Representative Johnson defines how a non-parent can literally be given custody

Click below to see HB 910:

Regular Session, 2012 Louisiana House Bill No. 910-Representative Johnson

CHILDREN/SUPPORT: Provides for child support obligations due to nonparent custodians and other third parties.

This bill would add some language to the existing La. R.S. 9:315 and adds new statutes, La. R.S. 9:327 and La. R.S. 9:328.  Though mostly a good proposed change, I do not like the way the law attempts to define how a non-parent can acquire “lawful physical custody”.  The last thing Louisiana is more relative butting into custody disputes claiming they have rights under the law.

I think the bill starts off with the right idea; it gives non-parents taking care of children an expedited way to acquire child support from both parents.

Here is the good part:

If the child is in the custody of a nonparent custodian as defined in R.S. 9:315.27 or a state agency, the court shall order each parent to pay his or her share of the total child support obligation to the non-parent custodian or state agency.

 

Ok, “in the custody of a nonparent”…what does that mean exactly? Look at this language from the proposed La. R.S. 9:327:

A nonparent custodian has obtained lawful physical custody if he has obtained physical custody of the child pursuant to a court order or is a relative to whom physical custody of the child has been voluntarily given by the custodian of the child. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, lawful physical custody shall not be conferred upon a person previously denied custody of the minor child by a court order.

So the “custodian” of the child can give custody to any “relative” they want? What if the other parent has joint custody? It appears now that this proposed law would allow the domiciliary parent to substitute any relative they like as the “custodian”.

I suggest this change however:

A nonparent custodian has obtained lawful physical custody if the following conditions apply:

(1) he has obtained physical custody of the child pursuant to a court order; or

(2) is a relative to whom physical custody of the child has been voluntarily given by the custodian of the child and any legal parent or parent entitled to custody or visitation consents to the nonparent exercising custody in lieu of the custodian.

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, lawful physical custody shall not be conferred upon a person previously denied custody of the minor child by a court order.

My proposed change would require consent from the non-custodial parent (not just a notification).  If the non-custodial parent objects then they should be afforded first right of refusal.

As long as the non-domiciliary parent is given some type of notice or process and afforded the opportunity to exercise his right to primary custody before the non-parent invokes “lawful physical custody” then I see no problem with this bill. The current law is unclear on “lawful” custody of a non-parent and therefore works to the benefit of the non-custodial parent since a parent’s authority should always be superior to that of a non-parent. Non-parents should have to jump through hoops to acquire custody over the parents, not made easier.

If I got something wrong then by all means make a comment. I am not perfect and this stuff is brand new.

Go to our forum page for further discussion on the 2012 Legislative Session.

Please DO NOT VOTE for LeBlanc for judge !!! PASS IT ON

Please DO NOT VOTE for LeBlanc for judge !!!

When asked at the Ascension GOP meeting about the MARTELLO case, LeBlanc professed ignorance on the first circuit court of appeals decision.

 

This infamous case should be well known to all those who practice child support law as LeBlanc does.

In MARTELLO, Judge Chutz ruled that Mr. Martello made $9,000/month in gross income. He then ordered Mr. Martello to pay $5,600/month in temporary spousal support and to pay another $2,600/month in child support. This left Mr. Ned Martello with about $860 dollars to live and pay taxes on according to the appellate court.

What the appellate court did not say explicitly was that taxes on this level of income are $2,600/month. This number comes from the States published net income to gross income from the Child Support report of 2004. So effectively Judge Chutz had left Mr. Martello with negative $2,000/month to live on until the appellate court overturned his abusive decision.

It took almost 2 years and an additional $7,000 in legal fees for the decision to be overturned. During that time Mr. Martello had to live up to the decision or face being jailed by this judge.

LeBlanc’s response to being asked about this case was to state that she was unaware of it and that there ‘must have been special needs for the children’.

Well the ‘special needs for the children’ were that Mr. Martello had shared custody of the two children. The children were living with their daddy between about 43 to 45% of the time.

So the judge was being very abusive to the children and making it very difficult for Mr. Martello to house, clothe and feed his children.

