04/02/2024
CPS stole my children and everyday I file something to the Court it's a federal crime. The Harris County Attorney's Office and the Attorney General are coming to court, seeking to throw me out of court using statutes against me that does not apply to me, and depriving me a fourteenth Amendment Due Process which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
They refuse to undo what they've done and hold the social worker Sefra Perkins accountable.
Illegal attempted seizure in violation of Plaintiffâs Fourteenth (14th) Amendment Due Process Rights.
47. Defendant, Sefra Perkins, accompanied by an identified peace officer, entered the premises of this Plaintiff, Christina Michelle Cruise, at 3030 Hirschfield Rd. Spring, Texas 77373 , on or about December 05, 2014, at approximately 7:00 P.M. defendants entered into the premises of this Plaintiff in an attempt to seize, without a valid warrant, without exigent circumstances of abuse, neglect, no permission to seize the biological children of this Plaintiff, Christina Cruise in violation of Plaintiffâs Fourteenth (14th) Amendment Due Process Rights. The Due Process Clause âforbids the government to infringe certain âfundamentalâ liberty interest and a fundamental right must be examined with strict scrutiny and that Plaintiffâs children are not the mere creature of the state, and the Court forbids perjury to impair someone in the continued care and custody of that personâs children. 18 U.S.C. 1623. See also Tex. P. Code 37.01, et. Seq.
48. Defendants filed a frivolous suit back in December 2014 removing Plaintiffâs three children and a frivolous motion to dismiss Plaintiffâs suit and a Plea to the jurisdiction on March 8, 2024, because the defendants violation of Plaintiffâs constitutional rights, Fourteenth (14th) Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies, this liberty interest is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part that âno state shallâŠdeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.â Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, comfort and control of their biological children and cannot be impaired without due process of law, parents have that right, and it cannot be impaired without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 18 U.S.C. 1623. See also Tex. P. Code 37.01, et. Seq.
49. Defendant Sefra Perkins was not successful in her attempt on one of the children, but she did wrongfully and illegally seize one of the Plaintiffâs children, Teralynn Campbell while defendant, Terence Campbell assisted as a Co Conspirator to acts when taking the child for that weekend and failed to return the child because of defendant, Sefra Perkins actions, her false accusations to the father making him believe that the child was in danger. But neither of the defendants took the children to any nearby hospital or any doctor, but alleged the children were in danger. Plaintiff, Christina Cruise had sole managing conservatorship of the child until the child was four years old, an agreed child custody arrangement between Plaintiff, and Mr. Terance Campbell, Mr. Campbell had supervised visitation.
50. On or about December 08, 2014, Defendantâs Sefra Perkins and Terence Campbell had already seized one child, Teralynn Campbell. Defendant Sefra Perkins, accompanied by an unidentified, armed officer, entered the premises of Plaintiff, Christina Cruise at 3030 Hirschfield Rd. Spring Texas. Defendant entered onto the premises of Plaintiff with a court order where she had made with false statements, false accusations to deceive the judge to obtain a court order to inquire jurisdiction of the court to seize Plaintiffâs daughterâs on or about December 08, 2014.
51. Defendant did, commit perjury and deceived the judge to obtain the court order, she had no permission, and there were no exigent circumstances (emergency), and seized the biological children of this Plaintiff, Christina Cruise in violation of Plaintiffâs Fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process rights. Defendant seized the biological children of this Plaintiff and placed said children in the Temporary Managing Conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
The defendant, Sefra Perkins stated to dispatch on or about December 05, 2014, proves that the defendant was not in the possession of a valid court order, or sworn affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge.
Was supposed to take child Taelyn Williams an 11 - month-old but does not have the paperwork with her and would still like to make a report/sus will not give up the child.
52. Sefra Perkins the defendant was never in the possession of a valid court order, or an affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge witnessing the abuse and neglect or sexual abuse on or about December 05, 2014, which would have authorized her search and her attempted seizure of Plaintiffâs children in violation plaintiffâs Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as authorized by Texas Fam. Code § 262. 101 states in its entirety that an original suit filed by a governmental entity that requests permission to take possession to take possession of a child without prior notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence section (1), (2), (3) and (4). Defendant was not in the possession of a sworn affidavit sworn on or about December 05, 2014 when she attempted to seize Plaintiffâs children in violation of Plaintiff, Christina Cruise fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process rights, guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies, this liberty interest is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part that âno state shallâŠdeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.â Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, comfort and control of their biological children and cannot be impaired without due process of law, parents have that right, and it cannot be impaired without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 18 U.S.C. 1623. See also Tex. P. Code 37.01, et. Seq.
