Attorney Connie Reguli: Lowering the Bar of Public Discourse on Child Protective Laws

The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.  Ecclesiastes 9:17

It would seem a simple matter that a lawyer should understand how to reason within the parameters of the laws affecting their client’s case.  It would also seem to be a simple matter that a lawyer should act solely for the benefit of their client, and not use that person’s cause to further their own personal interests. Lawyers are bound by professional standards in their practice, but what is the result when they enter into the realm of public discourse and their cries of injustice can be condemned on the basis that their findings of fact and conclusions of law were arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and unsupported by substantial and material evidence?

Over the past few months we have been looking at several areas where the  Sovereign Citizen Movement, with their false legal arguments and falsified credentials, have caused those who heeded their counsel to go to jail. One of the issues which Sovereign Citizens have attached themselves to is the emotionally volatile Anti-CPS (Child Protective Services) movement.  In the midst of all this Anti-CPS clamor stands attorney Connie Reguli, who in contrast to Sovereign Citizen “diploma mill lawyers”,  actually graduated from an accredited law school, passed the Tennessee State Bar Exam, and practiced in the broad area of family law for over 20 years. Reguli is now undertaking to lead a grass roots movement of reform in the very controversial area of child protective law.

Connie Reguli, Attorney and founder of the nonprofit Family Forward Foundation

At, Connie Reguli  discusses her background history which includes “graduating cum laude from Middle Tennessee State University”,  “prosecuting criminal offenses for the State of Tennessee”,  “completing course work in a master’s psychology program”, “working at the trial level as well as the appellate court level”, and being the single adoptive parent of three (Russian) children. She has been active in Judicial Reform issues “to impeach and remove judges that abuse their power”.

Because we are interested in determining how attorney Connie Reguli has applied her knowledge and influence with respect to the Anti-CPS movement, it is notable that she claims in her resume at that she “is most proud of the fact that she was the first attorney in Tennessee to secure a money judgment for damages in a child abuse case.  The jury awarded 2.8 million dollars to four children against their abusive parents in 2010”.

On social media, Connie Reguli is decidedly against government agencies which have been granted the authority to represent the interests of minor children, in matters where the parents and caregivers of that child are regarded as adversaries.  So it is of interest that Reguli is proud of the part which she played in pleading the cause of children against their own parents, which is to say, that she stood in shoes similar to those worn by CPS; only she took it upon herself to extract a large monetary judgment against the parents of her clients, which would further ensure  irrevocable damage to family relationships.

Seemingly oblivious to the moral weight of her own deeds upon the scales of justice, as she represents first one side and then another, Reguli would like us to think that she can now impartially represent the interests of those parents who believe, contrary to American legal theory, that they have absolute authority over their own children.   That sentiment contrasts with a statement quoted in The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville, assigned on briefs October 21, 2015 In Re Rainee M., page 4, saying,  “Parents have a fundamental constitutional interest in the care and custody of their children under both the United States and Tennessee constitutions.”  Kiesling v. Keisling, 92 S. W. 3d 374, 378 (Tenn. 2002).  It is well established, however, that “this right is not absolute and parental rights may be terminated if there is clear and convincing evidence justifying such termination under the applicable statute.”

Connie Reguli stated in a second letter which she wrote to President Trump, “Certainly, we will never deny that child abuse is real and a travesty in our nation, but not every child taken has been abused.  In fact, the statistics show that 85% of these children are removed under circumstances deemed as neglect”. While Reguli concedes that child abuse does exist, she is of the opinion that child neglect is harmless, and that the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has facilitated through its funding provisions, a scandalous child trafficking effort involving CPS agencies and private foster child organizations who file for the purposes of financial gain, documents which will legally terminate parental rights (TPR).

An example of Connie Reguli and her grass-rooters of the Anti-CPS movement misrepresenting the government’s attempt to protect children from abuse and neglect

The Social Media Advocacy of Attorney Connie Reguli through her nonprofit FAMILY FORWARD FOUNDATION corporation

So exactly what is Connie Reguli advocating, as she spearheads a grassroots movement of Anti CPSers? At her website, she claims, We are a nonprofit organization that exists to build family integrity and protect families from unwarranted government interference.  Together, as families, we can build a nation in which the institutionalization of children through foster care will be a thing of the past.

Additionally under the subheading, “Making your dollars work”, Reguli states, Your dollars are put to work providing advocacy and support for families, assessing the needs of families, organizing resources to fill those needs, and educating lawmakers, judges, and attorneys on family justice.  Under “Family Justice”, the claim is We cannot strengthen families unless we have the support of laws that protect family integrity and family courts that respect the constitutional rights of parents and children.  Finally, for only a $20 donation to the Family Forward Foundation, one can buy Family Justice!