For Ms. LeBlanc to not know about this outrageous case speaks very poorly of her and the effort she puts into her job.

We had hoped four years ago, when the Republicans took the Governors office, the House, and made significant strides in the Senate.

But instead, my fellow Republicans put Senator Julie Quinn in charge of family law in the Senate (Judiciary A committee). Senator Quinn should have never been put in this position because she was engaged in, and continued to engage in an extremely vicious divorce/custody battle against her husband during the entire time in office.

Because of this inappropriate and unethical appointment, the men of this State have had to endure one idiotic, sadistic proposed law after another emanating from her office so that she could gain advantage in her custody case and use these new draconian laws against her ex-husband.

We were fortunate, through the grace of God, to defeat most of these measures.

Unfortunately, it meant that we were not able to make any progress during these last four years in removing the existing sadism from the laws.

In 2008, when the DSS/DA Child Support Review committee presented their report to the legislature, Senator Quinn chaired the meeting. LaDads was at the meeting. We were allowed to speak.

However, When I presented the MARTELLO case to the body, Senator Quinn (and at this time I still did not know about her personal case) stated she did not know if they could trust my veracity. She said this even though I turned in a copy of the appellate court decision.

This upset Mr. Martello, so he elected to speak. He verified the facts. Senator Quinn chose to dismiss, diminish and disregard his testimony.

As such, the problem with child support orders exceeding a persons ability to pay was not addressed by the legislature.

Sen Quinn’s first major unethical act was to seek to extend the legislative privilege of exemption from court. Under existing law, Legislators do not have to go to court for any reason while the legislature is in session and they got a reasonable delay for ‘out of session’ meetings. This is a good law. Senator Quinn sought to change this law. She claimed her bill had no major changes in it and was just ‘cleaning up messy law’. In actuality, her bill granted all of the legislators a 60 day exemption for any out of session meeting they attended. Given that certain committees meet monthly out of session, this was tantamount to a ‘stay out of court’ pass for the entire duration that a legislator (and any of their clients from drunks to mass murderers) that the legislator was in office.

No other state does this. Every legislator turned a blind eye except one. I had to rely on a democrat (Rep Abramson) to call her to heel.

She did get one revision made to the existing law, which as soon as the legislature signed the law into effect, she had her laywers in court applying the new 60 day in session exemption that she had obtained.

Sen. Quinn’s next major attack on her ex, and by extension all the daddies in the State, was to seek to make ANY amount of child support owed a felony with an arbitrary fine with no upper limit. Rep Wooten stopped her “Day late or a dollar short” bill in his House Committee. (Thank you Rep Wooten !!!).

The men of this State need relief from the arbitrary and capricious application of the child support laws by the corrupt judicial officials in this State.

The second case I asked LeBlanc about, she can be excused for not knowing about as it is not yet as famous as MARTELLO.

However it is even more horrific.

In that case, Daniel Hoover Hoover, a wheel-chair bound quadriplegic due to a brain aneurysm, was subject to an abusive child support order by his ex-wife – a school teacher.

Kelly Wolf (then Hoover) filed a petition for divorce demanding 100% of his disability check, $1,045/month at the time, plus any increases he may obtain as ‘CHILD SUPPORT’.

That’s right, SHE DEMANDED HIS ENTIRE INCOME AS CHILD SUPPORT.

We need a law, DANIEL’S LAW, making it clearly ILLEGAL for an attorney to demand someones entire income as child support.

Not only did she demand it, she OBTAINED IT. Judge Bruce Bennett signed off on a ‘consent judgment’ granting her 100% of Daniel’s income as child support.

They worked this magic by getting the Judge to appoint an attorney for Daniel. This attorney worked out of her attorney’s office (the attorney deducted his fee from her attorney’s rent). The attorney never met with Daniel but once – and that was in a public meeting with the ex-wife and her attorney present.

In defense of the attorney, he was 90+, nearly completely deaf and blind, and thought he was doing Daniel a favor.

The ex-wife also fraudulently interdicted Daniel Hoover.

