Skip directly to content

Concerned Battle for Mimi - Please read and Share

Like us on fb

Lukes Dad's picture
on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 19:29
Fight Child Protection Department Corruption: 
Concerned Battle for Mimi - Please read and Share
Mimi (Emily) is a little girl living in danger in Tennessee.  ~HELP SAVE MIMI~



Due to negligence & a covering up of governmental mistakes, this precious child has been wrongfully removed from her loving protective mother & has been placed in danger with her alleged abuser.

Mimi is a child in East Tennessee who is caught in legal loopholes that have resulted in her being constantly around her alleged abuser where she is allegedly being sexually abused. The mother and a number of concerned citizens believe that the mother's civil & constitutional rights have been violated under the 4th Amendment and the14th Amendment and that the child's civil & constitutional rights have been violated under the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. The agencies and courts that are supposed to protect this child are leaving this child in constant alleged harm.

The child was born in June 2008. Her parents divorced in March 2010. The mother was awarded full custody. The father was awarded visitation every other weekend. The father exercised his visitation with Mimi until she returned home 10/4/10 and revealed injuries to her mother that were consistent with sexual abuse. At this time, the child allegedly stated, “Mimi daddy boo butt." The mother took the child to a Children's Hospital on 10/04/2010 regarding the injuries.

The child was diagnosed by an E.R doctor with being sexually abused due to having perineal/anal injuries. The E.R doctor at Children's Hospital made a referral to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services/Tennessee Child Protective Services (hereinafter referred to as DCS/CPS) for sexual abuse against her father.

The E.R doctor also contacted the child's pediatrician and reported that the child has perineal/anal injuries due to sexual abuse. The caseworker that was assigned to the case to investigate against the alleged abuser (child's father) did not want to see the medical records pertaining to this visit to the hospital. The E.R. doctor at the Children's Hospital also told the mother to follow up on the sexual abuse with the child's pediatrician within one week and instructed the mother to keep Mimi away from potential harm until she (Mimi) can be evaluated by DCS and a Forensic Specialist.

On 10/13/2010, the mother took the child to a follow up appointment with the regular Pediatrician.
This doctor allegedly made referral to DCS for sexual abuse as well and made a referral for the child to see a clinical therapist. The medical record also says "not yet been evaluated by DCS or Forensic Specialist."

On 11/02/2010, the mother took the child to the Clinical Therapist. The records of this clinical
therapist say “sexual abuse of a child” and “disruptive behavior of a child.” The top of this record says that the referral came from the child’s pediatrician.

On 11/04/2010, the mother took the child to Renovation Health and Wellness due to the child having severe rectal pain from allegedly being sexually abused from the injuries child had after returning from visiting with her father 10/4/10.. The record of this visit says, “old bruising noted to the external anal sphincter.”

On 11/24/2010, the mother went to court against the child’s father (the alleged abuser). He
was ordered to stay away from the child until the next court date set for 11/29/2010.

On 11/29/2010, the child’s father (the alleged abuser) was ordered to stay away from the child until the next court hearing set on 12/07/2010.

During this time period, the child had horrible nightmares that the back of her legs were bleeding.
The mom had to try to console the child as these nightmares took place.

The DCS caseworker still would not look at the medical records and failed to set an appointment up for the child to be examined by a Forensic Specialist. The mother took the medical records to the police department where a detective made a referral to DCS for sexual abuse.

On 12/07/2010, the child’s mother and father went to court. The DCS state’s attorney, including the caseworker had no medical records regarding any of Mimi's doctor visits. The mother gave the DCS
state’s attorney medical records. The child's father was on stand and asked if he had ever sexually penetrated his daughter. He “plead the fifth.” The child’s father (the alleged abuser) was ordered to stay away from the child until the next court date set for 03/10/2011. The child’s father (the alleged abuser) was granted “supervised” visitation with the child.

On 01/24/2011, the mother took the child to the Children’s Hospital due to continued severe rectal pain after being sexually abused from the incident on 10/04/2010. The medical record on 01/24/2011says “old perineal/anal injury” and this E.R doctor made a referral to DCS as well regarding sexual abuse.