In sync with her nonprofit foundation, Attorney Connie Reguli has also founded a public FaceBook group called Family Forward Project, which presently has 8,808 members. The purpose of this group is “to inform the public and educate the law makers regarding the unlawful social engineering financially incentivized by the Federal government.”

Ever against Federal financial incentives for other people, Reguli is not afraid to embrace the nonprofit corporation benefits for herself. Interestingly, on April 22, 2016, four months before she registered her nonprofit Family Forward Foundation in Tennessee with an effective date of September 1, 2016, she  created her website Family Forward  As of February 3, 2018, Connie Reguli posted the following comment on her Family Forward Project FB, stating that she still had not been approved by the IRS for 501(c)(3) status.  Yet her website asks for donations on behalf of her nonprofit organization while it is still in limbo with the IRS.

Family Forward Foundation’s Logo is like a “Rorschach Inkblot Test”.  While some may view this logo as 3 rocking people holding a heart, all I see is the face of a smirking clown.

Sorry to correct Ms. Reguli’s notions, but Noah actually built an ark, not an arc; the arc was the rainbow created by God to symbolize his promise to not judge the inhabitants of the earth by a flood again. As one can see, Connie Reguli, in making the simplest of statements, manages to complicate them by the simplest of spelling errors. Another example is in this YouTube video where she is describing, but not explaining, her theme of Advocacy for 2018. Is there some reason she presents a very careless image to those who follow her leadership? Cooridination may be fine by her, but who wants to hire an attorney that is careless with detail?

Cooridination…maybe a legalese word?

Pandering to Persons Who Are Accustomed to Publicized Lies 

A couple of days ago, one of the members of the FB Family Forward Project group posted the following, which created a controversy among several readers,  as to whether the Trump Twitter was real or a fake.I read most of the comments, and it would appear that this falsified Trump twitter message originated from another popular Anti-CPS group which bears the heading Dr. Phil Exposes CPS:

Under this FaceBook account, it states, “Dr. Phil exposes CPS is the founder and creator of the fosterwar which has grown to network of over 60,000 members the fosterwar demands that no children be removed from parents or family without criminal charges.”

What is interesting about the member who believed this fake Trump twitter and posted it on Connie Regali’s group FB page, is that this person paid no attention to the date of the message which was  January 20, 2017, just  prior to when Regali had challenged her supporters to send  a million copies of her letter to Trump on this same issue.  So if Trump had in fact made this declaration, why would this group bother with a letter writing campaign?

Two letters had been sent to Trump, the first was in February of 2017, and the second around the end of March 2017. In addition to sending the form letter written by Connie Regali, personal messages were encouraged to be attached. A Go-Fund-Me page received donations for mailing supplies for the second letter. This is a screenshot of the first letter, which I am going to key off of, as a means to discuss the approach of Connie Reguli to the important issues connected to the Anti-CPS movement. The second letter can be read here.

First, the form of this letter does not respect protocol for addressing The President

Both letters were penned by attorney Connie Reguli, although the authorship is not explicitly stated.  She ignores the protocol for addressing a letter to the President of the United States of America. It is disrespectful to ignore the standard form of address,  “Dear Mr. President”,  and both letters are unsigned by the writer, which should have been noted after ending with “Most respectfully”.  Instead, the first letter “signs off” rudely with “These professionals can enlighten you on the burdens of this system:  Connie Reguli, Atty, Tennessee, (etc.)…And many more”.  Several attorney names are listed with no means of contact, although the President is told that these “professional experts” are the ones who can educate him “on this giant problem”. Both letters reference the Family Forward Project.  The first letter suggests to the President, “Find us on Facebook”.

Not only is this form of letter disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States, but also it sets a bad example to the followers of Connie Reguli, many of which have experienced problems with Child Protective Services because their personal behavior falls short of the minimum standards for raising children.  It only complicates their situation if they are encouraged to adopt a tone of disrespect toward governmental authorities.

Statements are made without reference to supporting documentation

The first sentence of the first letter says, “Every day in America 400,000 children are living in foster care”.  The second letter, written one month later, states the figure of 500,000. There is no source given to back these numbers. Reguli claims that 80% of foster “children are removed from their homes on the ambiguous and inocuous(sp) claims of child neglect”. The second letter changes the 80% to 85%.

“Child neglect” probably is a general category used by CPS to summarize under one heading,  specific documented facts and observations made by the case worker.  Thus there would be in reality,  no ambiguity in the actual case file.  And why does Reguli consider child neglect to be “inocuous” (innocuous, i.e. harmless), if the evidence itself  warranted removal of a child from its home?

