Our family contacted CPS for help in learning options to help my daughter out of an abusive domestic relationship which we believed was a danger to our daughter and her two children. This plea for help to Riverside County DPSS resulted in CPS taking custody of the children and placing them in foster care by way of an underhanded tactic perpetrated on another family member and her family by DPSS. There were several other options for placement of the children with family. Though according to the Manual of Policy and Procedure (MPP)it is mandated that the first option is reunification and family preservation, the assigned caseworker, Brooke Lacey and her "accomplices" had their own agenda. Rather than follow the MPP to accomplish this goal, these Kidnappers conspired with the foster care agency to cast my daughter in a very biased and unfavorable character in order to justify to the Court the ultimate plan to adopt these children to the foster parents. Our very reputable attorney who has practiced family law in this county for 20+ years confirmed that this foster home was not interested in adoption until they learned of the financial benefits to be had. Since securing the blessings of assistance by "the department" and the foster care agency personnel, a large new home and a new Honda van has been purchased. The department can not produce so much as a signed case plan. The caseworker did not perform a needs assessment to determine the cause for which the children had been found to be dependent/neglected and therefore could not adequately address the remedy that would accomplish a successful reunification. After failing to follow the department's policy and procedure this caseworker presented a skewed report to the court that was prejudicial and intended to cast my daughter as a low-life methamphetamine addict with mental issues. Let it be noted that three negative hair follicle test results had been submitted to the court. The caseworker also reported falsely to the court that my daughter had given birth to a toxic-positive baby, yet medical records report that results for substance in the newborns were negative. Numerous calls/complaints were made to the caseworker's supervisor but nothing came of them by way of change in the way this case was being (mis)handled. The concerns were now taken to the regional managers, (Allison Donahoe-Beggs and Dean Wilson) in the hope that the caseworker would be called into accountability. After speaking with Ms. Beggs initially it seemed hopeful that at last something would be done to get this case directed in the right path, but apparently Ms. Beggs had been convinced that the caseworker was working diligently toward the stated goal and the parent simply was being uncooperative and non-compliant. Next an attempt to contact Supervisor Jeff Stone was thwarted by his secretary who was curt and demeaning to my daughter when she tried to present her testimony and dissatisfaction in regards to the manner in which her case was being managed. This caseworker has since been transferred to "adoptions", an apparent promotion to an area of her expertise. When the case came before Judge Rushton, his comments from the bench indicated that he believed the department was moving this case in the wrong direction. However, by the next hearing Judge Monterosso was sitting on the bench. He is known by department personnel for refusing to reunite children under the age of three years old to the family even when there is sufficient cause to do so, a decision upheld by the court of appeals. The department submitted a very prejudicial report and recommendation to the court; nowhere in their report did they acknowledge that she had never given a positive drug test, that she had completed all of the counseling sessions and other requirements placed on her for reunification with her children. Regardless of these accomplishments and being within the allowable time limits set forth in the judicial codes to restore parental rights and reinstate reunification services, the two older children were ordered for adoption, while the infant and most vulnerable was reunited with her mother. She has been in the custody of her mother for nearly a year and continues to grow and thrive in the love and nurture of her very large family. If this is not a loud testimonial to the injustice and life sentence levied against my granddaughters and our family, I don't know what is! We have been robbed by an agency with too much unbridled power and too little accountability. This is a story repeated in every county across this country. The money that is invested in these agencies on a county, state and federal level likely surpasses that of all other agencies combined. This is a self-perpetuating monster and it can gobble up your family with little care about the "best interests of the child" or justice. Educate yourself: Title IV Social Security Act (B & E), read it for yourself; it's scary! Don't wait until you are an innocent victim. Read; Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer's report for which many believe she and her husband were murdered. There is also a report by the Riverside County Grand Jury who investigated complaints about Riverside County CPS. One can "Google" these; they speak for themselves. These articles address many of the complaints in regards to the illegal and prejudicial mismanagement of our own case which resulted in our children being "legally stolen" from this family. It is also conceivable that in light of the Gay Rights Movement and the humongous push for legalized same sex marriages that this agency has an agenda to provide children (preferably infants and toddlers) to these homes who obviously can not produce their own offspring. From caseworker to deputy director to the sitting judges, this case should rally citizens, officers of the court and law makers to take notice of what is happening in certain jurisdictions. To believe that corruption does not exist between certain agencies and the courts would be to bury ones head in the sand. The character of my family has been smeared and the obvious conclusion of this department is that my home is not fit for my grandchildren. The interpretation is that I am an unfit grandmother and thus it would follow that I was apparently an unfit mother and could not provide a safe and suitable environment in which to raise my own seven children. That also follows that I am a bad person. I am gravely offended that these people have raised themselves above reproach and dare to judge me and my home based on nothing more than the lies and half truths of an inept caseworker and supervisors willing to CHA! I attest to the fact that there are children that need protection and parents that need guidance and instruction and that there are those times when reunification is not a viable solution. If you have been victimized as we have been, please make your voice heard. If you know of someone who has suffered this injustice, speak up for them. Keep in mind, this could happen to anyone, including you. I will not be silent nor will I ever place my trust and confidence in this agency again!