The sinister nature of government “child protection” agencies has been
known to many since their inception. The fact that DSS (Department of
Social Services), CPS (Child Protective Services), and other variants of
the same child kidnapping system routinely engage in removing children
from perfectly healthy families based on accusations alone is no secret.
Indeed, it appears that the United States and England have initiated a
race to see which nation can abduct the most children for the most
ridiculous reasons.
But what happens when an individual within the system sets their sights
on a child, and even their fellow state agents refuse to go along with
the game? If a recent case in Utah is anything to go by, it apparently
doesn’t matter. You still end up having your child forcibly removed
from you and you still have little hope of seeing him again after he is
taken. If the case officers declare you have done nothing wrong – you
still find yourself childless.
Remarkably, even if the judge himself orders your son returned to you –
he still remains under the watchful eye of the state so long as one of
its bureaucrats deems it the appropriate decision.
While a case such as this should make the headlines
if for no other reason than the brazenness of certain “officials,” not a
word has been spoken in the media, with the notable exception of Alan
Watt of
CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com, who reported on the case several days ago and posted a
summary of the events (a letter for public viewing) to his website on April 30, 2012.
It appears that, during the course of a nasty divorce proceeding,
Katerina Jeleva was accused of sexually abusing her son (who will remain
unnamed for obvious reasons) by her ex-husband. According to Jeleva,
the motivation behind this accusation was her ex-husband’s desire to
avoid child support payment in light of a recent bankruptcy. Regardless
of the reason behind the accusation, however, Jeleva was served with a
Protective Order.
Protective Orders are yet another example of how Family Court
proceedings and DSS-style child removal agencies are unconstitutional.
Protective Orders, almost always rubber-stamped by Family Courts, level
an accusation against an individual who is then required to appear in
court (with no jury) and prove that he/she is innocent. Traditionally,
the idea of justice rests upon the presumption of innocence until proven
guilt. However, in the case of Family Court and Protective Orders, the
defendant is assumed guilty until he/she proves his/herself innocent.
The burden of proof, in effect, is placed on the back of the accused not
the accuser.
After the judge’s signing of the Protective Order, Jeleva and her son
were then dragged into the government system requiring an investigation
by Family Court appointed case officers. After interviewing both Jeleva
and her son, however, the clinical psychologist who conducted an
interview determined that evidence for sexual abuse was nonexistent. In
addition, she stated that it was possible the child had been “coached”
to implicate his mother in abuse and that the child “did not display any
signs of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse during my contact with
him or while he was observed in my waiting room.”
Dr. Stringham, the psychologist who conducted the aforementioned
interview, then recommended that the Protective Order be dropped and
that Jeleva should resume maintaining physical custody of her son.
Jeleva claims that, when it came time for the Protective Order hearing,
her ex-husband did not show up, thus causing his case to be thrown out
and the Protective Order dropped.
This
is where the state-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), Amber Ruder,
enters the picture. As GAL, Ruder is tasked with the representation of a
minor child in cases such as these. Essentially, Ruder was appointed as
legal Guardian of Jeleva’s son during the Protective Order
investigation process.
This is because, only one day after her son was returned to her,
Jeleva’s ex-husband filed yet another Protective Order against her.
This, Jeleva claims, was done at the behest of and with the aid of
Ruder. The new PO is set to last a period of five months. With the PO
signed by a judge, the police immediately came to Jeleva’s house and
removed her son from his home yet again. Jeleva states that she and her
son were at the dinner table when the police came and that the brave
officers, upholding their oath to serve and protect, literally took him
from her arms.
Thus, the process of investigation began anew with more case officers
and detectives interviewing Jeleva and her son. Like in the first round
of investigations, all of those involved (with the notable exception of
Ruder) determined that there was no evidence of child abuse. In fact,
the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) investigator of
the special sex abuse unit, Carly Echols, even wrote a report
exonerating Jeleva. Echols closed the case due to the fact that the
accusations were unsupported.
Yet, according to Jeleva, although the reports of the detectives and
investigator Echols are in the public record, they were dismissed as
hearsay at the first hearing because the individuals themselves were not
there to testify. This was an oversight made by Jeleva who is
representing herself with very limited resources and knowledge of the
law, as opposed to the state which responds to a prosecution as if there
is no bottom to its pit of finances.
Jeleva claims that Amber Ruder then went on to testify to the judge that
Jeleva did, in fact, abuse her son, even though Ruder’s qualifications
are that of an attorney as opposed to the sexual abuse investigators,
psychologists, and other relevant personnel who determined otherwise.