When the parents for Daniel finally got Daniel Hoover away from this black wanna-be widow, and asked the court to give Daniel visitation time with his son, the ex-wife responded by hiring the state to pursue Daniel Hoover as a deadbeat.

She perjured herself and claimed in her forms that he had NEVER paid child support and that he owed $19,000+.

The D.A. instead of prosecuting her for fraud, removed the 7 or so months from the demand that she collected his entire check, and chased Daniel Hoover for $10,000+

At the hearing, The hearing officer, despite the petition filed that day by Daniel’s attorney, once again set the child support order at 100% of Daniel’s income. She got Judge Bruce Bennett to once again sign an order granting 100% of Daniel’s income. She got an income assignment order signed garnishing his check.

Fortunately, Daniel had some protection from these vile monsters. State law prevents more than 50% of net income from being taken (R.S. 13:3881), so the Feds only garnished 50% of Daniel’s check – despite the demand FOR ALL OF IT.

Eventually, Judge Bennett woke from his slumber, after three checks were garnished, he voided the order.

However, this did not stop the ex-wives attorneys – Sherman Mack and Jeffery Oglesbee from continuing to demand DANIEL’S ENTIRE CHECK AS CHILD SUPPORT. (Note: Sherman Mack is now a State Rep for Livingston parish – What is wrong with that picture?)

We will skip for now the rest of the evil that these people have done to Daniel and his family – the bogus arrests and outright fraud – and get back to LeBlanc.

When I told LeBlanc about the order for 100% of Daniel Hoovers income, her response was that ‘there must have been special needs for the child’. This is NOT an ordinary response.

Ordinary people respond with a shocked ‘WHAT WAS HE SUPPOSED TO EAT ?!?’.

Other than the outright greed and corruption of the officers of the 19th JDC, there were no special needs for this child. The ex-wife had married the step-son of a district judge – Judge Elizabeth Wolfe. It was just a case of extra special home cooking for which we can for some reason find no adults in the state willing to address and correct the problem. (JUDGE WOLFE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH !!!)

The State of Louisiana does not need any more monsters in office. We have had enough corrupt judges. From Judge Bodenheimer to Judge Greene to Judge Porteous to Judge Benge to Judge Wendell Miller.

The Judicial Commission when it does act, acts glacially slow. They did not remove Judge Wendell Miller until thirteen (13) years after the fact.

Please DO NOT elect LeBlanc Judge.

Children CANNOT thrive unless BOTH parents are in their lives and BOTH parents are able to financially survive and thrive.

Blast from the Past: 85% Voted for JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (in Mass)

85% Voted for JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY !!!

Do you remember the vote?  Did you ever even hear about the vote?

I would hazard a guess that the answer is “Probably not”.  That guess would be because the press didn’t ever talk about the vote very much.  Have you ever noticed that the press doesn’t like talking about fathers issues very much?

We have.  Sometimes the silence is close to deafening.

Such as when Thomas Ball committed suicide on the steps of the court house in

“A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. 

And everyone wants to know why,”
Start of Thomas James Ball’s 10,611 word suicide note – Holden, Mass  Keene (county) suicide saw jail in his future” Jun 17, 2011 by the UnionLeader.com

So, please say a special prayer of remembrance for Thomas Ball and his children. A divorce/custody case should never reach such a tragic end.  For a child to thrive, BOTH parents must be able to survive and thrive.

Back to the Shared Parenting vote.

On November 2nd, 2004, the Fatherhood groups in Mass. got the following question put before the States voters in 37 districts across Mass.

“Shall the State Representative (or State Senator) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children’s right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?

 

Back to the Shared Parenting vote.  What was the outcome of this vote?

85% of the people voted in favor of this resolution.

Here is the statement from Ned Holstein, then President of Fathers and Families of Massachusetts.

“In an unprecedented landslide, approximately 85% voted for joint physical custody of children on Fathers & Families’ non-binding ballot question. 

The lopsided margin of victory was greater than that of any elected official in Massachusetts, including John Kerry, Barney Frank, or Jim McGovern. 

The question passed in all 37 legislative districts, representing about 1/4 of the state’s electorate. In most the margin of victory was greater than 80% and averaged about 85%. In more than half the districts, our ballot question received more positive votes than the winning legislative candidate. 

