Copyright © 1997 By Ray Thomas, Updated 2007


This is written for those who are innocent of child abuse. For whom no real proof exists that they are, indeed, child abusers. This report is designed to be a self-defense manual to help you resist the baying hounds of CPS and force them to abide by the law and the Constitution in dealing with you. I'll tell you about many of the scams, schemes and cons they use to get you to give them permission to ignore your Constitutional rights, the patterns that you will find in their treatment of you and your children in their efforts to twist your every word and action to show guilt where none exists. I'll also give you a (partial) list of the things they use to judge abuse, and some tips for your use in resisting their scams. It is hoped that if you are forewarned, you will be better able to stop them from raping you and your family the way they do about 80% of the others who are accused of child abuse.


But if you're guilty--and if you are, you know it--you might as well stop reading right here because this report will not help you avoid what is rightfully coming. No one hates a child abuser, particularly a child sexual abuser more than I do, and those who are guilty of it deserve what they get. But I still want those accused of child abuse, even the guilty, to get the same rights that are offered to murderers and other criminals, major or minor. That they be allowed to confront their accusers and be able to sue them for damages if they lie in their charges (One good description of a CPS snitch line is this: a 911 service that cannot distinguish between life-threatening crimes and littering). That child abuse, sexual or otherwise, be proved in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt before any action can be taken other than possibly the temporary removal of the children (only if there is ample evidence that abuse is actually taking place and the child is in real danger if left in the home).

And even in this case, I want the parent to have the right to an immediate hearing (and not a rubber stamp hearing to legalize kidnapping, which is how it is as this is written) to determine if the charges are real or simply the result of someone's personal opinion, not backed up by any real evidence (with postponements kept to a minimum by court order, and no unsupervised questioning sessions allowed with the children at any time). That all questions of guilt be decided on the innocent until proven guilty standard used in all other courts, as directed by the Constitution. In short: I want the same rights granted to CPS victims as are granted to a rapist or a murderer. That's it. No bias here in favor of the molester, as CPS would have you believe. But a definite bias in favor of everybody concerned obeying the law of the land and the Constitution.

Last, and maybe most important, I want the practice of billing the victims for the cost of foster care in cases where they've been proven innocent to be stopped. This practice adds insult to injury, and allows CPS to collect money for expenses incurred when they violate people's Constitutional rights. To force victims to pay the victimizers for the cost of the victimization is an abomination. Worse yet, they're getting laws passed in all states to create a database of deadbeat parents so they can permanently stigmatize those who refuse to pay this ransom by designating this money as legitimate child support. They even want to be able to keep such people from getting any kind of license, from driver's licenses to professional licenses, and be able to take such licenses they do have away as well, all on the "bureaucratic designation" that they are a deadbeat parent--for refusal to pay the cost of their victimization.


Under the watchwords "the best interests of the child," 130,000 kids are taken from their parents each year by a system geared to act first and ask questions later. However, two-thirds of the 2.2 million reports of child maltreatment in 1986 turned out to be unfounded. And of the substantiated reports, only 15 percent involved any serious risk to the child's safety, according to Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and first director of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. "It's this 15 percent," he concluded, "that need the kind of intervention the Krachts received but Lisa Steinberg didn't: immediate removal from the home. [The Krachts represent a well-documented case of false accusation of child abuse and Lisa Steinberg was killed when she was not removed from the home. -RT] An atmosphere of well-justified concern for maltreated children has bred a monster that can traumatize both parents and kids, trampling their rights to a parent-child relationship."

Dan Zegart wrote this in 1989, in an article in Ms. Magazine. But the figures are much higher today, mostly because of the incessant drumbeat of stories in the press instigated by power seekers in our government who wish to use the children in their quest to dominate the rest of us. People today are more aware than ever of just how easy it is to "lead Child Protective Services around by the nose" in falsely reporting child abuse. All it takes is an anonymous call to one of their many snitch lines to set the (CPS) hounds baying after both innocent and guilty people, and they don't bother to make a distinction, in most cases. "If you're reported, you must be guilty" in their lexicon. Prosecutors use child abuse cases as an easy route to higher office, since it's much easier to convict someone of child abuse than of murder. The "standards of proof" are much lower. And they can easily trump up charges against their critics, since all it takes is the charge for CPS to start "baying after them."


Child abuse has in recent years taken on a witch hunt atmosphere wherein all it takes is a simple anonymous telephone report to start the nightmare, both for innocent parents and their children. Good Samaritan laws (for the most part) completely protect everybody from retaliation even if they lied in their report for an ulterior motive. The same laws force health and child care professionals (anyone who deals regularly with children professionally) to report any suspicion of abuse to the children in their care. If they don't, they face penalties which could range from reprimand to the loss of their license and financial ruin, even charges being filed against them. Even the children know how easy it is to nullify their parents by charging them with child abuse. They're taught that in school. But what they don't know is what such charges are going to mean for themselves, when they're ripped from their families and placed in foster care where, figures prove, they are much more apt to be abused.


There is a well-documented anti-family bias in the child protection industry and when CPS workers go after you, you are deemed guilty as soon as you're reported. Never mind the proof. The fact that 60%-80% of child abuse charges today are unsubstantiated seems to be lost on them. They think they're right, and they won't hear otherwise.

