#cps corruption

By An Anonymous Davis Citizen Of ~ 40 Years Time In The Community

________________

In Yolo County, California, one powerful man’s personal heartbreak has reshaped an entire child welfare system — and many families are going to suffer now because of it.

The person responsible for the changes just referenced is Matt Rexroad, a longtime Republican political consultant, former county supervisor, and former mayor of Woodland. He did not begin his foster care journey with a plan to reform the system. He and his wife took in a baby boy from the foster system, whom Rexroad publicly referred to as “Bonus Baby” — a term that soon became a symbol of a larger, more controversial movement.

After parenting the boy for over two years, the Rexroads petitioned to adopt him. But the county’s Child Welfare Services (CWS) disagreed. In line with California’s state-mandated priority of family reunification, the agency determined that the child could safely return to his biological mother just days before the deadline in which her parental rights were set to be taken. The decision prompted a legal battle. The Rexroads fought the reunification plan in court but ultimately lost as foster parents have very little rights to the children they volunteer to help prior to adoption. It is generally the accepted principle that if you decide to volunteer as a foster parent, you’re aware that there may be a multitude of systemic inequities that you will witness when caring for foster children. However, the average person doesn’t generally concede of a vengeant plan born of ill will afterward that is with the intent to make everyone else in society have to suffer because of your emotional turmoil or in this case, emotional instability and incapacity to handle loss in a mature way.

Rather than walk away, Rexroad then effectively used his political leverage to launch a crusade against the county’s child welfare agency and against any and all families that would be seeking reunification or otherwise granted that privilege as Mr. Rexroad sought to take it from every family and child in Yolo County involved with CPS who should have benefited from this opportunity. And he did this to get even for the fact that he wasn’t allowed to adopt a child that wasn’t his from the get go. As a result, the doctrine of family reunification itself has now permanently changed in Yolo County. The end result is that Yolo County’s approach to child welfare has now dramatically changed and raised alarming questions about due process, judicial independence, and the real cost of political power in CPS decision-making.

A System Under Siege

What followed the court’s denial of the Rexroads’ adoption petition was an unprecedented campaign. Rexroad publicly lambasted the social workers and judges involved in the case. He argued that the child welfare system placed ideological allegiance to family reunification over the actual well-being of children. With the support of conservative networks and growing public sympathy, he called for sweeping changes to the way Yolo County handled foster care cases.

Rexroad’s criticism extended to the courtroom. He targeted Judge Steven Basha, a respected judge known for adhering to California’s reunification-first legal framework. Rexroad accused Basha of bias and used unethical maneuvers to have him removed from hearing child welfare cases by being forced to have to recuse himself from working in the juvenile detention court in order to avoid termination after most likely a lengthy term of legal proceedings that would have put his entire career under a microscope and traumatized him and his family in the process. He had no other reasonable option but to resign from the child welfare court in order to avoid being crucified in Rexroad’s witch hunt. Shortly thereafter, Judge Basha retired completely from practicing law.

Meanwhile, changes were happening behind the scenes. The county’s Department of Health and Human Services saw a leadership shake-up. The agency’s director resigned, and her replacement implemented a policy direction far more aligned with Rexroad’s views and the new policy director was more or less put in place by Rexroad pulling political shoestrings to line up circumstances as they would need to be set forth in order to guarantee a successful forward momentum on his personal vendetta.

Although Yolo County counsel warned the Board of Supervisors that a policy limiting reunification efforts would be illegal, the Board — influenced by Rexroad — still moved forward with directives that effectively discouraged returning children to their biological families.

A Dramatic Shift in Numbers — and Consequences

The results were swift and jarring.

Between 2016 and 2017, Yolo County saw a 70% increase in children removed from their homes and placed into foster care — all this at a time when statewide foster care numbers were on the decline. Most of these removals cited “neglect” as the reason, a charge that can be vague and often stems from issues related to poverty and substance abuse, but not necessarily abuse or any factual harm or overt harm to the children involved - in the majority of cases. Of course there are exceptions and these exceptions are not the majority nor the children whose families are being victimized unnecessarily by these changes.

