Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

RAYMOND R. SCHWAB AMELIAD. SCHWAB

v.

KRIS KOBACH Et. Al.

Respondents.

Plaintiffs,

CASEN0.18-CV-02488

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § §1983), FRAUD, SLANDER, INTERFERANCE WITH LAWFUL PARENTAL CUSTODY. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs Joint Response to Defendant KVC's Motion to Dismiss

Comes now Raymond R Schwab and Amelia D Schwab Jointly In Propia Persona requesting

the Court deny defendant KVC's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs Initial Complaint was filed Aug 27, 2018 in Denver Colorado (DOC!).

Plaintiffs were asked, by the State of Colorado Magistrate, to file the complaint using a specific format

and template so they placed the same complaint on the form provided by the Court September 5th 2018

which was listed as an amended complaint (DOC 7). The case was subsequently transferred to Kansas,

per request of the Plaintiffs, Sept 10, 2018. December 27th 2018 KVC filed a motion to dismiss (DOC

50) to which this is our response.

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 2 of 26

One stubborn fact the Plaintiff's would ask the Court to consider is how a case that the

allegations were unsubstantiated by the DCF investigation (EXHIBIT 1) , went on for three years

when the only evidence or witness the State ever produced was the hearsay testimony ofthe officer

who took the children unconstitutionally, without immediate danger ofharm?

Plaintiffs agree with the fact that this current litigation and complaint arise out of alleged

unconstitutional, tortious, damaging conduct and actions which occurred during a Child In Need Of

Care (CINC) proceeding by defendant KVC and their agent's against Raymond and Amelia Schwab

and their five minor children which spanned from April 27'h 2015 to May of2018.

The Schwab's disagree, however with the facts as presented by KVC in the beginning of their

motion to dismiss. KVC, like ST FRANCIS are private contracting agencies who functionally operate

under the Color of State Law providing the service in place of DCF. As the Plaintiffs complaint states

"Respondent's ST FRANCIS AND KVC are non-profit corporation's organized in the State of

Kansas where DCF previously contracted out core public functions to this private not for profit

corporation. ST FRANCIS, KVC and Does I through I 0 are "persons" within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and subject to Monell liability and is known as the Monell Defendants. See

Monell v. Dept. a/Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)." (Pgs 63-66).

The defendant's acknowledge in their motion they knew what their responsibilities were. The

motion claims;

"When the Schwab children were found to be children in need of care and removed from the

Schwab home by order of the Riley County District Court, KVC arranged for their placement with

relatives living in the state. KVC then began providing case management and family support services,

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 3 of 26

including worker/parent and worker/child meetings, facilitating communications between the Schwab's

and their children, transportation of the children to medical and other appointments, obtaining clothing

vouchers, conducting case planning conferences and reviewing progress toward the goal of

reintegrating the Schwab children with their parents."

These Statements are mostly fiction. KVC, not only refused to do their jobs in the reintegration

of the children, they instructed others to not do theirs as well. According to one of the CASA workers,

whose recorded call was submitted to the Court in previous litigation, not only was KVC refusing to

case plan appropriately, but they instructed other service providers to not cooperate with the Schwab's,

not to speak to the Schwab's, but colluded with other defendant's to present the Schwab's in a false light

to the Court, while negligently refusing to assist the Schwab's in the reintegration of their children as

was their ethical and statutory obligation to do. These events are outlined in the complaint pages 44-46.

The CASA worker, Cathy Baer stated in the recorded call that she believed KVC had no intention of

attempting to reintegrate the children and their actions were retaliation for the Schwab's going to the

media and publicly protesting the removal of their children.

The complaint also demonstrates how the KVC case workers, after a year on the case admitted

in a status hearing April of 2016 they did nothing to assist the Schwab's reintegration of their children,

because of the Schwab's protesting. This was clear retaliation for the Schwab's constitutional right to

protest. This negligence and refusal to do their job directly led to a prolonging of the Schwab children

being in State Custody and contributed to intentional parental alienation and interference with the

Schwab's constitutional right to the care and control of their children and due process.

The event which triggered Mr. Schwab engaging in a hunger strike on the Kansas State Capitol

for 21 days was also attributed to KVC and their caseworkers manipulating the PRFT (Psychological

Resident Treatment Program) criteria and incarcerating the Schwab's son, C.S. , for sixty days where he

was assaulted repeatedly leading to a diagnosis of PTSD. The Schwab's believe the incarceration of

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 4 of 26

C.S. Was retaliation against the Schwab's for protesting and demanding that C.S. Be removed from

dangerous medications that he was being given without even the KVC workers knowledge.

