July 28, 2006
Honorable Matt Blunt
Office of the Governor
Room 216, State Capitol Building
Jefferson City MO 65101
I am writing on behalf of a family in your state involved in an ugly and difficult fight for their lives. Cheryl T. Barnes is the mother of 12 sons and presently living in Taney County. She is an excellent mother, a fine humanitarian, very intelligent and has done a remarkable job of raising these boys. The problem is, as a low-income mother of 12 children, her family is unfairly targeted as being “at-risk” by social services. Years ago, her 7th son was born prematurely in the hospital of another state. She was asked by a clerk to sign up for a state Medicaid card but refused because she carried private insurance back home. The clerk made a call to the child abuse hotline for medical neglectand little Taler was taken from her and placed in foster care. In foster care, Taler was abused so severely that he is now permanently blind in one eye and suffers from brain damage. Cheryl regained custody, sued and won a settlement. During her case and to this very day she works as an advocate for families dealing with these same struggles across our nation.
While this may seem controversial to some it is important to realize that, like Taler, many children are being wrongfully removed by overzealous and perhaps overworked social service caseworkers. This is a problem nationwide and many organizations, like my own, are working to reform the system so that those children who are not being battered are not taken into protective custody and, in turn, hopefully, more resources will be available for those children who genuinely need protection. While it is important to protect battered children, it is also important to protect children and families who are simply struggling through life like most folks on a low-income. Cheryl has been reported to social services about 50 or 60 times and has always used her vast knowledge of the law to resolve these reports. Cheryl is now being accused of spanking her 4 year old with a belt. In her words, “they came at me like a well organized raid, 8 cars, about 15 cops and social workers, search warrant …” This is a criminal charge which should be tried in Criminal court. As happens with many of these cases, when there isn’t enough evidence to make a Criminal case, the case is sent to Civil court. The knowledge that there was not enough evidence to make a Criminal case says a lot about the allegations and logic would dictate that if the evidence to support the allegations did not rise to a criminal level, then why are social services even going forward with a case against Cheryl and her family? There could be other reasons for the county taking these actions against Cheryl and her family. Is there a malicious agenda here to retaliate against Cheryl for her perceived controversial work in family advocacy or is she just a permanent target now and forever because she’s been accused in the past? The Judge in this case is refusing to place her children with relatives (even though all parties agree) unless she drops pending motions and waives adjudication. (Seepleadings.)
Another obvious problem with Cheryl’s situation is that her children, who love each other as young siblings in large families often do, could languish in foster care while the case is drawn out as cases like these often are. Foster care, as you probably know from the tragic stories that make the headlines, can be a very dangerous place. It’s such a gamble. Foster children are often subjected to physical abuse (like Taler), sexual abuse and even murder, not to mention the irreparable emotional damage this kind of separation causes. That is why organizations like mine advocate for foster care and adoption only for those children for whom there is absolutely no other option.
As you will see from the pleadings I have included in this letter, Cheryl T. Barnes knows the law. She represents herself in court. While the Court would probably prefer that this information not be made public, I believe that it is extremely important that the veil of confidentiality be lifted in support of this family and to show the truth. I know that Cheryl would want everyone to see the truth, not just the alleged, the implied, the speculation, but the facts, the evidence, the real truth. You will clearly see that Cheryl is an extremely intelligent woman, not some pathetic figure incapable of raising a family, and I can assure you her children are not battered children. Ask the Barnes children what they think of all this and they will tell you the truth!
In the meantime, it appears that social services will never leave her alone. It’s inhuman to constantly knock this woman down and place an obstacle in her path every time she gets back up. It’s hard being a woman in this world, harder still being a working woman trying to raise a family, let alone a family of 12. Yet, she just keeps going and giving to those boys, and giving to other families caught up in the same struggles. Why can’t the state of Missouri clear some of these obstacles from her path and applaud all her hard work? She deserves respect, not to be beaten down and terrorized by the Dept. of Social Services. But, above all, she deserves to exercise her rights to due process, she deserves to have her and her children’s legal rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, human rights upheld and honored.
Please do something to stop this from happening repeatedly. Please bring the Barnes children home immediately while the legal matter is being resolved! You have the power to help them, so please don’t hesitate to use it as quickly as possible.
Respectfully yours,
J. Holderbaum
www.childprotectionreform.com
Without Justice There Can Be No Closure
Enclosures: Pleadings and Photos of the Barnes Family
cc:
Michael Buenger
State Court Administrator
Office of State Courts Administrator
PO Box 104480
Jefferson City, MO 65110
The Honorable James K. Justus
Associate Circuit Court of Taney County
PO Box 1030
Forsyth, MO 65653
Sheena Pettit, Juvenile
PO Box 482
Forsyth, MO 65653
Eric Eighmy, Guardian ad Litem
274 Wintergreen Rd
Branson, MO 65616
Roger Owensby, Attorney for Children’s Division
Division of Leal Services
149 Park Central Square, Room 925
Springfield, MO 65806
Monica Whitt, Attorney for Children’s Division
820 E Montclair St 225
Springfield, MO 65807
Mr. Gary Sherman
Director
Missouri Department of Social Services
PO Box 1527
Broadway State Office Building
Jefferson City, MO 65102-1527
ACLU of Eastern Missouri
4557 Laclede Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63108
, Brenda Jones, Executive Director
, Tony Rothert, Legal Director
, Scott Emanuel, Public Education Manager
, Reddit Hudson, Racial Justice Manager
Amnesty International
United States of America
5 Penn Plaza - 14th floor
New York, NY 10001
Kim Hart, Executive Director
National Child Abuse Defense & Resource Center
NCADRC
P. O. Box 638
Holland, Ohio 43528
Press Release to the National Press
In Cheryl’s words:
“The Judge is our case is refusing to place my children with relatives (even though all parties agree) unless I drop pending motions and waive adjudication. It is pasted in the order it will be filed. The actual legal arguments are in the Suggestions in Support. …” (see text belowfrom actual pleadings - J.)