While child safety should be paramount in any child welfare system, the data from Yolo County paints a concerning picture. As more children have been removed from their homes, rates of repeat maltreatment have now also begun to rise. This metric is a key indicator of system effectiveness, and the spike suggests that more removals do not translate into better outcomes for children. Rather they overwhelm child welfare social workers causing them to not have the necessary time needed to devote to their cases so that nobody ends up being able to get the appropriate services they need nor the social support and assistance for families that is necessary for the families and clients being served by this agency in order to be able to succeed.

Critics argue that rather than addressing root causes — such as lack of family support services, economic hardship, or housing instability — the system now simply defaults to removal. And with this shift, the very goals of child welfare may have been turned on their head.

The Broader Implications

What has happened is impacting people in every aspect of child welfare in Yolo County. For example, it has made the remaining juvenile dependency court judges in Yolo County such as Judge Daniel P. Mcguire, obviously far too nervous to rock the boat or to even dare to disagree with the recommendation of CPS social workers in the courts now, no matter how false or unjustified their claims and recommendations may be* because they have seen their colleague get ousted now for having stood up for what’s right. You can hardly blame these judges for trying to protect their own assets as surely they have their own families to consider and mouths to feed.

The bottom line though is that this sort of political manipulation is causing the citizens of Yolo County to suffer as a result of this man’s ethically wanton disregard for the taxpaying families of Yolo County. These citizens who initially supported him having his position here in our county chose to support Mr. Rexroad because they trusted him to look out for the betterment of our community and yet he has betrayed everyone and used legal power to undermine everyone, but particularly harming the children and their mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and friends and neighbors because the damage caused by frivolously terminating the rights of parents who otherwise could have easily reunified with their children is far reaching and impacts the entire community for the entirety of those people’s lives.

Matt Rexroad’s campaign has become a case study in what can happen when political influence supersedes policy expertise and judicial independence. While some parents and advocates have praised his willingness to challenge a broken system, many others warn that the reforms he inspired may have created a more punitive, less accountable CPS apparatus — one where removing children from their homes has become not just easier, but encouraged, and where reunification is just a buzzword in the court and no longer an actual incentive where families are concerned.

The case underscores the delicate balance CPS must strike: protecting children from harm without unnecessarily destroying families. When that balance is disrupted by personal agendas or political pressure, the consequences ripple far beyond a single case.

Yolo County’s experience is a cautionary tale. It highlights the vulnerability of child welfare systems to powerful individuals, especially when those individuals operate from a place of personal grievance and hold the levers of government.

What We Can Do To Prevent This From Happening Again

At the heart of it all, a boy known only to the public as “Bonus Baby” — now home with his family where he should be — we are all being forced to now pay a terrible price for this child and his family’s due process because of a powerful ex-foster parent’s inability to handle the emotional burdens of the job they chose to volunteer for. Perhaps child welfare workers should be subjecting potential foster parents to a far more rigorous requirement of psychological evaluation before allowing people to become approved and perhaps the emotional devastation that may be a potential cost of helping children via foster parenting is something that ought to be better communicated to potential foster parents beforehand because clearly some people are not cut out for such an emotionally demanding task.

…And there’s nothing wrong with that either. It takes a very special kind of person to be able to handle the ups and downs of foster parenting without becoming emotionally broken inside. But when individuals show that they cannot handle it, we as a society cannot permit them to destroy whole sections of our society on an emotional rampage as an acceptable response to their suffering.

The political changes that have occurred we must now work diligently to undo and everyone must do their part to make sure no one is ever allowed to victimize a community in this way ever again.

________________

Gif Credit: sofarawayinthemilkyway

By Bubbie

________________

What Is A Detention Hearing?

A detention hearing is the initial court proceeding that takes place after CPS removes a child from their home due to allegations of abuse, neglect, or danger to the child's well-being. This hearing typically occurs within 72 hours of the child's removal, excluding weekends and holidays, and its primary purpose is to determine whether the child should remain in CPS custody or be returned home while the case continues.