During a phone call in March of2016 C.S. spoke of the medication he was taking making him

aggressive. The Schwab's were being told that none of the Schwab children were on any type of

psychotropic drugs. When KVC was pressed on the issue they admitted that C.S. was being given

psychotropic medications without their approval or knowledge. The Schwab's made it clear to KVC

that medication for psychiatric conditions, save for a life threatening condition, was a violation of their

faith and belief system. The Schwab's demanded KVC and Pawnee cease and desist or provide

evidence of attempting other interventions prior to give dangerous medications to a child. KVC set up a

conference call with caseworkers, DCF and defendant PAWNEE who then tried to convince Mrs.

Schwab to resume the medication. Mrs. Schwab refused to authorize the medicating of C.S. without

proof that PAWNEE and other's had tried non-medication interventions for what they were claiming

was behavioral problems in the child. Pawnee refused.

Within a week defendants EISENBARGER and JACKSON ofKVC filed for C.S. to be placed

in a PFRT program for evaluation based on three critical incidents. They did not evaluate whether the

dangerous medication which C.S. had unknowingly been on could have caused aggressive behavior in

the child. Instead they listed two instances where C.S. had been allegedly playing with fire. One

incident C.S. claimed he heated up a penny and accidentally dropped it causing a burn in the carpet.

The second incident C.S. was accused of lighting a towel on fire. C.S. claimed he was taking a shower

and his towel was by the heater and was scorched. The third critical incident was a manufactured story

where C.S. started a fire in a shed two years prior before he was ever in State custody. The document is

enclosed as exhibit 1. As can be seen from the document these "Critical Incident's" were all discovered

over two days rather than found through a therapeutic process. This document was manufactured

immediately after the Schwab's forced KVC to cease the unnecessary medicating of C.S. The Plaintiffs

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 5 of 26

believe C.S. was placed on medication as a method of fraud to increase the amount of Federal

incentives KVC could claim under title IV by designating C.S. as special needs due to the psychotropic

medication.

No due process was afforded C.S. and he was locked up with children who had severe

behavioral issues where C.S. claimed he was assaulted at least seven times. KVC only notified the

parents of one instance. The Schwab's believe the manipulation of facts to achieve a negative diagnosis

is a practice ofKVC as a policy because having children labeled as "Special Needs" qualifies them for

a higher Federal Incentive payment from title IV of the Social Security Act. These events are also

outlined in the Complaint. To say the accusations against KVC are vague or unspecific is inaccurate.

What this Court has to determine is if it is ok for a private contractor who is contracting for a State can

manipulate criteria to lock children up without due process to increase their incentive coffers and

retaliate against parents who are protesting by hurting their children. KVC also made sure to let the

Schwab's know that they would assure their rights would be terminated for going to the press and

protesting their unconstitutional behavior.

When Raymond and Amelia Schwab (The Schwab's) filed their first action in April of2016,

Raymond Schwab, et al. v. State of Kansas, Case No. 16-CV-4033-DDC-KGS, KVC was the primary

service provider on the CINC case, contracted by the State of Kansas to provide a State service of

foster care placement and over site

The most recent complaint contains information and assertions

which were not addressed in the previous complaints.

The previous case was dismissed, without prejudice, due to rulings of Abstention under

Younger Doctrine, Rooker-Feldman, and failure to state a claim. However, as the defendant's motion

observes there is no current State proceeding occurring as the Schwab's children have been returned.

Younger would no longer be an appropriate abstention and a number of new issues have been raised in

this new complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 6 of 26

The Plaintiffs are left to answer the following issues raised by the Defendant's.

A. Whether Plaintiffs' claims and the relief sought against Defendant KVC lack subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(l).

B. Whether Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against

Defendant KVC pursuant to Federal rule 12(b)(6).

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. There is complete diversity of parties and the amount of controversy exceeds 75,000.

There are two statutory bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For a federal court to have

diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is

complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants. In this case, that means

Plaintiff and all Defendants must be alleged to be "citizens of different States."

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The Schwab's are citizens of

Colorado and all the defendant's reside or are citizens of Kansas. There is complete diversity between

plaintiffs and defendant's. Also, the amount of controversy exceeds 75,000. This subject matter

jurisdiction is appropriate apart from the 1983 claims, that even if those claims under USC 1983 were

dismissed this Court has primary jurisdiction over the false light, fraud, and negligence claims based on

diversity alone.

However, Defendant's also assert this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to:

I. The Rooker- Feldman doctrine

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 7 of 26

II. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A. The Rooker- Feldman doctrine

The Defendant's outline that;

"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine expressly prohibits "a party losing in state court

from seeking

what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights."

Landrith v. Gariglietti, 505 Fed.Appx. 701, 2012 WL 6062668, **2 (10th Cir. 2012), quoting Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)."