Our margin of victory was far greater than almost any other ballot question (legalization of marijuana, Patriot Act, Fair Elections, etc.). 

More than 600,000 Massachusetts citizens voted on our non-binding ballot question, representing every area of the state, every ethnic group and every social class. 

In 19 of the 29 districts in which there also was an election for the legislative seat, we received more votes than the winning candidate. 

In many of the towns in which our petition was on the ballot, various women’s groups and domestic violence groups opposed these petitions, but without seeming impact on the outcome. 

The fact that our question was on the ballot in more than double the number of districts of any recent ballot petition adds to the significance of the actual vote.

Remember this vote.  The people want Shared Parenting.  The people expect Shared Parenting.  The opposition is actually a very small minority – but a minority currently in the position of power.

The Chairman of The Fatherhood Coalition, Michael P. O’Neil had this to say in their February 2005 For the Record.

“This is the reality of divorce in the progressive state of Massachusetts in the enlightened year 2005: 

One day a father is helping his son and daughter with their homework and tucks them into bed. The next day finds him standing like a common criminal in front of an uncaring, unaccountable judge who tells him he can only see his God-given children every other weekend and a few hours on Wednesdays. 

All too often, without a father’s guidance and presence, these children start using drugs, become alienated and victims of abuse, require counseling, drop out of school, and turn to crime. Because of the momentous popular demand for shared parenting legislation, however, 2005 should be the year that injustice ends and sanity returns to divorce in Massachusetts. The people have spoken and now CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition will make sure the ruling elite and the legislature get the message. 

The people of Massachusetts have had enough of our deplorable, winner-take-all torture called divorce. In the Probate courts, fathers—who would lay down their lives for their children—are told that it is in the best interest of their children if they have no meaningful role in their lives. Our gender-biased courts routinely accept false and unproven allegations of abuse to deprive fathers of custody. Second wives,mothers, and sisters become heartbroken as they watch their family member and his children destroyed by the divorce industry. Countless grandparents are unable to ever see their grandchildren again. 

Husbands are pitted against wives, and children against parents in a contentious racket that enriches lawyers, judges, guardians ad litum, psychologists and social workers. The life savings of the divorcing parents are siphoned off by these vultures who derive their livelihoods from our children’s misery. It is not surprising that these entrenched “child experts” are opposed to legislation mandating the presumption of shared parenting in all divorces and separations. 

Unfortunately, it is also not surprising in Massachusetts to find the media and academic elite, many legislators, committee chairmen, party bosses, and business leaders ignoring the needs of our children and the desires of the voters. This ruling oligarchy kowtows to the extreme feminist ideology and the ill-gotten money train of the divorce courts. It is expected that they will ignore the results of the initiative petition, while they attempt to squash the meaningful shared parenting legislation filed for the upcoming advocates and the public. Therefore, today, the divorce/domestic abuse industry is hereby put on notice that the status quo of injustice to fathers and children is about to end. 

CPF has filed legislation and lobbied legislators, but we aren’t lawmakers or lobbyists. We are unpaid volunteers with real full-time jobs. We have written articles and debated shared parenting, but we aren’t debaters or journalists. 

We’re parents who’ve had our children kidnapped by the state. In fact, whether we should be deprived of our children isn’t even debatable, any more than a slave should have to debate why he shouldn’t be a slave. 

We fully expect and demand that never again will a father be denied his own children without due process of law; that fathers deserve at least the presumption of innocence which our courts routinely grant to common criminals; and that every parent is entitled to the love, care, and companionship of his or her children. We will settle for nothing less. 

And we are not going to continue begging, pleading or reasoning with the insensitive and greedy aristocracy that is destroying our children. We are prepared to act. An international civil disobedience/protest movement has emanated from England: Fathers-4-Justice. The “rising” has begun. Starting in 2005, it is no longer going to be “business as usual” for the courts and state-sponsored industries that profit from the War on Fatherhood in Massachusetts. – Michael P. O’Neil

Perhaps if the legislators had acted more on the will of the people, then Thomas James Ball would still be alive today.