In the second letter, a complaint is made against the monetary incentives involved in the  privatization of foster care.  But even if the government ran foster care directly, it would involve providing the foster parents with funds to reimburse the basic costs of the child. One cannot get around the fact that all this costs lots of money, which comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

The focus of the letter is on the “negative effects” of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), but Reguli fails to address what factual evidence exists to back her complaints

This ASFA bill was signed into existence in 1997 under the Clinton Administration.  Reguli desires to have this entire act overturned, so she asks Trump, “Please execute an executive order which prohibits the adoption bonus program to the states for forced adoptions.”

I had to look online to find out what the official explanation is for this act, as it is not properly explained in either letter. Apparently 20 years ago,  there had been concern that some children were remaining in foster care for long periods, or experiencing multiple placements, which was detrimental to their sense of wellbeing.  Therefore a requirement was established that states are to file for termination of parental rights (TPR) once children have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, with exceptions made under certain conditions.

Reguli fails to address with documented facts how these requirements actually affect the manner in which cases are handled. The reality of many families who have had children placed in foster care, is that these parents have resisted making even the most rudimentary of changes needed to properly care for their own children. Many of these parents have criminal, drug and mental issues, poor work habits, poor social skills, etc. that have placed their minor children in physically and emotionally distressing situations, and it is the failure of the parents to act responsibly, that keeps their children in foster care.

Reguli claims in her second letter that federal funding “amounts to government sanctioned child trafficking and against humanity”. She also stated “We can barely remember the extermination of the Jews under Nazi Germany, but someday our history books will find that the rehoming of children has become the norm instead of the exception.  Just imagine if each child is worth $80,000 per year to an industry thirsting for more children to ring their register”.  Proof?  None given.

“…adopting them into the home of strangers” complaint by Reguli in both Trump letters

The ASFA emphasizes adoption by adult relatives over nonrelatives, so why is Connie Reguli all aghast about the adoption of children by strangers, when she, as a single adult, adopted three children from Russia, removing them from their native country entirely?

In the screenshot below, Connie Reguli posted the following story which may explain why she resorts to undocumented and unproven complaints against the CPS system.

Judge Sharon Guffee’s 2017 complaint about the unprofessional conduct of Connie Reguli is made to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

In connection with this story about Judge Sharon Guffee, Connie Reguli had posted on the Family Forward Project FB site, a two page letter signed by Guffee on Williamson County Juvenile Court letterhead, dated September 6, 2017 to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

I have excerpted parts of this letter from Judge Guffee, which begins, “I am sending this complaint against attorney Connie Reguli for an incident that recently occurred before the Government Operations Subcommittee for the Judiciary and Government for the Tennessee legislature on August 15, 2017.”

“Attached is the video from the meeting where Ms. Natasha Pavolich addresses the committee as part of their citizen communications.  It begins at 46.30.  Ms. Pavolich on at least two occasions states she is “here on behalf of attorney Connie Reguli” who was “unable to be present”.  During her exchange with the committee, Ms. Pavolich expressed her dissatisfaction with a ruling she received in my court.  She admitted she had not filed a complaint with the Board of Judicial Conduct.  Also attached you will find her voluntary dismissal of her appeal to the Court of Appeals….”.

“I welcome and expect any party who comes before me to seek a review from a superior court if they are not satisfied with their outcome.  What I do not expect is for an attorney to solicit others to disparage a judge in a public forum knowing full well this is unacceptable unethical conduct on the part of an attorney.  Clearly, Ms. Pavolich was acting as an agent for Ms. Reguli…”.

“In addition, I am enclosing a very disturbing correspondence regarding “wholesaling of children through the Department of Children’s Services” one of my magistrates received in the mail….I am frankly appalled that Ms. Reguli is able to make such fraudulent solicitations without some type of serious sanction”.

One of the posts allowed on Connie Reguli’s FB group Family Forward Project

You can learn nothing from the sarcasm of the CPS Checklist; however, the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:  Connie Reguli v. Sharon Guffee is highly interesting

On March 31, 2010  An Appeal was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concerning a case involving Connie Reguli, personally and as next friend of “daughter” Reguli, a minor child(Plaintiffs) v. Sharon Guffee, personally and in her capacity as Referee of Williamson County Juvenile Court (Defendants). has a copy of this appeal here.