The Plaintiffs are not claiming that a State Judgement in the CINC proceeding's violated their

rights. They are, however, claiming that behavior and actions by KVC and KVC case workers during

the duration of the family Court proceedings were unconstitutional, neglectful of the ethical and legal

responsibilities ofKVC, fraudulent, and geared toward setting the parent's up for failure so their rights

could be terminated. The Plaintiffs claim they worked in concert with other parties to Alienate the

Schwab's from their children while propagating a false narrative about the Schwab's to the Court, and

service providers. The Plaintiffs claim KVC refused to do their job in retaliation toward the Schwab's

activism and drawing publicity to their case, while working in concert with agencies like Pawnee to

create fictitious diagnosis and force medicate some of the Schwab children which qualified them for a

higher federal incentive payment under title IV for the Schwab children now being designated as

"Special Needs" and this is the definition of fraud. None of these claims revolve around seeking to

have a court ruling or determination examined.

The Seventh Circuit suggested that federal courts must closely examine section 1983

complaints to determine whether it is the underlying procedure that is challenged as unconstitutional or

the state court judgment in the case. "The fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the

injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from

that judgment." Gerry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1365 (7th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 8 of 26

in a recent Third Circuit section 1983 case, fathers of minor children brought actions seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief against various defendants, including state court judges, alleging that

custody standards violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Finding Rooker-Feldman inapplicable,

although ultimately ruling for the defendants, the Third Circuit pointed out that the plaintiffs did not

challenge state court judgments but the underlying policy that governed them, namely, allegedly

stripping parents of custody in favor of other parents without a plenary hearing and using an improper

best-interests-of-the-child standard. Allen v. DeBello, 2017 WL 2766365 (3rdCir. 2017).

Specifically the Third Circuit Stated

"In line with these decisions, our Circuit previously found that Rooker-Feldman did not bar suit in B.S. v. Somerset County, whose facts were similar to those in the present case. is In B.S., a mother sued after Somerset County Children and Youth Services obtained an order from a Pennsylvania state court judge transferring custody of her daughter to her father. We held that "[b]ecause the injury Mother claims is likewise traceable to [the defendants'] actions, as opposed to the state court orders those actions allegedly caused, we reject [the defendants'] contention that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal subject matter jurisdiction."

The Plaintiffs litigation and claims are based in challenging the behavior and actions of

the defendant's as unconstitutional, fraudulent, negligent and malicious, they are not based in

the

CINC Court's Judgements and rulings. The Sixth Circuit focuses the inquiry on the "source of the

injury" suffered by the plaintiff. If the source is the state court decision, the Rooker-Feldman bar is

raised. If instead there is some other source, such as the actions of a third party, the plaintiff has

asserted an independent claim that the federal court can hear.

The Plaintiffs also stated;

"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine expressly prohibits "a party losing in state court

from seeking

what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Landrith v. Gariglietti, 505 Fed.Appx. 701, 2012 WL 6062668, **2 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts specifically lack the power to review and reject orders issued by a state judge in state domestic

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 9 of 26

relations proceedings. Landrith, 2012 WL 6062668, **2.

The Plaintiffs are unconvinced this argument even applies to their complaint. Nowhere do the

defendant's outline what State Court ruling The Schwab's are attempting to have changed or

overturned. The case is closed, the Schwab children are home with their parents so there is nothing to

be overturned, neither is there any request to review any ruling. Plaintiffs are not requesting "to take an

appeal of an unfavorable state- court decision to a lower federal court" or seeking " monetary damages

arising from the CINC court rulings on issues such as temporary custody, adjudication and disposition

orders,". The only manner in which "claims "inextricably intertwined" with a state court's judgment"

is the claim that the Court's judgment came as the result of the Defendant's manipulation of the legal

process, interference with services and service providers, perjury in Court hearing's, and refusal to

acknowledge the Schwab's had any Constitutional rights or protections through consistently ignoring

them. It is not the CINC Court's judgment's which the Plaintiffs are seeking relief for, but the methods

used when the Defendant's colluded to deprive the Plaintiffs of due process, violate their right to

privacy, right to their children, right to religious practice, and right to be secure in their persons against

unreasonable search and seizure, which led to those judgments.

In the Ninth Circuit, Rooker-Feldman only applies when "plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an

allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that

decision

If, on the other hand, a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or

omission by an adverse party, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction." Noel v. Hall, 341F.3d1148,

1164 (9th Cir. 2003).

The damages alleged in the complaint arise from the biased, malicious, negligent, and harmful

conduct of the KVC case workers. The Plaintiffs allege that these violations against them were done

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

intentionally with blatant disregard for the

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 10 of 26

Constitutional protections of the parents or children with

knowledge those violations were occurring due to the Schwab's notifying them.

