I once operated under the reasonable assumption that the system was designed to seek the truth and protect families. Instead, I experienced a coordinated deprivation of my constitutional rights, facilitated by the very professionals appointed to protect my daughter.
Here is the factual summary of the procedural and ethical violations that occurred, and have since gone unaccounted for.
In early 2015, my daughter, Kiyah, was placed in the care of her maternal grandmother. On February 21, 2015, therapist Mary Atwood completed an Initial Diagnostic Interview, explicitly documenting a “Personal history of Psychological Abuse in Childhood”. Despite this severe clinical indicator of pathogenic parenting, the caseworker, Chelsie Turner, deliberately isolated me. She mandated that Family Team Meetings be held exclusively at the grandmother’s home and actively excluded me from the ongoing planning process.
Documented Alienation and Professional Negligence
I formally reported the psychological manipulation occurring at the kinship placement. In November 2015, I provided documentation to caseworker Jill Johnson that Kiyah was being taught inappropriate, racist remarks and was being instructed to repeat fabricated stories about me at her grandmother’s home, an environment Kiyah referred to as the “popcorn house”. Internal agency communications confirm they were fully aware of this dynamic; caseworkers acknowledged in writing that Kiyah was “being coached”. Yet, rather than protect the child from this documented psychological abuse, the State allowed it to continue.
Retaliation and the Weaponization of Due Process
In response to the agency’s lack of transparency and procedural violations, I asserted my legal rights. I notified the caseworkers of my intent to hold them accountable for their actions and pursue civil litigation to protect my constitutional rights. The State immediately weaponized my self-advocacy. By August 2016, the court suspended my visitation based on the manufactured pretext that I posed a “threat” to case professionals.
Documented Bias and Surveillance
While I was systematically alienated from my child, the professionals overseeing her care demonstrated profound bias and unprofessionalism. Internal emails reveal caseworker Jill Johnson referring to the termination and permanency hearings as a “‘fun’ case” and “another one of those fun ones”. Furthermore, state actors actively surveilled my professional LinkedIn profile and monitored my personal blog to track my public advocacy regarding the case.
Coercion and the Unlawful Delegation of Custody
By 2018, internal agency memos conceded that the father was doing the “bare minimum” and that they lacked the evidentiary foundation to proceed with their claims against me. Consequently, the motions for termination of parental rights were dismissed.
However, instead of restoring my parental rights, the system pivoted to extortion. My own court-appointed counsel pressured me to sign a highly restrictive Safety Plan, explicitly leveraging my daughter’s placement to force my compliance. When I refused to surrender my rights under duress, I was forced to represent myself. Ultimately, the juvenile court disregarded my jurisdictional challenges and entered a Bridge Order transferring sole physical and legal custody to the father. This order unlawfully delegated my constitutionally protected right to visitation entirely to the arbitrary discretion of a party complicit in the alienation.
The state actors and professionals involved in this case did not merely fail in their statutory duties; they engaged in documented collusion, coercion, and the systemic dismantling of my family. I have assembled the primary source documentation proving these violations and will pursue all necessary legal and administrative remedies to restore my custody and ensure full accountability.