Peter Amschel, SBN 56448

2 41110 Quail Road

Hemet, California 92544
4 Tel: 951-797-8592
6
Attorneys for: Parents in trial and appeal;
8

10

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
16

18
Case No.: SWJ009263
Kendel B. Amschel Date: July 27, 2010
Time: 8:00 A. M.
Department: S102
Affidavit Pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 388

20
State of California )
22 : SS.
County of Riverside )
24
Peter Amschel, after being duly sworn upon oath, does depose
26 and say:
1. I am the paternal grandparent of the minor child Kendel.
28 2. I am related to the minor child by blood.
3. I am submitting to the court in this petition that the court
30 should find that it is in the best interests of the minor child to
order that the minor child be returned immediately to the
32 parents and that the petitioner herein should be estopped to
complain, because of the following:
34
 a. Declarations were filed herein at the time of the
2 jurisdictional hearing, which declarations are incorporated
herein by reference, and testimony at that jurisdictional
4 hearing which was not contradicted by county in any respect
describe actions by representatives of CPS which not only
6 reflect dereliction of their statutory duty to work with the
parents try to maintain the family relationship but which show
8 instead efforts by said representatives to affirmatively
discourage the parents from visiting their baby by, among
10 other things, harrassment of the parents by DPS and attempts
by DPS to intrude into the personal life and marital choice of
12 the mother and statements to the effect that she should not be
residing with her husband and that she should not be staying
14 at the residence of Peter Amschel, the paternal grandfather.
b. That during all times mentioned herein I have assisted my
16 son and his wife, the parents of the minor child herein, by
providing room and board for them in exchange for assistance
18 in maintaining my large property and residential premises, and
their minor child also lived here during the approximate 10
20 days that the child lived here from the time that the child was
born here until the time a CPS worker and a deputy sheriff
22 entered the residence without permission or a judicial warrant
to do so, as per declarations filed herein.
24 c. I was present at the time of the entry by the CPS worker
and I heard her ask the parents "what illegal drugs have you
26 ever used" and both parents in an apparent effort to be
cooperative listed multiple such items which they had
28 consumed over the years but the worker later falsely reported
the statement as an acknowledgement of current drug use,
30 which it was not, and if the parents did consume any such
items it was not noticeable on them and had no effect on their
32 parenting and they also used very little or no alcohol.
 d. At the time of the said entry, both parents were sitting
2 happily with their baby in the living room and everything was
very peaceful and all the parties were in good health and
4 plenty of food was in the refrigerator for the baby and the baby
had already accumulated several nice garments and was being
6 very nicely cared for by both parents including the baby's
father who doted on her and held her lovingly while admiring
8 her for hours at a time. The baby is very fair skinned and at the
time of the entry of CPS and the police the baby's only physical
10 condition to complain of was a slight diaper rash. The mother
had consulted with a pharmacist and had purchased several
12 expensive salves and the condition was improving proving so I
was surprised to read the report of the CPS worker in which
14 she falsely stated that the baby had been crying loudly and
uncontrollably, which was the opposite of the truth.
16 d. The mother told later informed me that the CPS worker
used a portable drug testing device in the mother's mouth and
18 that the result of the reading of the device was negative, so
that the CPS worker tried a second device but that was also
20 negative, and so the CPS worker said the devices they were
defective. In a report written by the worker, she again gave
22 false witness to the effect that only one device was used and
that the reading was inconclusive. The mother begged the
24 worker not to take the baby but the worker falsely stated that
she was only taking the baby temporarily for drug testing, but
26 that statement was also false, and the medical records in the
file herein show that the baby was also negative for drugs,
28 even though I am told that a specialized medical team was
called in to shave hair follicles and so forth but as the records
30 show no drugs at all were detected in the baby because the
baby had not been exposed at all to any such items during that
32 time .
 e. In my family it is something of a tradition for the mothers
2 to have their babies at home, as has historically been the case
with mothers since the beginning of time up until recent days.
4 My father, James Edward Amschel, was born at his home, and
my son Randall, the father of the child, was born at his home
6 which is also my home. Randall's wife was amenable to having
her baby at my house and indeed the record shows that she
8 and her husband came to my house from their apartment to
deliver the baby in safe surroundings, which delivery occurred
10 uneventfully. The mother, as her testimony at the jurisdictional
hearing shows, had multiple problems and complications with
12 the birth of her first son, all of which painful and frightening
problems were nosocomial involving medical attempts to
14 speed up the birth process and to prevent her from assuming
comfortable positions and so on, according to her sworn
16 testimony.
f. After I was told that court appointed attorneys, one for
18 each party, had advised both parents to refrain from making
any objections or comments as to the above facts at the
20 detention hearing, so the parents asked me to take over
representation for both of them in the case from that point.
22 g. At the first scheduling of a jurisdictional hearing before
Commissioner Snell, at a pretrial conference meeting, I
24 informed him and county counsel in a chambers conference
that if the child were returned to the parents that they would
26 stipulate to jurisdiction and would cooperate with the county in
any and all recommendations and that I myself, the paternal
28 grandfather was willing to take placement of the child, but the
commissioner indicated to my understanding at that time,
30 which was prior to any testimony being provided, that in any
event jurisdiction of the County was going to be ordered. After
32 immediately writing out a handwritten declaration to the effect
 that such comment evinced bias and prejudice on the part of
2 the adjudicator ; the case was referred to a subsequent
jurisdictional hearing before Judge Rushton at which time I also
4 represented, this time in open court, that I would be willing to
accept responsibility for the child.
6 h. After the jurisdictional hearing, I only had one contact
with a CPS worker and I reiterated at that time that I wanted to
8 take custody of the child, but never has any effort made by
any representative of CPS to contact me as they are