For instance, whenever KVC demanded the Schwab's submit to an unconstitutional seizure of

their bodily fluids through the process of a urinalysis without reasonable suspicion the Schwab's would

notify them in writing they objected to the unconstitutional search. The SCHWAB's would then submit,

under duress, so the plaintiff's could not further falsely accuse them of drug abuse. Never did the

Schwab's give a positive drug test for any illicit substance nor would KVC record what their reasonable

suspicion was by which they demanded the drug test. KVC defamed Mr Schwab throughout their over

site of the case by claiming he failed a drug test where no such lab report exist. Its a fabrication.

Neither was any evidence ever presented that Mrs. Schwab ever used or abused drugs and alcohol. She

has zero history of drug and alcohol abuse.

The Schwab's also consistently noticed the defendant's for their suppression of the Schwab's

religious participation with their children, or the denial of religious practice to the children. All such

noticing to cease and desist were mocked and ignored. KVC workers consistently responded they had a

right to violate the Schwab's rights in such an arbitrary manner and refused to allow the Schwab's to

participate in religious worship with their children.

We allege that KV C, through fraud, presenting the parents in a false light to the court and to

other service providers , through perjury from the defendant's, by setting up the parent's to fail by

placing unachievable demands on their permanency planning, and by policy and practice violating their

right to due process and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure committed harm to the

Plaintiff's and are liable for the harm they caused.

The Plaintiff's outline these constitutional violations, violations of policy, law and statue

throughout the complaint and how that behavior by the Defendant's led to the incarceration and assault

of one of the Schwab's children, alienation of the children from their faith, PTSD in the Schwab Family

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 11 of 26

and a lengthening of the time the children were forced to stay in foster care due to the inability of the

workers to do their jobs. Eventually upper level decision makers agreed there was bias and near the

end of the case KVC was forced to bring in another contractor to replace the case managers. This was

something they should have done as soon as the workers EISENBARGER, and JACKSON were

previously sued early in 2016.

KVC hid documents's in collusion with many of the other defendant's (DCF, ST FRANCIS,

INGLES, WILKERSON, PAWNEE, PATHWAYS etc.) from the Schwab's which were essential to

their effective defense, engaged in secret meetings with DCF, prosecutor, Pawnee, and Ad Litem who

then worked in concert against the Schwab's service providers by presenting the Schwab's in a false

light so they would not give favorable reports to the court. It is the assertion of the Plaintiffs that these

action prolonged the time the Schwab children were in State custody, which severed the parental bond

and alienated the family while placing an enormous financial burden on the Schwab's as they kept

losing care providers because of the behavior of these defendant's.

Some of the instances which were outlined in the Complaint were also briefly addressed above.

State Tort Law Claims:

Diversity Jurisdiction gives this Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction however they Court also has

ancillary and pendant jurisdiction due to the 1983 claim for any corresponding State and Federal

Tort law Claim.

Federal courts follow the principles of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, under which a court's

original jurisdiction over a federal claim "carries with it jurisdiction over state law claims that 'derive

from a common nucleus of operative fact,' such that the relationship between the federal claim and the

state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one

constitutional 'case."' City a/Chicago v. Int'! Coll. a/Surgeons, 522, U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997)

------------------------------~----~~=-~~-~--~~~~-~----~--~

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 12 of 26

(quoting United Mine Workers ofAm. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). These principles have been

codified under a single "supplemental jurisdiction" statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Under that statute, "in

any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," district courts have

supplemental jurisdiction "over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such

original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy" under Article III of the

Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

So while, not every action can be assigned to relief being requested under U.S.C 1983,

supplemental claims can be brought under the Kansas Tort Law Act which is a mechanism for relief as

well as the Federal Tort Law where complete diversity of parties, and amount of controversy being

above 75,000 allows for the Plaintiff's to file in Court though the Central Issues revolve around

Deprivation of Civil Rights and Conspiracy to Deprive of Civil Rights.

B. Failure to State A Claim

The Plaintiff's are not attorneys, but believe they understand that "Pleadings must be construed

so as to do justice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Accordingly, courts apply a "less stringent standard" to prose

pleadings than they would to those drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106) (1976). It

is especially important for courts to consider the "liberal pleading standards" under Rule 8(a)(2) "when

[the plaintiff] has been proceeding, from the litigation's outset, without counsel." Erikson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106) (internal quotations omitted). They also

believe that they have presented several facts all which could foundationally present a claim for relief.

"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint that "states a claim for relief must

contain

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" Fed.

------------------------------------~--~~-~~~~~--

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 13 of 26

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). In determining whether a complaint states a claim that is plausible,

the court is required to proceed 'on the assumption that all the [factual] allegations in the complaint are

true[,'] [e]ven iftheir truth seems doubtful."(court's emphasis) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. At 556).