Illegal Seizure in violation of Plaintiffâs Fourteenth (14th) Amendment Due Process Rights.
53. On or about December 08, 2014 the defendant made false statements, false accusations in the Court order which is the writ of attachment to illegally remove Plaintiffâs children from her care in violation of Plaintiffâs fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process rights, guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies, this liberty interest is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part that âno state shallâŠdeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.â Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, comfort and control of their biological children and cannot be impaired without due process of law, parents have that right, and it cannot be impaired without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 18 U.S.C. 1623. See also Tex. P. Code 37.01, et. Seq.
Francesca Aguirre Assistant County Attorney made material misrepresentation of law, and material misrepresentation of fact when Attorney Aguirre swore to the truth of the following false statements in the original petition.
54. Moreover, Attorney Francesca Aguirre, Assistant Harris County Attorney, swore to the truth of false statements contained in the Original Petition titled, Original Petition for protection of a child for conservatorship, and for suit affecting the parent child relationship Application for writ of attachment as to Taelyn Cruise., the child on December 8, 2014. Assistant Harris County Attorney Francesca Aguirre provided legal representation to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) in this parental rights termination suit. Assistant Harris County Attorney Francesca Aguirre made material representation of the law, and material misrepresentation of fact, when Attorney Aguirre swore to the truth of the following false statements: See Original Petition Cause of Action on the courtâs docket in cause number 2014-71072, Dec 8, 2014. The Social Worker made it appear there was potential harm when it wasnât.
Conspiracy against Plaintiffs Fourteen (14th) Amendment Due Process Rights by state actors and Attorneys and private citizens.
55. Robert Hazeltine Shedd, Tiffany Reedy and Rachael Frasher all came in attempting to set aside the default judgment against the Department and or in alternative ask for New Trial on the merits. After the Court lost plenary power to act and had a discretionary duty to sign the order for entry and appoint Plaintiff a new attorney, she gave the Attorneys a chance to challenge the default judgment against them. The Harris County Attorneyâs Robert Hazeltine Shedd, Tiffany Reedy and Rachael Frasher all at this point aided and abetted, conspired with Francesca Aguirreâs false misrepresentation of the law, and aided and abetted the frivolous suit knowing that Attorney Aguirre had broken the law at prosecuting a frivolous suit where the social worker had made false allegations of abuse and neglect and illegally removed Plaintiffs children. One child was illegally adopted, Taelyn Victoria Cruise and the other child Plaintiffâs parental duties were restricted to supervise visits making it appear that Plaintiff was a criminal child abusing mother, when she isnât.
56. Said, when the Attorneys came to court and prosecuted the case they conspired and aided and abetted Francesca Aguirre state crimes, and federal felonies. The Attorneys are fully aware that the Department has a responsibility to abuse and neglect children, these children were not victims of abuse or neglect or sexual abuse, there was no emergency. The lawsuit was frivolous.
57. Robert Hazeltine Shedd came to Court helping Rachael Frasher as Tiffany Reedy given the case to Rachael Frasher to aided and abetted the frivolous suit where false allegations occurred, where Attorney Francesca Aguirre had made false misrepresentation of law and prosecuted a frivolous suit containing false knowingly false statements of facts.
58. They were again successful at the attempt setting aside an order that promoted justice for criminal activity done to Plaintiff and her children. Plaintiff argues that if there was potential harm the department would have had a valid warrant and affidavit on December 05, 2014, from the District Court.
59. Sefra Perkins the defendant went to 1115 Congress St. Houston, TX 77002 at Presiding Judge James S. Squire and somehow retrieved a warrant. Defendant Sefra Perkins then made false accusations thereby committing perjury to obtain a warrant and deceived the Judge, then placed plaintiffâs children in the Temporary Managing conservatorship of the department.
60. All defendants, acting under the color of law, acting in conspiracy, embarked upon a hell-bent effort to terminate the parental rights of the Plaintiff, Christinaâs Cruise. During the Defendants, Unconstitutional, and illegal, alleged legal proceedings, defendants inflicted upon this Plaintiff, irreparable injury. Plaintiff lodges these complaints to vindicate her rights as secured to her by the United States Constitution, fourteenth Amendment due process clause the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and laws enacted thereunder.
61. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, all acting under the color of law, did fully and completely rebel against her fourteenth (14th) Amendment Constitutional Rights, and her birth rights thatâs endowed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as God Given birth rights to her children. 18 U.S.C. 1623. See also Tex. P. Code 37.01, et.Seq.
The case has been in various stages of Litigation since December 2014.
62. This case has been in various stages of litigation since December 08, 2014, in the first court of appeals and Plaintiff is appealing the First Court of Appeals decision to the Texas Supreme Court. Plaintiff alleged and proved and provided evidence of extrinsic fraud Plaintiffâs Court Appointed Lawyers and complained about the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services alleging and proving extrinsic fraud, or deception, did know of the suit, or was betrayed by his Attorney
63. On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff, Christina Cruise filed a Petition for Bill of review on the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services in Harris County.
64. Plaintiff in that case and Plaintiff in this lawsuit argued that The Statute authorizes a Petition for Bill of Review challenging a prior judgment based on extrinsic fraud and should be filed within four years by statute Tex. P. & Rem. Code 16.051 Residual Limitations period and all six cases backs up the Bill of Review.
65. Plaintiff argued that the Texas Department of family and Protective Services is required to follow the law and not undermine Plaintiff and her Constitutional rights and argued that Tex. Fam. Code 161.211 does not bars a bill of review alleging extrinsic fraud. Tex. Fam. Code 16.051. The statute sets forth an action independent action of an equitable nature under Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226. S.W.2d 996 (Tex. 1950). The Texas Supreme Court described extrinsic fraud or deception, did not know of the suit, or was betrayed by his Attorneys. Texas Family Code Section 107.013(a). 013(a)(1) in Parental Rights termination cases embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel.
66. On July 08, 2022 the Trial Court entered a Rendition which was a Judgment against the Department in Cause No: 2021-06258 and the 246th Judicial District Court found that the movant, Christina Cruise pleaded and proved, (1) a meritorious defense to the underlying cause of action, (2), Which she was prevented from asserting by the fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposing party or official mistake, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence on his own part. Therefore, the Court granted Petitioner Christina Cruise bill of review, sets aside its previous order, and orders a new trial on the merits, and the Trial court set order for entry on July 15, 2022.
67. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had defaulted, and on July 15, 2022 the day of entry of Judgment the Department filed a Motion seeking to set aside the default judgment against them, or an alternative, request for a new trial after the more than 30 days had passed and the department was out of the allotted time to challenge the default judgment against them where it had been 60 days, and the Trial Court had lost jurisdiction and plenary power to act and the presiding judge had a discretion duty to sign the default judgment order, sign the order for entry of judgment, and appoint Plaintiff a new trial and or an attorney or allow her to seek her own lawyer.
68. The trial court then granted the Departments Motion to set aside the default judgment. The department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Trial Court granted the Summary Judgment.
69. Plaintiff, Christina Cruise then Appealed to the First Court of appeals and filed her brief on June 1, 2023, and her Reply Brief on or about August 17, 2023. The Appellees brief was filed on or about August 3, 2023. The Court ruled against the plaintiff in February 2024.
70. While on the appeal, the Department has not attempted to defend themselves about the abuse and neglect allegations in their brief filed to the court of appeals, but they have argued after the fact that Tex. Fam. Code Section 120 and 121 applies, after they illegally seized Plaintiffâs children violating her fourteenth amendment due process rights. Their only argument is that Christina Cruise filed an answer to the Court, and she made an appearance but although she was not properly served, she filed an answer to the court, and she made an appearance which would give the Court personal jurisdiction over Christina Cruise. Plaintiff Argued in her brief that an answer was filed to the Court and the department further argues that constitutes an appearance which has the same force and effect as if personally served.
71. Plaintiff argued that Section 120 and 121 does not apply because Due Process balances the power of the law of the land, and it is the Supreme law of the land, and protects the individuals like Plaintiff, Christina Cruise, and her children when government harms a person without following the exact course of law. Legal process which is process service with some form of notice or a writ by a court. Fourteenth (14th) Amendment U.S. Const.