This fourteen page document is interesting reading for the layman, as the Appeals Circuit Judges summarize the facts of the case and discuss the merits of the arguments presented by Connie Reguli. The conclusion was that the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

This case involving Connie Reguli, as plaintiff, represents the unusual situation of an experienced family law attorney and former assistant prosecutor who found herself as a single parent personally interacting with the Williamson County, Tennessee juvenile court system, after her own 16-year-old daughter went astray. What was interesting is that the Appeals discussion of the details of this case stated, “…proceedings only began because Reguli herself charged her daughter as unruly”. Throughout the Appeals document, as it goes point by point, the plaintiff, even though a practicing attorney, did not cite cases to support her arguments, and failed to make a convincing case that her constitutional rights had been violated.

Reguli’s appeal is based on “the denial of her claims of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on her constitutional rights as a parent and her constitutional right to privacy.” The original complaint was made on August 12, 2008, and “on February 19, 2009, the district court dismissed most of the claims.”

After comparing the recent Facebook charge of Reguli that Judge Guffee was to be blamed for ruining her daughter’s life, with the actual facts of the case as described in the Appeals record, it would seem that Reguli has taken the position that everyone else’s actions are blamable and that the actions of herself and her daughter had no bearing on how this matter was handled.

Reguli’s suspension from practicing law

An article on dated January 7, 2016 titled,  Brentwood lawyer suspended from practicing law after court upholds panel’s discipline summarizes the details of the complaints which had been filed with the Board of Professional Responsibility against Connie Reguli. The judgments were appealed, and in a December 28, 2015 filing in the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville, Board of Professional Responsibility v. Connie Reguli, an opinion was given after a thorough review of these matters. Again, this is an interesting 18 page document which any layperson can understand.

On page 6, it is stated, “The Panel concluded the aggravating circumstances applicable were (1) prior professional discipline of Ms. Reguli; (2) Ms. Reguli’s bad faith failure to respond to requests for information by the Board; (3) dishonest or selfish motives of Ms. Reguli; (4) Ms. Reguli’s refusal to recognize the wrongful nature of her conduct; and (5) Ms. Reguli’s substantial experience in the practice of law.”

On page 11, it states,  “Ms. Reguli next contends that the Panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial and material evidence”. How ironic that Reguli has charged the Panel with the same behavior which she exemplified in her letters to President Trump.

What motives lie beneath the noble statements of a tax exempt mission?

Connie Reguli’s desire to form a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation to receive tax exempt donations to support her leadership of a “grassroots movement using social media”, is in my opinion, meant to usurp the authority of government agencies charged with protecting children from neglect and abuse. Why do I use the word usurp rather than oppose, or reform? The stated purposes of Connie Reguli’s nonprofit foundation are highly unrealistic in their broad undertaking, given the vast problems which the CPS and judicial systems must deal with on an ongoing basis.  So very possibly, there must be another unstated purpose for this group which entails a resentment of established authority.

Reguli’s Family Forward  Foundation mission is nothing more than words without a grasp of real life, mere politicized rhetoric that they “exist to build family integrity”, promising that “institutionalization of children through foster care will a thing of the past”, and “your dollars are put to work providing advocacy and support for families, assessing the needs of families, organizing resources to fill those needs, and educating lawmakers, judges, and attorneys on family justice.” Think about what has just been stated. 

These words show a desire to usurp the authority legally granted to government agencies, while yet providing no realistic basis on which this foundation can perform its mission.  Will these volunteers fulfill the job descriptions of a vast network of employees presently functioning in those very capacities, or will they create a utopia where families are no longer dysfunctional?  If you get rid of foster care, what will you replace it with? I see no workable solutions even offered.

While sounding noble, these words are in fact shameless, given the truth that the effect of such a movement shows that their actions are not about seeking a reform which respects the rights of all parties involved.  Rather, such efforts serve to lower the bar of intelligent reasoning in the public domain.   Connie Reguli’s motives also appear to harbor a conflict of interest, particularly as she expresses a continuing bitter personal resentment towards those she had conflicts with in the past. The very sober issues of CPS deserve an analysis which entails respectful fact finding and a deeper understanding of law; something which no grassroots movement of disgruntled name callers can ever engage in.





18 thoughts on “Attorney Connie Reguli: Lowering the Bar of Public Discourse on Child Protective Laws

  1. I don’t understand all of the potential truths or untruths (or somewhere in between) that underpin the narrative here. I don’t have first-hand knowledge in the CPS/Fostering area. I HAVE however read many stories of CPS abuses.

    Dave Hodges covered one such extreme example, as much as I hate to admit, and helped raise the lawyer fees needed to return the child to his mother. Her crime? Being outspoken against local government policy. The boy was handed over to a gay foster couple. At visitation, evidence of abuse was noted. Maybe overwrought, I don’t know.

    I recall many years ago, a woman on some daytime talk show (Sally Jessy Raphael, maybe) had her infant child taken from her because she mentioned to a friend that she would sometimes become aroused during breastfeeding. I don’t know if that is a natural thing or not, being a man. I can only imagine it might be possible. She was reported and the baby removed from the household. Is this OK?