Because the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, "it is not the province of the court to dismiss

the complaint on the basis of the court's choice among plausible alternatives"; rather, "the choice

between or among plausible interpretations of the evidence will be a task for the factfinder," assuming

that the plaintiff "can adduce sufficient evidence to support its factual allegations."

"A party opposing a complaint may assert by motion that the court should dismiss the complaint

for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To "show that

the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief," and thus survive a 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint must contain

enough facts to make the plaintiffs claim for relief "plausible on its face," not just "speculative" or

conceivable. Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (emphasis added); Ridge at Red

Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). While a court ruling on a motion to

dismiss assumes that all factual allegations in the complaint are true, a plaintiff does not "show" that he

or she "is entitled to relief' simply by reciting legal terms or offering conclusions without supportive

facts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1183 (10th Cir.

2010)." However a claim has "facial plausibility" when the plaintiff pleads "factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." This

"plausibility" standard is "not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

A. Violations of the Schwab's Constitutional right to care and control over their children,

right to due process, and familial association, 14•• Amendment Violation's

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 14 of 26

Committing perjury by KVC , manipulating and presenting information which is biased in a

dishonest manner to prejudice the Court, refusing to reintegrate the children (though it was Court

ordered), presenting the Schwab's in a false light secretly to the Schwab's therapist to bias their court

reporting are activities which may give rise to 14'" amendment claims. Though the plaintiffs give a few

instances how this occurred, these behaviors were constant, intentional and malicious to the point that

KVC was replaced after admitting in Court that they had done nothing for a year to facilitate

reintegration of the Schwab Children with their parents causing severe parental alienation. They

refused outright to allow Mr. Schwab contact with the Stepson he had raised since he was a baby,

though they were statutorily, ethically and by policy required to do so. That relationship has never been

repaired, though the Schwab's are rebuilding the relationship, and KVC successfully destroyed the

relationship D.B. Had with the only man who he called "Dad".

Recently the 9'" Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Constitutional rights of familial

associating and be free from perjured testimony at the hands of Social workers in Hardick v. Vreeken

The Court Stated " Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized this fundamental right in

many cases. For example, in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974), the

Court said, "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and

family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court reiterated this theme three years later in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494,

503-04 (1977): "Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family

precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It

is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and

cultural."

The Court affirmed that parent's have '"the constitutional right to be free from the knowing

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 15 of 26

presentation of false or perjured evidence' is clearly established." 588 F.3d at 1035 (citing and quoting

Devereaux, 218 F.3d at 1055-56)," as well as the fact that "Perjury is a crime under both federal and

California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court. 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Cal.

Penal Code § 118. Both crimes make no distinction between criminal and civil proceedings.

In the Complaint, it is also pointed out an incident where PRICE and ST FRANCIS had

defendant POSSEN unlawfully sign for special services, and then went to Court in 2016 testifying that

the Schwab children were suffering educationally and being harmed because the Parents refused to sign

special education paperwork. Little did they know the School had already given the Schwab's the

paperwork with POSSON'S signature (pg 36, 50-54 of complaint). KVC was still working in Concert

with DCF and ST Francis at this time and were fully aware of the controversy the Schwab's had with

Possen signing unlawfully for services which then qualified KVC for a higher federal incentive based

on special education needs of the children. JACKSON and EISENBARGER were at the Court hearing

held without the Schwab's present or properly represented by counsel and WILKERSON, FIELDS,

INGLES, KVC, ST FRANCIS, DCF, YOXELL and SUTHER all participated in tandem with the

Court to create a Court Order which they refused to give to the Schwab's but then used to get the

Schools to allow their signature on Special education paperwork. Shortly after, when the Schwab's

discovered that PRICE had committed perjury by claiming the Schwab children were suffering

educational neglect due to the parents refusal to sign special education paperwork, all while the

Children were receiving that benefit due to the fraudulent signing of POSSEN with the document that

all these parties colluded on

they (The Schwab's) presented the information to the Court in a show

cause motion. POSSON vanished from the case, and from St Francis and when Mrs. Schwab's new

attorney, Jen Chaffee challenged PRICE on her perjury and "Unlawful Signing", PRICE was

immediately removed from the case citing "Safety Concerns" and "Threats" because the Schwab's

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 16 of 26

protested publicly for their children to be returned. KVC was complicit in the production of that

document used for fraudulent purposes.

It is behaviors such as these, which occurred from the beginning of the case and continued

through the duration, which allows for relief. The Plaintiffs assure the Court that through the discovery

process, even more collusion and sabotage will be uncovered. Currently the Defendant's hold the

majority of the evidence and refuse to release any information or documents about the case.