On 02/28/2011, the mother contacted the DCS caseworker’s supervisor and expressed her concerns that the caseworker allegedly wasn’t investigating properly. In addition, the caseworker did not report any of the
allegations to the district attorney's office and never scheduled an appointment for the child to be evaluated by the DCS Forensic Specialist. The caseworker retaliated by making allegations against the mother claiming that she was mentally unstable. The caseworker was placed on probation on 03/02/2011. The
caseworker’s best friend became the new caseworker.

On 03/09/2011, the new caseworker refused to accept a copy of all the medical records.

On 03/10/2011, there was another court date against the father. DCS wanted to close the case against the father due to saying there is “no evidence." The judge refused to let DCS close the case against the father. The judge ordered a 45 day continuance against the father and he also ordered the mother to continue to keep child from the father, unless the father was supervised at a supervised facility. The judge set the next court hearing for 05/13/2011.

On 03/20/2011, the mother took the child back to the Children’s Hospital due to blood on her anal spinchter after having a bowel movement that did not involve hard stool. The E.R doctor performed a couple of swab tests on the child which came back as “Staph Infection In Rectum.”

On 04/01/2011, the second DCS caseworker (first caseworker’s best friend) came to the mother's home with no order/warrant and removed the child from the mother 's care/custody. DCS immediately contacted the child 's father to come to the mother 's home to get the child. (Keep in mind that the mom was court ordered to keep the child away from her father and waiting for a court date to happen on 05/13/2011 when this took place. This is explained two paragraphs above with the information about what took place on 03/10/2011.) The child was with her father all the time starting this date (04/01/2011). In addition, the “new” caseworker filled out a form called an “I.P.A. Form” (which is not normal procedure when removing a child, especially when the judge was UNAWARE that the child was being removed from the protective mother , period ) stating she was removing the child from the mother’s care due to the doctor’s visits causing psychological harm to the child and the visits being referred to as “unnecessary.”

The 05/13/2011 court date against the father (after the 45 day continuance) did not happen. The child remained with her father.



On 06/06/2011 and 09/22/2011 there were court dates against the mother. The DCS had a Forensic Specialist to testify against the mother, claiming that Mimi's doctor visits were unnecessary and that mother psychologically harmed child due to "unnecessary visits." This Forensic Specialist was not a psychologist, yet, she was used to testify against the mother claiming that mother had psychologically harmed child. Also, this Forensic Specialist admitted in court that she (Forensic Specialist) had never evaluated/examined, nor spoken with the child. She also admitted that she hadn't reviewed Mimi's medical records (regarding sexual abuse.)

While the child was in the care/custody of her father (after DCS placed her in danger with him), the child's caregiver made sexual allegations against the father because of having to take the child to Children's Hospital on 5/31/11 due to "two" horrible rectal tears. The E.R doctor called DCS regarding the rectal tears and spoke with the caseworker. The caseworker mislead the doctor by saying that Mimi has a history of constipation and that the mother was charged with Munchausen by Proxy 2, blaming father for sexual abuse. The child was misdiagnosed as having rectal tears by hard stool and was sent home to continue being in danger with the father. The caregiver stated to this E.R doctor that Mimi did not have any hard stool. In fact, the caregiver informed the doctor that Mimi was dropped off by the father and Mimi stated to her "my daddy hurt my butt with his tail and my daddy house." The child does not have a history of constipation and the mother has never been charged with Munchausen by Proxy. After the caregiver made sexual abuse allegations against the father, a court date was set for 7/11/11.