    My brother and sister-in-law used the fostering program (primarily to teen delinquents) to supplement their income. It didn’t seem to me that it was a heart matter, but rather a money matter. They made a good income by it. They had their own teen and preteen children at the time, and at one point, a life was threatened (by a fostered girl toward their teen daughter). They stopped fostering girls after that, but continued with boys. Would I subject my children to that? Hard to say.

    As a Scout leader in an area famous for Meth abuse, I have dealt with many boys and young men whose parents were useless or in prison and being raised by their grandparents. They came to Scouting to have a positive male presence in their lives. Families are indeed being ripped apart these days.

    Life is messy.

    Clearly, if run properly and thoughtfully, the CPS system is a positive one. Any system is open for abuse, particularly if quotas or profit comes into play.

    Some people take things too far. Perhaps your subject is one of those. I’m not contesting or confirming your report. Just making my own observations.

    • CPS is a minefield. The first problem is that all accusations have to investigated, and approximately half are declared to be unfounded. Much of that has to do with false accusations from those with a grudge against another person. There is a tendency of the investigator to view the person who is being accused as being guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty. So the person who is being falsely accused is under great stress, and often must hire an attorney to give them a sense of order.

      Then there are the actual cases which are assigned a case worker, who must deal with all those real life decisions as to how best to work the situation out. On top of that, some case workers are not as well trained, or have less wisdom in these difficult situations.

      The third problem is the reporting of cases to the public without a fair and accurate airing of the evidence. Much of the hype we see on TV or videos are not accurate reporting, and do not reflect what actually happened or what was discussed in the courtroom. There is very little objective reporting in the news these days because the means for getting ahead is to “be showy and get attention”, rather than to do a commendable work in investigative journalism.

      Thanks Karl for your personal insights. Your experience in the Scouting program is interesting. And yes, there are those who eye the money from foster parenting more than the altruistic desire to help a young person who has a troubled family situation. Just problem after problem after problem in these CPS matters.

  2. Jacquelyn,

    Regarding the effort to reduce children’s time in foster care, you note:

    “Therefore a requirement was established that states
    are to file for termination of parental rights (TPR) once
    children have been in foster care for 15 of the most
    recent 22 months, with exceptions made under certain

    That brings to mind the infamous case of “Baby Holm” which has been the topic of discussion for a little over a year now at:

    Baby Holm was born October 10, 2016 and went in to foster care before it was 2 days old because the parents were “nuts” and otherwise could not show that they were able to provide for the reasonable needs of the child (Alabama Code Sections 12-15-306 & 12-15-102).

    The 15 month period referenced above recently passed and it has been rumored that termination of parental rights may now be in the works.

    The significance, in my opinion, of the Baby Holm case, may be seen in the context of your article and the earlier comments following.

    That is, there are plenty of “horror stories” and, of course, they involve government operations and, as such, there is plenty of room for improvement.

    In that context, as might be expected, one is apt to find illegitimate scammers and others seeking to exploit the situation for their own purposes without regard to seriously using appropriate means to affect meaningful change.

    That’s where Baby Holm comes in to play.

    The record in the Baby Holm case indicates that the parents and their promoters started off wanting to showcase their anti-government agenda in the context of the popular “sovereign citizen” context, and we have seen that being played out for over a year.

    The parents have done little, if anything, to actually demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that they were willing and able to care for Baby Holm, but they have done much to promote their anti-government agenda and have found plenty of support from like-minded people.

    If there is a bright spot in the Baby Holm case, it may be that, in response to the “push-back” from the group linked above, people have been learning the truth about the Holms and their promoters and public support for the parents’ anti-government agenda has waned, and properly so.

    Life is risky either way.

    In the case of Baby Holm, it appears we have an example of how the child-welfare efforts of government are supposed to work and Baby Holm is on his way to a permanent adoptive family and better opportunities than his parents were interested in demonstrating they could provide.

    We likely have not heard the last of Baby Holm and his parents.
    Stay tuned!

    • Real problems with CPS cannot be solved unless there is a rational analysis of what and where things need to be fixed. My point in the article is that lowering the level of discussion to rants and generalized accusations fails to bring about real reform. If you ever want to send me the documents you have in the case which you are familiar with, perhaps I can identify the specifics of how things went so very wrong.

    • @ Mike & Jacquelyne

      Released yesterday is a recording from about a year ago which is a discussion between Jonathan Payton, one of C. Clarke & Danielle Holm’s early and most visible promoters and Lisa Chasteen, of the Holm’s first private lawyers who was quickly fired after it was clear the Holm’s were not interested in taking her advice (they now claim they have fired 10 such attorneys).