As the 9"' Circuit further concluded "government perjury and the knowing use of false evidence

are absolutely and obviously irreconcilable with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of Due

Process in our courts. Furthermore, the social workers' alleged transgressions were not made under

pressing circumstances requiring prompt action, or those providing ambiguous or conflicting guidance.

There are no circumstances in a dependency proceeding that would permit government officials to bear

false witness against a parent. " and to them this was a claim by which relief Could be granted under

1983, and it is a claim we assert and have provided examples of.

Violation of 4'" Amendment Protection

Constitutional challenges to suspicionless governmental drug testing most often focus on issues

of personal privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against "unreasonable searches." For searches

to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can

show a "special need" warranting a deviation from the norm. The Fourth Amendment protects the

"right of the people" to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This

constitutional stricture applies to all governmental action-federal, state, and local-by its own force

or through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Governmental conduct generally

will be found to constitute a "search" . A mere accusation of drug abuse does not rise to meet the

standard of reasonable suspicion with no corroboration.

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 17 of 26

Though there was no evidence for reasonable suspicion ever produced, KVC constantly spread

the false report that the SCHWAB'S were methamphetamine addicts. They consistently and

maliciously claimed Mr. Schwab gave a positive drug test early in the case which was then taken by

media and spread internationally (Exhibit 4) . The Schwab's continue to assert that they never, once

gave a positive drug screen for any illicit substance through the duration of the CINC case and neither

do the defendant's have evidence of that claim including even a lab report. Furthermore they used this

false claim to unconstitutionally subject the Schwab's to random drug testing for almost the entire

duration of the case. The Schwab's were never charged with a crime, and even the DCF neglect

investigation determined the allegations of neglect were unsubstantiated and yet KVC and ST

FRANCIS subjected the Plaintiffs to intrusive drug testing for years (Pg 24-26 of complaint).

The Defendant's required the Schwab's give their testing while a monitor was observing their

genitals which was a humiliating and intrusive practice that workers claimed was policy. The Supreme

Court has consistently ruled that drug testing requirements are covered by 4'" Amendment protections

and the fact that KVC colluded with the other defendant's, through slander and presenting the parents

in a false light to the Court, brings this claim to a level which this Court can provide relief whereas the

defendant's conspired to deprive the Schwab's of their 4'" Amendment protections and then used false

information about positive test results to defame the Schwab's in Court, to service providers, and even

to the media in the case of DCF and FREED who leaked information to the press to wage an

information war against the SCHWABS very public campaign to get their children home.

These are only a few of the details and facts presented in the complaint. The Plaintiffs believe

they have presented enough facts for this Court to believe that the complaint is 'more than bare

assertions oflegal conclusions.', and demonstrate a pattern of collusion in violations of the Schwab's

right to parent and have sole care and control over their children without Government interference.

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 18 of 26

That this conduct was under the "Color of law" as the defendant's manipulated the legal system with

their fraud on the court in order to maliciously, negligently, and unconstitutionally deny due process of

law to the Schwab's while keeping their children in DCF custody without any lawful reason. That these

actions constituted harm to the Schwab's in severing their parental bond, and placing years of

unreasonable and costly demands upon the Schwab's in order to set them up for failure while trying to

terminate their parental rights. These unreasonable demands also triggered Mr. Schwab's PTSD upon

which he struggled with depression, nightmares, and aggravation of his service connected disability.

All Schwab children have been diagnosed with PTSD due to the behavior of the defendant's and false

information they spread about the parents. This resulted in the Termination of employment with the

Dept. of Veteran Affairs due to performance issues and absenteeism. Mr Schwab was forced retired.

This is a claim upon which this Court can, and should grant relief and it is these types of Governmental

abuse's which U.S.C. 1983 claims are meant to grant relief for.

U.S.C. 1985, 1983 Claim for Deprivation of Religious Participation Causing Parental

The complaint outlines how KVC, completely destroyed the Schwab's relationship with their

children spiritually and refused to allow access to the Schwab's for religious worship with their

children. They allowed ,specifically, the Allisons to tell the children they would celebrate normal

holiday's like halloween and Christmas when the children were raised in a Messianic Jewish faith that

regarded those holidays as non-sacred and to be avoided. They ignored reports that Michelle Allison

held E.S. Down to chop off her hair which had never been cut due to religious observance. The

Caseworkers witnessed E.S. Ask her mother weeping if she was still a princess because Michelle cut

her hair off. Every response from KVC informed the Schwab's they could not force placement to honor

the families religious practice as the refused to act or intervene.