7/11/11 at court against the father as child was in his care/custody,DCS, GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) and the father's attorney convinced the judge that the mom manipulated the caregiver into believing that the child 's father was sexually abusing the child. The caregiver was the companion of the child 's father's step-father. The caregiver was a 70 year old retired nurse who had worked with pediatrics during part of her career in nursing so she would have known that the rectal tears were due to the child being sexually abused.
The caregiver made several attempts to speak with the GAL regarding Mimi's rectal tears, including sexual gestures that Mimi was saying, but the GAL (a court appointed attorney who is supposed to look out for the child’s best interests) would not contact the caregiver back. The child was ordered by the judge to stay in the care/temporary custody of the father. The mother was ordered supervised visitation with the child.

The mother was allowed to see the child 19 times since August 2011 due to the father not cooperating with the supervised facility, including the juvenile court. He refused to allow child to visit with the mother on a weekly basis. Three referrals were made by the supervised facility to DCS against the father during those 19 times. Also, a daycare made a referral against the father.

On 10/12/2011, the mother was ordered by the juvenile judge to take a full
panel psychological to prove whether or not she was mentally unstable. The mother took the full panel
psychological and passed it. The mothers' psychological report clearly states that the psychologist does not feel that child would be harmed in mothers care/custody. Also, the mother's psychologist contacted doctors that examined Mimi during doctor visits and those doctors told the psychologist that Mimi does, in fact, have indications of sexual abuse. In addition to the mother taking a full panel psychological, she took a mental assessment which she passed as being completely normal.

The mother tried to find a way to save the child by going to Chancery Court. On 07/18/2012, DCS asked for a continuance due to not being able to have their “expert witness” there for the hearing. This resulted in court being rescheduled for 10/03/2012 through 10/04/2012.

On 10/02/2012, the GAL called in sick the day before court and claimed she was too sick for court on 10/03/2012. This resulted in court being rescheduled for 02/19/2013.

On 02/19/2013, the DCS state's attorney arrived 30 minutes late claiming she did not know that a court hearing was scheduled. The people that the mother's attorney subpoenaed were all there except for the DCS representatives he subpoenaed. The DCS state's attorney requested a continuance due to not being "prepared". The judge only gave DCS another continuance under the circumstance if the mother got "unsupervised" visitation. At this point, the mother began to have unsupervised visitation 4 to 5 days a week through the next court date set for 03/20/2013.

At his point, the child requested prayer at Wednesday Bible study that she goes home to her mommy and sissy's house. (A neighbor to the child's father takes the child to the Bible study with her each week, until he stopped allowing Mimi to attend with the neighbor .) The neighbor informed the child’s caregiver/companion to the child’s father’s step-father, that the child made this request.

On 03/19/2013, the court date scheduled for 03/20/2013 was called off again due to the child's father being obligated to have a court appointed attorney. The court appointed attorney claimed to have insufficient time to prepare for the case. The court appointed attorney had some knowledge of the entire situation because he filled in for the child 's father's attorney in 2012. In the absence of this court date, the mother continued to have unsupervised visits lasting 4 to 5 days at a time. Another court hearing was not set at this time.

On 04/26/2013, the child’s father (the alleged abuser) entered the mother’s yard where she was watching the child jump on the trampoline. The child’s father took the child off the trampoline, and the mother has not seen the child since this occurred. The mother has made efforts to call and speak with the child that have continuously been ignored. A concerned citizen personally witnessed a screen shot of the father texting
the mother that she could not see the child for Mother’s Day 05/12/2013 due to “already having plans.”

The mother went to court on 05/31/2013 regarding the father not returning the child back to her for visitation, including not allowing the mother to speak with child, since the day he entered the mother's yard on 4/26/13 and removed child from the trampoline. The 05/31/2013 court date was due to the alleged abuser being in contempt of court for these actions.

The 05/31/2013 court date that was supposed to at least make it possible for the mother to see the child, but it turned into another continuance and court was postponed to August 2013. At this time, the child's father is still in contempt of court as he is still refusing to allow mother to have any visitation/contact with the child.

The mother, including several concerned citizens have contacted the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government offices and entities to try to resolve this alleged situation. The mother and/or concerned citizens have also attempted to contact various government agencies and authorities as well as news media entities, including investigative reporters. Concerned citizens who have examined some of the evidence have found proof of the alleged abuse on medical records and have been notified by the mother that additional support agencies aimed at saving children from
abuse have reported the abuse to DCS/CPS as well as law enforcement authorities.