      I think it is worthy of noting because of what Chasteen has to say about what does not work. As they say, “it is what it is” and ranting about your disagreements and using all sorts of knuckleheaded antics does not result in the successful return of children to their parents.

      Here’s a link to that broadcast:

      The Holms have become a testimony to what doesn’t work, and that might have been their goal all along; to never have to parent Baby Holm.

      • Compromising and suing after doesn’t work. No one is winning lawsuits against these guys. Mcmillan has won a few, that’s almost about it. The several million dollar lawsuit mentioned, Fogarty, her kids were almost grown by the time she won that, and she was one of the lucky ones who found an attorney who would take such a case (Mcmillan).

        I filed a lawsuit in 2011, after compromising, taking class after class, and groveling for almost a year. The lawsuit wasn’t ruled on until 2016, still hadn’t made it to any kind of trial after 5 years, was closed on a motion for summary judgement, not one oral argument, never stepped foot in any federal courtroom. I appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court to no avail. I am certainly not the only one. The federal courthouse gets tons of these regularly I am sure. The process does help enhance the litigant’s strength and knowledge, but it can also drive one mad.

        I have a tape from a case where the same words are are being used, adversarial, lose the fight to win the battle, etc. It doesn’t take such extremes for these things to be said and used against a family. In the case from the tape I have, all a family member did was file a motion to intervene, a relevant, nessesary, and perfectly legal option. She was being told that DSS took this as being adversarial and “going against them.” She was then told the judge would TPR the mother over it, and that she should rescind the motion and “get on her knees” to DSS. These things should not be factors in a child abuse case and certainly not how the justice system should operate. It’s a mirror image of an abusive relationship. Push the person to the limit, and then call them crazy for being on the defense.

        From the perspective of a parent, it’s contradictory to say “shut-up” and “don’t give them anything because they will twist it,” but then also say they should let them in their home? Won’t they just twist what they see there as well? If DSS has no evidence to prove their burden, then why must the family bow down to a warrantless search to prove their innocence to them? When it’s happening to you, it’s hard to know what is the best choice, because you end up getting screwed so many times whether you go left or right. Parents are literally being told by their attorneys to plead guilty by stipulation and waive any adversarial hearing “in the spirit of cooperation” and IF they want their kids back. I can prove this, but most involved (social workers, attorneys) will admit this is the truth too. That just wouldn’t and shouldn’t make logical sense to any parent in that situation. You cannot say that it’s because they didn’t want their child. More than likely the opposite is actually true for one to “fight” that hard.

      • I have had contact with Shawn McMillan, the hot-shot lawyer in California that many boast about, and some of his supporters.

        “We” tried to get him to get serious about evaluating the Baby Holm case and, as I recall, to a lesser extent, the Raymond Schwab case.


        He/they had all sorts of reasons why he wasn’t going to do that! In substance, I think he dared not touch it because he knew he could not challenge “our” position in the Baby Holm and/or Raymond Schwab cases.

        My Baby Holm group is searchable and you can search “McMillan” for historical details regarding all of that.

        Here’s the link to that group:


      • Shawn McMillan is great. Was your Holms case in California or even near it? He doesn’t practice all over the country and he is always booked up. That’s more likely the reason for not taking the Holms case. Your jumping to conclusions, just like this blog on Connie Reguli. Connie is great and this article only tries to twist the facts. All the stats and facts that the blogger wants to say aren’t cited are pretty much common knowledge. Look at any site that reports DSS statistics or perhaps take a look at some of Nancy Schaefer’s speeches. You will see and get the same numbers that Connie spoke of 🤦‍♀️. The non-profit attempt is new too. If your dates are somehow correct on that, then it must have been something she put on the back burner for a bit, because she only announced it fairly recent…

      • @JY

        I don’t think I have jumped to any conclusions at all.

        Shawn McMillan may be a big fish in California, but he was trumpeted as a Champion in the context of the Baby Holm case as if he could show up and provide some basis for challenging the Alabama law applicable to the Baby Holm case.

        I was in touch with him and he backed down with such lame excuses you suggest.

        I didn’t bring Shawn into it, but I ran him back to California after he was put up as some kind of Champion.

        I don’t think anyone asked him to “take” the Holm case, but the tried to get him involved in the discussion, and he did get involved before realizing he “had nothing” he could offer to support the Holms or their promoters (i.e., the State of Alabama was legally and factually justified).

        Shawn couldn’t do it.
        No one could do it.