-------------------------------------------~-~---~-~----~-00-~~

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 19 of 26

When the Schwab's begged and pleaded with Caseworkers to at least allow them access on

holidays, they refused. As the Plaintiffs stated in the complaint, when CASA worker Kathy Baer

contacted the Schwab's and tried to get placement transferred for the Schwab children into her own

custody, she claimed the children were being emotionally abused and coached to support the

defendant's false narrative. When Mr. Schwab addressed the civil rights violations of their religious

freedom and connection to their children, Ms. Baer said in a recorded phone call tha DCF, KVC and St

Francis committed those abuses by policy. Theses are very specific allegations. These were acts where

PAWNEE indirectly and INGLES, FEILDS, KVC, ST FRANCIS, PRICE, EISENBARGER, BOYD

and DCF participated in concert with negligence and maliciousness

The Plaintiffs plead with this Court to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the

rejection of Rooker-Feldman as an appropriate abstention, the acknowledgement that the Plaintiffs

made clear and Plausible allegations against the Defendant's, and in the interest of Justice recognize

that it is a grievous thing to deny parent's their children, and children their parents based on obfuscation

of fact, refusal to follow policy or statue, with acts of defamation and perjury by KVC and its workers.

Unfortunately the Defendant's control much of the documentation and refuse, to this day, to

allow the Schwab's access to the police and Court records. Nevertheless, the Schwab's are confident

that as this litigation progresses the discovery process will uncover greater confirmation of these

intentional deprivations of civil rights, under the Color of law by these defendant's.

We Pray for Relief.

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Signed this 16tl' day of January 2019,

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 20 of 26

In propria persona

/S/

~

Sdio,n,_k

AMELIA SCHWAB

In propria persona

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Certification of Service

Page 21 of 26

The Plaintiffs hereby assert that service was made to the following individuals on January 16th,

2019.

Mimi E. Doherty

920 Main Street, Suite I000

Kansas City, MO 64105-2028 Telephone: (816) 421-4000 Facsimile: (816) 421-7880

med@deacylaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT LORA INGELS

JAMES C. MORROW, PEGGY A. WILSON,

8330 Ward Parkway, Suite 300

Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Telephone: (816) 382-1382 Facsimile: (816) 382-1383 jmorrow@mwcattorneys.com pwilson@mwcattorneys.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MIRANDA JOHNSON

Scott J. Gunderson : Counsel for KVC and Pawnee Mental health.

1861 N Rock Rd #211,

Wichita, KS 67220

sjg@nelsongunderson.com, secretaryr@nelsongunderson.com

John G. Schultz

915 SW Harrison St

Topeka, KS 66612-1505

jschultz@fsmlawfirm.corn

Christopher A. Brackman Counsel for St Francis Community Services

8900 Ward Pkwy #200, Kansas City, MO 64114

cbrackman@fsmlawfirm.com, mhaler@fsmlawfirm.com

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 22 of 26

Corliss Scroggins Lawson Attorney for DCF, ANGIE SUTHER, PHYLLIS GILMORE, KIM

YOXELL, THERESA FREED, AND KENDRA BAKER.

corliss.lawson@ks.gov,ju!ie.eggenberger@ks.gov, lawsoncorliss@yahoo.com

J. Steven Pigg FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, L.L.P. 3550 S.W. 5th Street

Topeka, KS 66606 (785) 232-776 I I (785) 232-6604 - fax

E-mail: spigg@fisherpatterson.com Attorney for Defendants Blake Robinson and Randy

Debenham

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 23 of 26

Scott J. Gunderson: Counsel for KVC and Pawnee Mental health.

1861 N Rock Rd #211,

Wichita, KS 67220

sjglalnelsongunderson.com, secretarylalnelsongunderson.com

John G. Schultz

915 SW Harrison St

Topeka, KS 66612-1505

jschultzlalfsmlawfirm.com

Christopher A. Brackman Counsel for St Francis Community Services

8900 Ward Pkwy #200, Kansas City, MO 64114

cbrackmanlalfsmlawfirm.com, mhalelalfsmlawfirm.com

Corliss Scroggins Lawson Attorney for DCF, ANGIE SUTHER, PHYLLIS GILMORE, KIM

YOXELL, THERESA FREED, AND KENDRA BAKER.

corliss.lawsonlalks.gov, julie.eggenberger@ks.gov, lawsoncorliss@yal100.com

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

report_critical_incidents

~

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

I

Page 24 of 26

Page 1 of2

~JKVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT **THIS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED** IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT

ID

51724 reisenbarger 2/25/20I64:14:00 PM

Client's Name DOB KVC# CourtNbr:

c--.scHWAB 07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30

Current Placement KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Input By

Input Date and Time

Placement at Time oflncident KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Location at Time oflncident Bathroom at placements home.

Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time

02/10/2016

Type oflncident Other. Document specifics. Caught a towel on fire!

19:15 02/24/2016

18:21

Factual Account of Incident During the phone call last night (02/25/16) with the kids and parents, one of the boys disclosed that GA was grounded due to catching a towel on fire. c• took a shower sometime in the evening of the date of the incident which Cindy Baer (Placement) reported approximant date was two weeks ago, date unknown. Cindy discovered a burn mark on the tile in the bathroom the following day. When she questioned ete•he stated that his towel had accidentally went into the wall heater. (Wall heater is one of the heaters with flames). Cindy stated that it was the end of the towel which caught fire. She felt that he had been playing with the fire and

reported that two years ago, prior to custody that he had set a fire in their shed. KVC workers will contact his therapist to let her know that this is the second time he has set something on fire so that she can address it with

C

if something like this occurs again.

Actions(s) Taken Case manager was on the call when we first heard of the incident, spoke with grandma and will contact therapist. Parents were on the call when it was disclosed to us also.

during his sessions. Cindy didn't know that she needed to report this, and will make reports in the future

ICase Manager Addendum:

Regorting Person

RONDA EISENBARGER 7854096864 050

Phone

Dept Reviewed By Review Date

Case Manager Contacted Contact Date

Contact Time

Deja Jackson

02/24/2016

18:22

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

report_critical_incidents

~

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 25 of 26

Page 1 of2

I<~KVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT **TIDS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED** IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT

ID Input By Input Date and Time 51756 reisenbarger 2/26/2016 10:35:00 PM

Client's Name

C

Current Placement KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Placement at Time oflncident KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Location at Time oflncident Placements yard

Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time

DOB

KVC#

CourtNbr:

SCHWAB

07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30

12/30/2015

13:02 02/26/2016

15:10

Type of!ncident Other. Document specifics. Setting things on fire

Factual Account oflncident 1lma Schwab at his placement Cindy and Karl Baer's home, sometime around two months ago, outside in the yard. This worker spoke with the therapist for Ge to let her know that C.-. had set a towel on fire and that placement had reported that two years ago he also had set either the shed on fire or something in the shed on fire. The therapist asked if we knew that a couple of months ago that he had set the pig at his grandparents home on fire and put it out quickly, so the pig was not hurt. This had not been reported to KVC. This worker called Cindy Baer placement for~ and asked her when this had taken place. She stated that it had been a couple of months ago. That his brother A••• witnessed this happening and told his grandma. KVC will put a safety plan in place.

Actions(s) Taken Ronda Eisenbarger, Deja Jackson, Bethany Fields, Lora Engels, Raymond and Amelia Schwab, Cindy Baer

ICase Manager Addendum:

Regorting Person

RONDA EISENBARGER 7854096864 050

Phone

Dept Reviewed By Review Date

Case Manager Contacted Contact Date

Contact Time

Deja Jackson

02/26/2016

16:00

'

Case Manager on Record Written Contact Time

JACKSON, DEJA

02/26/2016

22:35

Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB

report_critical_incidents

~

t<~

KVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT

Document 80

Filed 01/17/19

Page 26 of 26

Page 1 of2

**THIS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED** IT JS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT

ID

51757 reisenbarger 2/26/2016 10:41 :00 PM

Client's Name

C• I

Current Placement KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Input By

Input Date and Time

DOB

KVC#

CourtNbr:

SCHWAB 07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30

Placement at Time oflncident KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN

Location at Time oflncident Kitchen of placements home

Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time

02/25/2016

Type of Incident Other. Document specifics. Fire starting

16:33 02/26/2016

20:05

Factual Account oflncident Last night 02/25/16 while Cindy Baer was at parent teacher conferences and grandpa was home with the kids,

~ had heated two pennies up with something in the kitchen then dropped them on the floor burning two wholes in the floor. Then he lit a Kleenex on fire and dropped it on the carpet in the kitchen and burned it. She stated that Karl, (grandpa) had just stepped outside for a few minutes when this took place. This worker asked that Cindy lock up matches, lighters, anything that he can get his hands on and keep them out of reach. safety plan will be put in place and a PRTF screen will be requested.

Actions(s) Taken Ronda Eisenbarger, Deja Jackson, Megan Edmonds, Bethany Fields, Lora Engel, Raymond and Amelia Schwab. Cindy Baer.

ICase Manager Addendum:

Regorting Person

RONDA EISENBARGER 7854096864 050

Phone

Deg! Reviewed By Review Date

Case Manager Contacted Contact Date

Contact Time

Deja Jackson

02/26/2016

20:10

Case Manager on Record Written Contact Time

JACKSON, DEJA

02/26/2016 22:41

IEmail Notification to DCF

Time Within 12 Hours