72. After personal service was never effective on or after December 08, 2014, when the department had seized the children, or whenever the Department attempted service, Plaintiff had never been properly served, or had proper counsel before the adversary hearing to challenge the Motions and false allegations on file with the court before the adversary hearing on December 22, 2014, 10 days after the illegal removal.
73. Plaintiff also argued in her Bill of Review and on appeal that Fifth Circuit has held in Gates v Texas Depât of Protective United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, 537. F. 3d 404 (5th Cir. 2008) makes the law clearly established that the Department must have a valid court order before entering the premises and violating Plaintiffâs Fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process constitutional rights.
Fifth Circuit opinion:
âWE HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS AREA, WE EXCEPT THAT TDFPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WILL ABIDE BY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RULES AND SEEK TO INVOLVE THE STATE COURTS, WHO ACT AS NEUTRAL MAGISTRATES IN THESE COMPLICATED MATTERS AS EARLY IN THE PROCESS AS IS PRACTICABLE. IN THAT WAY, THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO PROTECT, AS WELL AS TO THEIR PARENTSâ.
Illegal Forced Adoption of Plaintiffs child authorized and facilitated by the
Department in 2019.
74. The department argued in their Brief to the Court of Appeals that they relied on the Termination of Parental Rights of this Plaintiff to facilitate the adoption of the child in 2019. Plaintiff became aware of the adoption orders in September 2019 when she filed a Motion to reinstate her Parental Rights and the Court appointed an Attorney to investigate to see if plaintiff qualified.
75. Plaintiff never executed an affidavit to relinquish parental rights. The department violated fourteenth amendment (14th) due process and facilitated the adoption and the termination proceedings separately and they failed to join the proceedings as authorized under Section 162.001. The department terminated plaintiffâs parental rights unlawfully failing to prove that Plaintiff, Christina Cruise was in fact unfit. The department used her father and an alleged father of her childrenâs background against her to point their background to the fitness of her parenting. Unconstitutional and violation of Plaintiffâs fourteenth (14th) amendment due process rights.
76. The Department failed to join the termination and the adoption proceedings as authorized by statute 162.001, because they did not want plaintiff to challenge the adoption of her child or make any legal arguments or objections as Plaintiff had a right to object to both the termination of her parental rights and the adoption of her child. The Department and all Attorneys involved failed to join both proceedings and allowed Plaintiff to challenge the Termination of her parental rights.
77. The Department did not have any perspective person to adopt the child and left the child in a foster home from the date of Termination of parental rights June 2017 until September 2019 and deprived plaintiff fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process rights to parent her own child, where she had stable housing, employment, a college student at the Houston Community College studying Video Production and Screenplay Writing with aspirations of working in the TV and Film Industry, which is what plaintiff is doing today professionally, and the children was showered with love, stability where Plaintiff lived in her apartment for 6 years, she provided nurture to her children, sought medical attention for the children when they were sick or ill and kept the children safe as a single young mother. Plaintiff had plans to send her two small children to private Christians schools and to take ballet lessons.
78. Moreover, at trial, Plaintiffâs court appointed lawyers, Bobbie Young never subpoenaed the defendant, Sefra Perkins to court and question her under oath about the false accusations she had alleged to obtain a warrant to seize plaintiffâs children or at any proceeding during the 2 years the case was pending.
79. Because of the defendants actions and violated plaintiffâs fourteenth amendment due process rights to parent her children, Plaintiff was forced to drop out of college, the department did not support her or help her whatsoever, they were simply after her parental rights and to place all of her children with other family members and strangers in a foster home, then facilitated the adoption without the mother present and illegally adopted her daughter over the biological motherâs consent.
80. The department and the Attorney Ad litem, Samantha Y. Davis for the children never notified this Plaintiff of any hearings in the adoption suit pending in Cause No. 2019-49913 concerning the adoption of the child. Both cases were tried separately, thatâs unconstitutional and a fourteenth (14th) amendment violation, and the Court per requested by the department after illegally adopting the child with faulty paperwork for the adoption sealed up the entire case.
81. In opposing the Motions seeking to object to the adoption orders Plaintiff filed a Decree Dismissing the Petition Parent Child Relationship Not Previously Terminated to the District Court on February 12, 2020. Plaintiff was unable to challenge the adoption orders, but she attempted to anyhow because she knew that the Department goal was adoption after the Department illegally stripped her of her parental rights. Ramirez v. TDFPS section 162. 211 (a).
Call now to connect with business.
