noteworthy also that Aguilar has imposed a gag order that,
however, does not apply to herself. Finally, on Thursday, August 17, Aguilar
will rule on whether the mother is to be held in contempt of Court and thereby
permanently lose visitation rights. The Reason? The mother, while praying
with her children said, "Lord, we pray that the children will be able
to come home to us." The phrase "come home" was unacceptable
to the Court.
Update August 11: See KOVR-13 News story by Jodi Hernandez This news story
might just as well be titled a cover-up for cruelty. The story uses the phrase,"...the
parents of the little girl who claimed that she was kidnapped by the devil."
Who made the claim...parents or little girl? Then, there was no kidnapping.
"Kidnapping" was part of a dream...an hallucination... or imagination...and
none are provable. The second part of the story relates, "the mother
told her children she was fasting for them to return." Then comes the
CPS-Court distortion: "Cheyenne Bewick allegedly told her kids she was
fasting for their return...a statement that reportedly made her children fear
she may die." The Bewicks are religious. They are Baptists. "Fasting"
is no more remarkable than "playing" for children brought up in
a religious culture. The same with the "devil"... for atheists it
might be the "boogie man." This story is calculated to push the
public's emotional buttons.
The consequence of these distortions? Susan Aguilar cut off the mother's visitation
with her children, which inhumanely and cruelly had already been reduced to
one hour a week. And what here is the abuse to the children -- to be denied
visitation with their mother for two weeks. Is this not forced abandonment?
Who is guilty here?
Further, the Aguilar's ruling was based not on direct witness or cross examination,
but "alleged" -- at least three parties removed. What is a Kangaroo
Court? And this outrage is happening in America!
The
Plight of a Family Caught in the Grip of the Child Protective Services in
California
There has been considerable effort to repress the facts of the Bewick case
in Sacramento. The three Bewick children were taken from their parents without
good cause. Information given to the press by the Juvenile Court and Child
Protective Services was distorted from the beginning. The documents contained
herein describe the anatomy of those distortions. Readers may draw their own
conclusions. Susan Aguilar, Court Referee (judge) for the Juvenile Court,
has attempted to repress an August 4, 2000 communication describing the real
circumstances of the Bewick case. The broader concern is what may be happening
to families, whose children have been taken, where the semblance of abuse
may be translated ultimately into removal of the children from good homes
and adoption into other families. This is not a hyperbolic statement; the
Bewicks were warned by their attorneys of that worst case scenario. This is
a reality that arises from recent Administration policy that provides federal
monitory incentives for 'adoption' over 'family reconciliation.'See Federal
incentives for adoption (research in process.) Many interpret this as an attack
on the integrity of the family structure.
The full import of the reality of what has happened to the Bewick Family will
come as a shock to those who fully investigate the information herein with
additional to be provided. The intent of legislation to prevent child abuse
is laudable and of the highest order. The goal is to protect truly abused
children, but legislation does not control the consequences of 'bureaucracy
growth' which is the 'need' for children to feed the system. Also, efficient
implementation of good policy depends upon the integrity and the competence
of the administrators. There is no mechanism for common sense solutions or
reversal of 'mistakes.' What is being done about this problem? Innocent children
and families suffer. There are flaws within Child Protective Services all
over the country. The Sacramento County CPS, linked with the Juvenile Court,
has made a glaring mistake with the Bewick family that raises serious issues
of credibility and competence. The problem may not be restricted to the immediate
participants in the Bewick case. Administrators also must bear their share
of responsibility. For the Bewicks, the 'flaws' have translated into abuse
in reverse. Once a child is taken, though parents or guardians may be proven
innocent, the system devours its victims though the inefficiency of long,
drawn out court procedures. Social workers, judges, attorneys, psychologists,
support personnel, and administrators all profit. Salaries are replete, and
federal finding is increased. There are motives to keep even the children
of innocent parents within the system.
Once a bureaucracy is established, there is a need to maintain that bureaucracy.
What bureaucracy in State or Federal government has ever diminished in size?