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
State of Missouri ex rel. Cheryl Barnes,
Relator;
vs.
The Honorable James K Justus, Judge, Associate Circuit Court of Taney County,
Respondent.
Cause No. ______
WRIT SUMMARY
Identity of parties and their attorneys in the underlying action:
Minor Children:
Clinton Barnes (09/18/1991)
Sterling Barnes (08/04/1993)
Tritton Barnes (10/07/1994)
Peter Barnes (08/19/1995)
Taler Barnes (03/13/1997)
Benjamen Barnes (02/14/1998)
Cebaschin Barnes (10/08/1999)
Deciman Barnes (06/19/2002)
Joseph Barnes (08/10/2004)
Dozen Barnes (10/08/2005)
Juvenile Officer: Sheena Pettit
Attorneys for Children’s Division:
Roger Owensby
Monica Whitt
Guardian ad Litem: Eric Eighmy
Mother: Cheryl Barnes
Father: Eugene Barnes
Nature of underlying action: Child abuse/neglect proceeding under RSMo 211.031
Actions of Respondent being challenged, including dates thereof:
July 14, 2006 – Respondent refused to hear pending motions after determining that said motions were properly served on all parties and called up for hearing. Respondent refused to approve a relative placement agreement, agreed upon by all parties, unless Mother withdrew all pending motions. Pending motions addressed issues of visitation, deficiencies in the protective custody order and discovery. Pending motions did not address the issue of relative placement.
July 17, 2006 – Service agreements and safety plans were signed with Children’s Division and agreed to by all parties. Respondent stated via the Guardian ad Litem that he would not approve the placement agreement unless Mother withdrew all pending motions, agreed not to file any further motions and waived her adjudication. Specifically Respondent stated via the Guardian ad Litem, “You can either work on the written service agreement or the legal battle; it has to be one or the other.”
Relief sought by Relator: Because parents have a well established right to due process, children have a right to remain in their own home if safety is assured and a right to be cared for by relatives when possible, and because Judge cannot interfere with placement decisions made by the Children’s Division unless those decisions violate state law or are contrary to the welfare of the children; Relator requests this court issue mandamus compelling Respondent to place children with relatives per agreement by all parties and to set a hearing and rule on pending motions.
Date case set for trial: August 11, 2006 at 1:00 pm
***
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT
State of Missouri ex rel. Cheryl Barnes,
Relator;
vs.
The Honorable James K Justus, Judge, Associate Circuit Court of Taney County,
Respondent.
Cause No. ______
***
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Cheryl Barnes (hereinafter referred to as Mother), Relator, for the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, states:
Statement of Facts
1. Relator is the Mother of twelve sons. Two sons are adults and have moved out of the home. The oldest son lives with his girlfriend and they have one daughter. The second son is married and lives with his wife. [Exhibit A]
2. The Juvenile Office commenced child abuse/neglect proceedings in the interests of Mother’s youngest ten minor children on June 29, 2006. The proceedings are filed as ten separate actions; one for each minor child. The underlying case numbers are 006AF-JU00094, 006AF-JU00089, 006AF-JU00087, 006AF-JU00091, 006AF-JU00093, 006AF-JU00095, 006AF-JU00088, 006AF-JU00096, 006AF-JU00090 and 006AF-JU00092.
3. Mother filed a set of ten Answers to the Petitions on June 30, 2006.
4. A Protective Custody hearing was held on June 30, 2006 and subsequent order for protective custody issued for all ten children. The protective custody order states:
a. Temporary legal custody is hereby continued with the Missouri Children’s Division who shall have the duty and be authorized to provide for … appropriate alternative placement. [Exhibit B]
5. Mother filed a set of nine Motions for Visitation [Exhibit C] on July 3, 2006. Mother did not file a visitation motion for the tenth child because his current status is runaway. Mother noticed these motions for hearing on July 14, 2006 at 9:00 am.
6. Mother filed a set of ten Motions to Amend Judgment in Protective Custody Hearing [Exhibit D] on July 10, 2006. Mother noticed these motions for hearing on July 14, 2006 at 9:00 am.
7. After submitting two Informal Requests for Discovery to the Juvenile Officer, Mother filed a set of ten Motions to Compel Previously Requested Discovery Material on July 14, 2006. Mother requested a ruling be issued on these motions based on the pleadings without a hearing.
8. Prior to the court hearing on Friday, July 14, 2006, Mother reached an agreement with the Juvenile Officer, the Guardian ad Litem and the Children’s Division regarding a relative placement plan. The plan included the following stipulations:
a. The oldest child, Clinton Barnes (14 years of age) would be placed with his father (Eugene Barnes).
b. The remaining nine children would return to their own home under the care of their adult brother (Blase Page) and his wife (Flavia Page).
c. Mother would move out of the home.
d. All parties would meet at Mother’s home on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 3:00 pm to sign safety plans, with subsequent placement of the children the following day (Tuesday).
9. When the cause was called for hearing on the pending motions, Respondent, Judge James Justus, was informed of the proposed relative placement plan. He inquired about the pending motions and whether they were properly served and called up for hearing. After determining that the motions were properly served and called up, Respondent asked Mother what evidence she was going to introduce.
10. Mother stated that all her evidence was in the contents of the motions and began to explain issues in the Motion to Amend Judgment in Protective Custody Hearing. Respondent interrupted, saying he didn’t have time to hear the motions that day and instructed all parties to prepare their “conflicts” and set the cause for hearing.