10 requiredby law to do to investigate my circumstances as a
close relative with legally preferred rights to placement.
12 I. The after the jurisdictional hearing, the mother informed
me that CPS workers, who are required by law to attempt to
14 facilitate family reunification and visitation, had again done
just the opposite and had discouraged the mother and
16 disrespected her and informed her that she would have to
travel out of town to see the child. On one of the only visits by
18 a DPS worker about one month ago the worker was very kind
and courteous to the mother until the DPS worker was told by
20 the mother that she would not sign a document which the
worker presented which would enable the worker to have a
22 birth certificate for the child issued, and after the refusal the
worker became hostile and threatening and has not returned
24 to the premises since that time.
j. The mother has been heartbroken and crushed to have
26 her child taken away from her in this manner even though the
childbirth was uneventful and even though the child had been
28 thriving in her care prior to the seizure of the child by the
county, and it is notable that while visiting their child at the
30 county facility the parents noted that the child had diaper rash
significantly more serious than the child had at home and on
32 another occasion the child had feces built up in her diaper and
 upon changing her the mother noted that feces had become
2 lodged in the child's private parts, but the DPS worker
preventing the parents from documenting these conditions by
4 photographs and even ordered the parents not to take notes
about events occurring at the visitation sessions.
6 k. That the county herein has failed in its statutory duty to
provide a copy of its final report and recommendation to the
8 parents. To this day, because the parents were not provided
with the report I do not know what the recommendations are
10 nor do I know what reasons they have set forth to support their
their recommendations.
12 l. All the matters hereinabove set forth to show herein that
CPS is largely responsible for failing to facilitate visitation in
14 this case so that any visitation problems should not be held
against the parents, and to show that the evidence and
16 testimony in this case as to present or potential future severe
hare to the baby from being returned to her parents was so
18 nonexistent and weak that it took a significant amount of time
for me to realize and to confirm by study and research that
20 monetary offers involving immense financial motivation are
being set before the county system for seizing children, for
22 terminating the parental rights of the children and for adopting
the children to strangers to the family. This situation is the
24 subject of a motion filed concurrently herewith to dismiss this
action and to return the child to the parents because of the
26 financial bias and consequent failure of the government to
provide an impartial adjudication of the most substantial rights
28 conceivable of both the parents and the child to have their
familial bonds preserved and not invaded by the state
30 especially when the invasion is likely motivated by financial
considerations on the part of the county.
 m. If this court will not return the child immediately to the
2 parents, the child should order the child to be returned to me,
the paternal grandfather, so that the court can do justice with
4 reference to the total dereliction of the legal duty of CPS to
seek placement priority with a family member and to facilitate
6 visitation.
n. If the court will not return the child at this time as
8 requested, it is submitted that the cumulative nature of the
multiple indications of bias on the part of the county in favor of
10 termination of parental rights, as indicated above, and the
need for a reasonable amount of time to pass to see whether
12 or not the County would in good faith discharge its duty to
facilitate family reunification and placement with the relative
14 and because the realization was slow and gradual during the
realtively brief period of time that the child has been seized
16 that all these factors must indicate some motivation on the
part of the county other that the best interests of the child.
18 Thereafter it involved major difficulty even for an attorney to
determining from the public records the massive financial
20 incentives being offered to the county by the federal
government for the county to seize children and to keep them
22 from the parents and to purportedly terminate parental bond of
the parents and child and to then adopt the child to a stranger
24 to the family.
m. It is submitted that if this court does not return the child
26 immediately to me or the parents that this court should set this
matter for further hearing on the subject of the said return and
28 that in the interim the court order as follows:
1. That CPS produce every item of evidence showing what
30 was done by them, if anything, in this case regarding their
duty to seek out family members for placement herein;
32 and
 2. For CPS and the county to produce evidence of everything
2 done, if anything, to determine whether or not placement
of the child with Peter Amschel would be appropriate and
4 to produce every record of anything they relied on, if
anything, to either summarily rule out placement with him
6 or to deny placement with him; and
3. That CPS produce every item of evidence and a copy of
8 the entire file pertaining to the proposed adoptive parent
herein so that it can be determined whether or not the
10 county's apparent attempt to place the child with such
person is or may be related to the receipt of money paid
12 by the proposed adoptive parent, who a CPS worker
informed the mother in one of the multiple attempts
14 during by CPS during visitation sessions to obtain a
voluntary relinquishment of parental rights; and
16 4. For the court to order that the county and DPS produce
records accurately setting forth amounts of any and all
18 payments referred to by the federal government as
“incentive payments” in all the cases handled by CPS
20 during the last five years together with an accurate
accounting of any and all other payments received by the
22 county of any nature from the federal or state
government or any other governmental entity or NGO or
24 otherwise relating to activities of the county in seizing
children, terminating the rights of the parent and child
26 and adopting the child out to strangers, and
5. For the court and DPS to provide detailed statistics as to
28 the numbers of children and the individual circumstances
as to any children who have actually been released back
30 to their parents during the past five years either at a
detention hearing or a jurisdictional hearing; and the
 factual details as to any children seized but released to a
2 relative.

4 Further affiant sayeth not.

Dated this 26th day of July, 2010
6

8 Peter Amschel

10 State of California )
) SS.
12 County of Riverside )

14 The above and foregoing instrument was signed and

acknowledged before me this 26th day of July, 2010 by Peter
16 Amschel

18 ____________________________
Notary Public
20 My commission expires:_______________