        Contrary to what some people may believe, I did not write the article above, and I have yet to see where Connie Reguli has explained why she “named” me in that post of hers in her group where I am not allowed to give an answer.

        If there is time and interest, we might be able to go back and actually reconstruct Shawn’s actual involvement in the Baby Holm case.

      • Also for you, JY:

        I did some checking of the archives in my “Understanding the Baby Holm Case” FaceBook group.

        Marilyn Yamamoto showed up at one point to trumpet herself and her hero Shawn McMillan. It didn’t work out so well for her or Shawn.

        Following is just one of the posts I made from about a year ago when the Shawn McMillan issue came up:

        (Begin quote.)

        Marilyn Yamamoto v. Robert Baty

        Subject: State Custody of Baby Holm

        In our most recent exchange, privately, Marilyn wrote, in relevant part:

        – “Imminent danger has to be observed at the
        – time. There could not have been imminent
        – danger when the newborn was in the hospital.”

        I responded, in relevant part:

        – “I disagree regarding the ‘imminent danger’
        – issue.”

        She replied:

        – “You can’t disagree because I’ve been following
        – a civil litigator’s lawsuits on this for 5 years.

        – Check out Shawn McMillan in the group Families
        – Against Governmental Abuse.

        – He has youtubes on his depositions.”

        I wrote back:

        – “Bwahahahahaha!

        – You are wrong, or else I would not disagree
        – with you.

        – I don’t much care for chasing rabbits.

        – If you have anyone that wants to challenge
        – me on the legal propriety of the State of Alabama
        – taking custody of Baby Holm, send them to me
        – and we can set up a stand-alone, one-on-one
        – thread in my group to advance that conversation;
        – which can be mirrored whereever your champion
        – wants to mirror it.

        – OK!

        – You have been duly challenged.

        – Bring on your champion, or take up the challenge
        – yourself.

        – OK!

        And then from her, so far:


        (End quote.)

      • Another one for “JY”

        From another post in my “Understanding the Baby Holm Case” FaceBook group I have the following exchange with McMillan archived:

        (Begin quotes.)

        From Shawn McMillan

        You are incorrect.

        In oder to seize a child from the custody of its parents
        without first obtaining a warrant the social worker must
        have information at the time of the seizure that shows
        that the child is in immediate Danger of suffering severe
        bodily injury or death.

        There is no need to enter into a lengthy debate on this

        It is black letter law.

        I make a good living suing government social workers
        for violating the 4th and 14th amendments to the United
        States Constitution by seizing children under non exigent circumstances without first obtaining a warrant.


        From Robert Baty

        Come on Shawn, that’s the “I said so” line Marilyn
        was pulling.

        I can understand if you don’t want to discuss it, but
        just say so instead of claiming there is nothing to discuss.

        We haven’t even discussed what proposition might be in
        dispute as applied to the Baby Holm case which is the
        context for this exchange to begin with.

        If you think there was anything legally insufficient in the
        Baby Holm taking on October 11, 2017 and the judge’s
        decision to allow the State to retain custody at the 72
        hour hearing, “we” certainly want to know if you can
        actually make the case for it.

        Right now, it doesn’t look like you are up to it to me.

        Feel free to ask to join the group and we can set up a
        thread to allow you to explain your position and, if
        appropriate, have it challenged.

        Here’s the link to the group:


        From Robert Baty


        I just noticed that you had been added to the group by
        another member. So, I will go ahead and set up a
        thread for that discussion of your position.

        Give me a few minutes.


        From Shawn McMillan

        Here is the problem, to even know what went on in
        the baby home case I would need to read up on the

        Then to decide whether or not I agree with what the
        judge did I would need to look at the case File.

        Then to discredit whatever you are saying is the correct
        legal view, I would need to put together a short brief
        and the case of thority supporting the proposition stated

        You are talking about a 20-hour proposition there.

        I have zero intention of devoting 20 hours of my time
        2 proving anybody wrong where it’s just a matter of

        I simply don’t have time for any such “debate.”

        Secondarily, as I already stated comma the legal
        standard that applies is readily available in the case

        There is nothing to debate.


        From Robert Baty

        OK! I get that.

        In summary, for all you know my position is correct
        and the taking and retention by the State of Alabama
        is legally justified.

        Should you or anyone else wish to spend a little time
        and challenge my position on that, which others hold
        as well, you are welcome to join in that discussion.

        I will try to get that thread completed as soon as possible
        so that we will have the record of your consideration of
        the case.

        Thanks again for your time and interest.


        From Shawn McMillan

        The black letter law is pretty straight forward. Google
        Mabe v. County of San Bernardino.

        It lays the law out pretty clearly for you.

        Once you have that, you can do your own application
        of fact to law.