Here I must say that I don't believe every child protection worker to be a monster. There are many well-meaning, but unfortunately ill-trained individuals there who really want to do good. Unfortunately, they, themselves, have been brainwashed into believing that all parents are potential child-abusers and that they do not harm the children (they do) by taking them from the home. A large percentage of them however, are paranoid, and see sex offenders under every bed (or on top). Many are in the business only because they were themselves in the foster care system and many were abused there. They see a child sex offender in a man who changes his daughter's diapers and while doing so, touches her privates. They see an abuser with every whack on the backside. Those people are sick.


"It's time we started to recognize the self-serving nature of the various abuse crusades that get launched with ever-increasing regularity by that coalition of groups in our society: social workers, therapists, the media, the courts, the shelters, etc., which make their livings by exploiting, and oftentimes creating, family pathology." This is a quote from Fidelity, February, 1985, page 33, on the "cottage industry" that has sprung up around child abuse, whose very reason for being is to make the problem more severe so as to enhance their bottom line at the expense of the family. The article further said: "It's time to stop the funding of parasites who make their living by creating problems for themselves to solve. Those professionals who would become surrogate parents in the name of concern for the children do nothing more than guarantee future business for the therapeutic state. By attacking the family they create, willingly or not, a nation of patients ready to seek them out for treatment (And if CPS has its way, are forced to seek them out for treatment.)."


The federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 requires that reasonable efforts be made to keep families together and that only children in real danger of maltreatment be placed in foster care. But, according to Mary Lee Allen, director of child welfare and mental health for the Children's Defense Fund, there is considerable gap between theory and practice. In other words, they tell you they're interested in keeping the kids at home, but are much more quick to take them than to leave them at home in almost all cases, because that's where the money--and the power--is.


It has become a common theme for a spouse to accuse the other spouse of child abuse or child sexual abuse in order to gain an advantage in a divorce case. In fact, attorneys routinely advise them to do so, true or not. And this is not just in contested divorces. In many cases, both spouses are accusing each other of child abuse. In most cases it's: "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do," because once the CPS thugs get their hands on the kids, they just don't want to give them up. They use every lying, deceitful trick in the book to keep them. They've been known, in many cases, to push for adoption for the children, even in cases where abuse cannot be proven. Neither parent then has any rights, even the one whose lies got it all started. False child abuse charges have become a valuable tool to be used in other conflicts as well, such as landlord-tenant disputes and even in auto accidents. It has become known as an easy way to hurt your opponent without cost to yourself. CPS willingly hurts them for you and you are completely protected from any but unlawful retaliation. I predict it will become a useful tool in many other areas in the future, too.

Another common theme is for CPS people to come in on a case where the parents have found evidence that someone else has abused one or more of their children, and they immediately accuse the parents. Then they proceed as if the parents were guilty. One famous story involved a couple whose child was the subject of flashing by a man who broke into her bedroom. CPS charged the father with it. They demanded he leave the home before the child could be returned, even though they couldn't make a case in court. They were ready to go for revocation of parental authority in preparation to put the child up for adoption when the father caught the man breaking into the same window and apprehended him. The man was convicted of being the perpetrator both times. CPS was unmoved. They continued their quest until the judge ordered the child returned. Then they attempted to collect money for foster care.


Subjectivism insists that there are no absolutes, while Objectivism insists that there are. The hilarious thing about it is that both are making statemets of an absolute when they insist on their opposing philosophies. This doesn't hurt the Objectivists, because they not only admit the existence of absolutes, it is a basic part of their philosophy. But the fact that the subjectivists' very statement of principles negates not only their statement, but their entire philosophy as well, infuriates them, since their philosophy is a simple mechanism which, if accepted, relieves them of all responsibility and allows them to decide for themselves what laws mean. This gives them a lot of power and that's what they want. Subjectivism is a philosophy most bureaucrats adhere to (whether they know it or not) because it's a valuable tool for them.

Child abuse laws tend to be subjective because that gives the CPS workers license to decide for themselves just what constitutes abuse in all cases. That means they can make a dirty sock on the floor, or even the fact that a parent is a smoker into a full-blown abuse case at their whim. The courts back them up because the standard of evidence allowed in family court is not the same as in criminal court. In criminal court, the accused must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. In family court, the standard is simply by a preponderance of evidence. Hearsay evidence, the subjective judgement and the opinion of the CPS people are given much more weight than that of the defendant. The cards, in other words, are well and truly stacked in favor of CPS.


If they can't prove you're guilty and if the court acquits you of abuse, their opinion is this: "Just because we couldn't prove it does not make you innocent. This 'not guilty' verdict only means we couldn't come up with enough evidence to prove your guilt." In other words, you have been guilty since they first accused you, because they accused you, and even though the court has not convicted you, you are still guilty. You just can't win with these people.


Every bureaucracy has patterns in their operations. If you can figure out what these patterns are, you're a lot closer to beating them than if you're ignorant of them. Let's look at some of the patterns used by child protective services workers:


Child Protection authorities go out of their way to stop parents from punishing their children in any effective way, then they make laws punishing the parents when those children get into trouble. The children learn quickly, too. In many cases, children who report child abuse are doing so in order to flout parental authority. In the Paul and Jenny Kracht case (Ms. Magazine, June, 1989, page 78), the child who made the charge had warned his father on several occasions that if he made him go to school, he'd be sorry. Well, he's sorry now. And so is his son, who didn't know what kind of a buzzsaw he was turning loose on his family.

Continued | HOME