Ruder’s presentation was evidently convincing to the judge as Jeleva was
forced to appeal the decision in order to have the detectives and
Echols testify in her defense so as to remove the claim of hearsay from
the reports exonerating her. Ruder, however, again testified that Jeleva
had abused her son.
Jeleva states that, although the second judge at the second hearing
upheld that she cannot directly contact her son, he at least ruled that
Amber Ruder must make a recommendation as to when, where, how long, and
how often Jeleva can resume meeting her son, along with a therapist.
According to Jeleva, the judge stated, “We must put this family back
together.” I might add that it never should have been broken apart to
begin with. After having been cleared twice, the judge should have ruled
that the child be returned to his mother immediately instead of the
silly idea that she can only meet with her son in the presence of a
therapist at the pleasure of the State and the parasites that make a
career of destroying the lives of others.
Nevertheless, even though Ruder was tasked with making a recommendation
for visitation scheduling, it is apparent that she has not met these
requirements. Once the court has ordered the Guardian ad Litem to make
such recommendations, it is the responsibility of the GAL to organize
and arrange the meetings between the parent, child, and therapist. In
fact, the judge unequivocally ordered that the GAL take “whatever steps
are necessary to facilitate” Jeleva’s appointed time with her son.
However, Ruder evidently has a much different interpretation of the
judge’s order, as she has yet to facilitate anything beyond expressing
her opinion that it is the parent’s responsibility to arrange all
aspects.
This presents a major problem for Jeleva who claims she has repeatedly
tried to do just that but has yet to receive a call back from the
therapists she has contacted. There is no reason to doubt Jeleva’s claim
as Ruder, in an email to Jeleva, confirms that not returning phone
calls seems to be a trend at the requested mental health agency. In
addition, Ruder states in no uncertain terms within the same email that
“I cannot and will not do this for you.”
Furthermore,
Ruder hints that the court-ordered therapy might not even occur at all,
stating that it will only happen if the child’s individual therapist
feels that it will not “traumatize” him to see his mother.
Presumably, she means that, because the child has been away from his
mother for so long and has been subjected to constant disruption, it
could be traumatizing to return him to Jeleva and possibly put him in
the same position again.
However, it is not Jeleva that has caused trauma for her son. It is the
state; it is the Social Services system and individuals like Amber Ruder
that are responsible for subjecting this child to the harassment and
mental anguish he has been put through for years.
From point A to point B, it is the State that has been responsible for
this unfortunate situation. Furthermore, Jeleva claims that a move is
now being made to terminate her parental rights.
Unfortunately, Katerina Jeleva’s case is different from so many
thousands of others all across the country only in that the court and
social-services system are largely in agreement that she is innocent and
that her child should be returned to her. The culprit in the
dismantling of her relationship with her son is mostly one person –
Amber Ruder. For most parents, every agent encountered at every step of
the way is determined to remove the child and place them far away from
their home.
Katerina Jeleva’s case is indicative of what happens when a population
allows the power of the State to run wild. We are now able to see
clearly the results of allowing “services” to become “authorities” and
allowing the Government to involve itself in the private affairs of
families and individuals.
As Mother’s Day approaches, which Jeleva will likely spend without her
son, we are given a choice. We can sit back while Katerina and her son
are robbed of the only childhood he will ever have -- traded for the
personal agenda of power-tripping parasites like Amber Ruder -- or we
can take action. We can take a stand in this case and use it as the
first shot fired in the resistance to a State that clearly believes it
has the right to remove a child from a loving home with absolutely no
evidence of abuse.
As Jeleva states, “I can’t win in this rigged system. There is no logic
here. How would it be too traumatic for my son to come home to the only
home he’s ever known and to his pets that keep crying by his empty
room?”
I have included the
contact information
for Amber Ruder in case any readers would like to explain the moral
implications of her actions and how she might address this situation
better.
I have also included the information of Judge Mary T. Noonan so that she
might be contacted and encouraged to return Katerina Jeleva’s son to
her as well as take immediate action against Ruder’s open contempt of
her orders.
Amber M. Ruder
Guardian ad Litem, Attorney
Fourth District
32 West Center Street, Suite 205
Provo, Utah 84601
(w) 801-344-8516
(fax) 801-344-8597
ambermr@email.utcourts.gov
Clerical Department for Judge Mary T. Noonan
4th District Juvenile Court – Orem
99 E Center Street
Orem, UT 84057
1-801-764-5820
Wendy Matheney – 801-724-3820
Crystal Tua’One – 801-724-3802
Sandra Willard – 801-724-3811
Christine Wilcox – 801-724-3810
If you would like to offer support to Katerina Jeleva, you can contact her directly at
katia_830@yahoo.com or call her at 1-801-489-7446.