Again, in the case of Child Protective Services, the source of 'grist' is
children. In the extreme hypothetical condition, if suddenly tomorrow all
parents and guardians were to become ideal - and abuse non-existent - would
there be those, so dependent upon salary and so intent upon maintaining the
momentum of their professions, or so imbued with a mindset, who would seek
abuse where there was none? Regrettably, yes! It is human nature, albeit the
baser part. There are other stories across the country where CPS case workers
who, without just cause, but imbued with power,and hopefully a minority, threaten
parents with warrants to remove their children - often on the basis of hearsay
from a vindictive neighbor. Success in the profession [and income] depends
on performance or numbers of 'convictions.' The world does not think, believe,
and act like those of us who are honest and truly caring about children. This
very problem appears to be the source of grief for the Bewick family! Most
people would not believe that a good and loving family could be so abused
by the system. But, it has happened here! Hopefully, the nightmare will end
August 10, 2000, when jurisdiction of this case passes to the Washoe Indian
Tribal Council. Then and only then are we likely to see justice!
The public perception of the Bewick family tragedy begins with a completely
distorted view of the facts which were given to the press. CPS workers and
the Juvenile Court were "imbued with a mindset." A more detailed
investigation reveals a quite different picture. The chronological development
follows the order of the documents presented below.
Read on!
Constitutional and Civil Rights Violated by CPS -- by Stephen Bewick, Brother
of the Father
A Violation of Parental, Civil and Constitutional Rights The Plight of the
Family and CPS Motives The Court Represses the Truth What Really Happened
The Illogic of the Newspaper Accounts; the first Red Flag
Update August 10:Susan Aguilar Controls the Press While a "gag order"
is imposed on the proceedings of the Bewick trial, Susan Aguilar is controlling
the information that is to be released to the press.
Update August 10: Susan Aguilar, is reinforcing her threats to participants
in the court proceedings with a "gag order" on the court proceedings
for the Bewick family. The gag order exists for one singular reason, and that
is to protect Susan Aguilar.
Update August 9: Susan Aguilar is extremely angry with the exposure of Court
and CPS manipulations published August 4, 2000. See Susan Aguilar Attempts
to Repress the Truth The commentary is very factual and drawn directly from
CPS and Court records. Child Protective Services produced a Case Plan, on
May 26. They attempted (and failed) to get signatures from the Bewick parents.
Signing would be tantamount to a guilty plea. The obvious question is: Shouldn't
a Case Plan be a consequnce of Court action?
Comment August 9: The August 4, 2000 document also questions the Findings
of the Court. The analysis is proof positive that Susan Aguilar generates
"findings" without evidence. In civil and criminal courts, "findings"
are ordinarily the conclusions drawn after a trial. In Juvenile Court "findings"
appear before a trial. This follows the principle that in Juvenile Court that
the accused is guilty until proven innocent. In brief, Susan Aguilar found
and announced prematurely in the Sacramento Bee that "the child had suffered
physical and emotional abuse." Of course, the medical reports refute
the first, and the psychologists can not prove the latter. The children were
taken by CPS, separeted into different foster homes, and now suffer abuses
of the "system." That is very stark realily, readers! And it continues
to be a very painful process for this family.
Question August 7:: The Court date for a pretrial was August 8, 2000, and
well publicized. The news media and others were well-informed of this date.
Why was that hearing then held on August 7, 2000?
Update August 7, 2000: At the August 7, 2000 hearing, the Juvenile Court Referee
(judge) Susan Aguilar refused a "stay" of the proceedings, i.e.,
to delay the August 10, 2000 hearing. The "stay" was requested by
attorneys for the Bewick parents. Cheyenne Bewick is a Native American. The
Washoe Council of Nevada is entitled to assume jurisdiction of the case. Aguilar
was adamant that this would not happen and violated both Federal statutes
and Native American rights by refusing to grant a "stay" of 10 days
as required by law. It is expected today, August 10, 2000, that she may be
forced to acquiesce to the attorney representing Native American rights or
remain in violation.
Letters to Authorities
· California Governor Grey Davis
· James Hunt, Director, Sacramento County Health and Human Services
· Leland Tom, Deputy Director, Sacramento County Child Protective Services
· Board of Supervisors, Sacramento County
· Terry Schutten,Sacramento County Executive
· Lee Ismail,Deputy County Executive
Conflicts of Interest
A Glaring Conflict of Interest
Note: other "conflicts" to be added to this site.
Samuel S. Kent, Ph.D and Professor
140 N. Tuacahn Drive, lot 28, Ivins, Utah 84738
e-mail:samkent@earthlink.net .
Tel: (435)
688-7374
Note: This page last revised January 7, 2001