The judge at this hearing examines the evidence presented by CPS and listens to arguments from both CPS representatives and the parents or their legal counsel. The decision is based on whether there is enough evidence to justify keeping the child out of the home for their safety.

The Purpose of the Detention Hearing

The detention hearing serves several key purposes:

1. Review the Allegations:

CPS presents its initial findings to the court, including any allegations of abuse, neglect, or immediate danger to the child.

2. Evaluate the Child's Safety:

The judge assesses whether there is substantial risk to the child's safety if they are returned to the parent's care.

3. Consider Alternative Placements:

If returning the child home is deemed unsafe, the court explores alternative placements, such as staying with a relative, foster care, or a trusted family friend.

4. Establish Visitation Rights:

If the child remains in CPS custody, the court may determine temporary visitation rights for the parents. This can include supervised or unsupervised visits, depending on the circumstances.

5. Inform Parents of Their Rights:

Parents are informed of their legal rights, including the right to a trial, the right to an attorney, and the right to present evidence and call witnesses.

How to Prepare for the Detention Hearing

Preparation is crucial for parents facing a detention hearing. Here are some key steps to consider:

1. Secure Legal Representation:

If possible, hire an attorney experienced in juvenile dependency law. If you cannot afford one, the court must appoint a public defender to represent you.

2. Gather Supporting Evidence:

Collect any documentation that supports your ability to care for your child safely, such as:

• Clean home inspections

• Proof of parenting classes

• Substance abuse treatment records (if applicable)

• Character references from teachers, neighbors, or community leaders

3. Attend All Court Dates:

Showing up to court promptly and prepared demonstrates your commitment to your child’s well-being. Missing a court date can severely damage your case.

4. Be Respectful and Composed:

Courts observe not just what you say, but how you act. Remain calm, respectful, and attentive throughout the hearing.

5. Understand the Allegations Against You:

Make sure you are clear on what CPS is accusing you of. This will help you and your attorney build a stronger defense.

What to Expect During the Detention Hearing

The structure of the detention hearing usually follows a set procedure:

1. Opening Statements:

CPS presents its case to the judge, outlining the reasons for the child's removal and the evidence of potential harm.

2. Parent's Representation:

The parents or their attorney respond, presenting their side of the story and any evidence that supports the child's safe return.

3. Witness Testimonies:

Both CPS and the parents may call witnesses to testify. These can include social workers, teachers, family members, or medical professionals.

4. Judge's Decision:

After hearing all sides, the judge makes a determination:

• Return Home:

If the judge finds insufficient evidence of danger, the child may be returned to the parent's custody.

• Temporary Custody:

If there is enough concern, the child may remain in CPS custody or be placed with a relative or foster care.

• Visitation Orders:

If the child is not returned home, the judge will outline the visitation schedule and any conditions required.

5. Court Orders:

The judge may issue specific orders, such as mandatory parenting classes, substance abuse programs, or counseling. These orders must be complied with before future hearings.

Possible Outcomes of the Detention Hearing

The judge's ruling at the detention hearing can significantly impact the direction of your case:

• Child Returned to Parent(s):

If the judge finds that the allegations are unfounded or that the home is safe, the child may be returned immediately.

• Child Placed with Relatives:

If CPS and the judge agree, the child may be placed with grandparents, aunts, uncles, or close family friends.

• Foster Care Placement:

If no suitable family member is available or considered safe, the child may be placed in temporary foster care.

• Court-Mandated Services:

Parents may be required to complete specific programs before the child can be returned.

What Happens After the Detention Hearing?

If the child remains in CPS custody, the case moves forward to a Jurisdiction Hearing, which typically occurs within 15 days of the detention hearing. During this next phase, the court will further evaluate evidence to decide if the case should proceed.

Conclusion

The detention hearing is just the beginning of what can be a long and emotional legal process. However, understanding its purpose, preparing effectively, and attending every court date can make a substantial difference in the outcome. Ensure that you know your rights, gather strong evidence, and seek experienced legal representation to advocate for your child's safe return.

________________