At present (07/16/2013), it is unknown if the child is safe at all or even alive.The child has just turned 5 years old in June 2013. The child's father even refused to allow the mother to see, nor speak with Mimi on her birthday.

A Blount County, Tennessee detective checked on the child within this 11 week period since the child was allegedly abducted from her mom’s yard. This detective stated that the child spoke in a “programmed” manner. This detective spoke with the child in May 2013, which was one month after the father snatched Mimi from the trampoline.

In addition, further concerned citizens have attempted to contact various agencies. Representatives of Senator Alexander and Senator Corker have spoken with a concerned citizen and stated this is beyond their
jurisdiction. They did try to provide contact information for DCS. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee has also stated to the same concerned citizen this is beyond their jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee did forward the concerns (an earlier form of this letter/timeline) to the District Attorneys in Blount and Anderson Counties where the alleged abuse has taken place. The DA in Blount County told the concerned friend it is an Anderson County situation. The DA in Anderson County has not even contacted the concerned friend. The TBI has told the same concerned citizen this is beyond their jurisdiction. The TBI was courteous enough to contact the Clinton Police Department and the Anderson County DA regarding this situation, but this did not lead to anything. The concerned citizen has seen a large amount of evidence about this situation and has been told by TBI that the medical records and other papers the concerned citizen has are not good enough and that their has to have been eyewitnesses to the abuse. The concerned citizen would like to know how eyewitnesses are supposed to make it into a bathroom or bedroom of a home to actually witness the alleged abuser allegedly abusing the child. The concerned citizen would like to know how the medical records that exist can continue to be ignored. In addition, U.S. Representative Phil Roe wrote the concerned citizen back stating the information was being forwarded to Tennessee Representative Mike Harrison who represents the concerned citizen’s part of the state.

On 06/20/2013, a Nashville office of DCS wrote the concerned citizen back who filed a referral on 04/30/2013. The DCS representative identified themselves only as “DCS Communications.” Also, a Tennessee State Representative took time to read the previous version of this date by date, situation by situation timeline and looked at some of the “evidence” a concerned citizen had. Also, the concerned citizen directed the representative to contact a reporter in the same town where the representative is at because the reporter has clean copies of nearly all the supporting “evidence” in the form of court records, medical records, letters from agencies, etc. The reporter (who has the records in the same town as the state representative) contacted the concerned citizen to acknowledge a willingness to work with the state representative. On 06/24/2013, the Ombudsman’s Office replied back to a concerned citizen who had
written with this “timeline.” He stated by email he would pull the file and look in to it.

At the present time, this precious little girl is still in danger and the father is still refusing to allow the mother to see and/or speak with the child. The father is still in contempt of court for these actions.

Comments

meatloaf's picture

HI Every one. i just get so frustrated with CHILD SAFETY another child life is lost due to the corruption within the ranks. In Cairns another lost their life DUE to Pat Anderson this is her usual failure of duty of care for the children. Guess what Regional Director Arna Brosnan and comlpaint officer Josie Riley will just create another lie to cover up Pat Anderson and put it done to how unfortunate for you and we stand behind Pat Anderson 100 % who cares if children die. They only like to remove children who are really not at risk at all the more they remove the more funding they get this does not help the children that are in need of desperate intervention. NO NO lets pick on the innocents and disadvantage citizens and only focus on them and leave the rich and wealthy alone as they can get good lawyers to protect them.When is this stupid Premier every going to take notice of these deaths and take action instead of sweeping it under the carpet. PAT ANDERSON IS AUSTRALIA'S CHILD KILLER and is allowed to get away with it.Just wait for the excuses of Josie Riley stating lack of commincation this is why it happened and flaws in the system. NEVER the ones that work in the system. Shame shame shame on you departmental staff that allows this to happen and instead of standing up and taking responsibilites for their actions you are guilty as well .