        You don’t need me for that.


        From Robert Baty

        I think Marilyn mentioned that case as well.

        In any case, I will post it to the thread and we’ll see
        what discussion might be had of it in the group.

        Since you are a member, if you stick around, you
        can keep an eye on it according to your time and

        Thanks again for the consideratin.


        From Shawn McMillan

        Np. I don’t mean to be rude. I really just don’t have
        time to participate in most of these things.

        I post a lot of hour winning work product online so
        people can review it use it as a template throw it in
        the trash whatever they want.

        But generally speaking, that is about as far as I can go.

        Sorry for the typos. My voice to text sucks.


        From Robert Baty

        Matthew Simechak is a busy lawyer as well, and he’s
        spent a lot more time than you, pro bono, in advising
        us and the Holm parents about such things.

        I understand if you don’t wish to pursue the matter.

        I think we got the gist of your position and can go from
        there, with or without you or Marilyn or some other
        opposing party, if we are in opposition, to deal with it in
        our little group.


        From Shawn McMillan

        There is ample case authority laying out the parameters
        limiting social services constitutional authority.

        Just use Google scholar.


        From Robert Baty


        I think we have enough to get your basic position set
        up and consider it.


        From Shawn McMillan

        “Thumbs up”

        (End quotes.)

  3. I worked in the juvenile facility here in my county for almost a decade, so there was alot of interaction with CPS. I have always found them to be the same as any other government agency- they got some good ones and bad ones. There are some wonderful foster parents and there are some horrible ones.
    You are absolutely correct. Real issues need to be identified and addressed. Taking on an attitude that everything/everyone is criminal is not productive.
    Ultimately, the real problem is that we need a CPS at all.

  4. You prefer empirical evidence to document how children and families are deprived of their constitutional ‘rights’ by State Governments through CPS Agencies and Foster Care/Child Welfare Systems??
    An example in Texas:

    Some Google research and a basic understanding of how operant conditioning shapes human behavior will reveal countless other cases across America that provide ‘documented evidence’ of facts consistently indicative of a fundamentally flawed system design regarding protection of children in this country. The only people who can deny the above mentioned fact either 1) lack sufficient critical thinking ability to allow proper examination of empirical evidence 2) have never reviewed an appropriate sample size of evidence in an unbiased & scientific manner, and/or 3) benefit personally from federal child protection legislation.

    • Genzmiyagi, Some 30 years ago in Texas I witnessed a disturbing incident in a daycare, and before I could explain what had I had seen to the child’s mother, who I knew, someone at the daycare filed a false accusation against my husband with CPS. After 40 days CPS declared the accusation unfounded. However, the incident had not been handled in accordance with state procedures, and so I was able to get the social worker officially reprimanded. I was also able to speak personally for 3 hours with the top 3 officials at CPS, including their attorney, about their working procedures departing from the state law. I highly dislike those on the internet that create an environment where problems cannot be resolved for the betterment of all, whether it be the person accused or the CPS worker charged with investigating the situation.

      • Wow glad you achieved that much and got such an audience! The mother had a 2015 CPS case with a good worker who did his job, did not intervene into our families unreasonably, and ruled out abuse/neglect and closed case. This time we were set up by people with malicious intentions.

      • In answer to your comment about achieving such an audience, I studied the Texas laws on CPS and social workers which I found in the reference section of the very small local library in Seguin, TX. I learned how to make an official complaint against a social worker, which I followed to the T. Also I discovered that there was an appointed position above CPS, and I wrote the man who was in that position. I told him exactly what had transpired. He wrote back stating that the social worker had been reprimanded, as I had compared her behavior with the laws on the books. However, there were issues which had been whitewashed; therefore I requested a personal audience with him. He delegated that visit that to the top 3 persons at CPS. I used to be a bank auditor, and so was experienced in comparing the facts of this case to Texas law.

        One of the major problems which I witnessed with the social worker is that she presumed my husband was guilty, prior to investigating the facts. Thankfully, she realized at some point that the accusation was unfounded. However, it was apparent to me that there was either a deficiency in her training, or in her approach to her job, or both.

        And my 3 hour discussion with the top CPS admins. involved going over in detail the procedures of a CPS social worker from the point of receiving an anon. accusation, to contacting the family by phone, and then by personal interview.

        At no point should CPS be judging the guilt of the accused BEFORE a complete investigation has been completed. With a 50 percent unfounded rate back in the late 1980’s, it was apparent to me that many anon. accusations were either malicious or perhaps a sincere person had grossly misinterpreted a situation. My point in all this is that one has to remain objective in approaching CPS problems, if the desire is to see long term changes made to their procedures, which will benefit all of the parties involved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.