‘Dastardly Dads’ Blog

Nick sent me a link to a blog that appears to be anit-family and, in particular, anti-father (Dastardly Dads).

This blogger, who was likely abused as a child, writes:

Fathers Rights folks blame moms for child abuse. WRONG! Sexual assault, abusive head trauma, and other forms of violent/fatal child abuse are dominated by dads, stepdads, and caretaker boyfriends (60 – 90%). And as more dads are providing child care (either because mom is working and can’t find other care, or because dads are increasingly getting unsupervised visitation/custody through the family courts), more dads are are being found guilty of basic child abuse and neglect. Who’d a thunk it? 

Well, obviously I disagree (and I love the “60%-90%” statistic that was pulled right out of the sky).  “Who’d a thunk?” is what this blogger asks.  Well, I blame those responsible for the abuse regardless of the sex of the offender.  We don’t fabricate stories and blame the other parent; but some do.

This little blog apparently tracks cases accross the nation and posts alledged instances of abuse perpetrated by men.  Of course, there is never any mention of abuse involving mothers.  Regardless, I am horrified by any reports of abuse against a child no matter the sex of the offender.  Though I would suggest to this blogger that she is wrong for the record.  Women and men abuse children at about an equal rate.  Abuse comes in all forms whether it be emotional or physical.  Depriving a child of a loving parent for example is a form of abuse.

Perhaps if the author of the blog had had a good father growing up then she would not write such things.  Oddly enough, we are fighting for the very thing the author of this blog was so clearly deprived of.

Bet I nailed it.

More on the Corey Gautreaux matter and a note about the custodial status of a child at birth

KATC out of Lafayette, Louisiana ran another story about Corey Gautreaux and the alleged kidnapping of his own daughter.

Getting answers about father’s custody rights | KATC.com | Acadiana-Lafayette, Louisiana.

More video and news:

It is becoming more and more apparent that law enforcement botched this whole ordeal and I would be shocked if a lawsuit is not filed.

I wanted to write this post to explain what happens when a child is born relating to legal custody.

MAMA Married:

By law, both parents are placed on the birth certificate and child is given the husband’s last name.  Both parents are natural c0-tudors and equal.  However, even if the husband is not the biological father, the husband, by law, is placed on the birth certificate.  The husband has one year to disavow paternity.

MAMA Not Married:

By law, no father is placed on the birth certificate unless the father signs the acknowledgment at the hospital (the mother can tell the hospital who the father is but they cannot place just anyone on the BC without an acknowledgment).  By law, the child is given the mother’s last name unless the parties agree otherwise.  Once the father signs the acknowledgement, he becomes the “legal father” (assuming there is no husband).  If no father acknowledges the child, the mother essentially is the sole custodian until a father brings her to court.

The flaw in the system is that an unwed mother has to consent to placing the biological father on the birth certificate making him the legal parent.  In other words, if mama don’t want daddy on the birth certificate, then daddy has to get a lawyer to establish legal custody.  This is how moms get such an advantage.  A mom can legally exclude the dad from the child’s life until dad acquires several thousand dollars to get an attorney.  How many 18-24 olds have $2500-$5000 sitting around?  Lower income people sometimes can never afford to establish legal custody!!!!!  Oh but wait….daddy State steps in.

Here is the kicker, the State of Louisiana will go after the alleged father for child support regardless.  Many Dads think that the State is  “establishing paternity” with a DNA test.   THIS IS A LIE.  The State of Louisiana is merely gathering the evidence necessary to hold the alleged Dad liable for child support.  A DNA test through the State of Louisiana DOES NOT make a Dad the “legal father”.  A Dad must take that DNA test and go to regular district court and establish his legal status.  Once you get a court order of custody, the birth certificate pretty much becomes irrelevant.

So not only do some dads not have the money to establish custody, the GREAT FATHER STATE OF LOUISIANA can garnish up to 50% of your income for a child you cannot even afford to establish legal custody.

If you get hauled into court for child support by the State of Louisiana and you are not the “legal” parent, then at a bare minimum make damn sure you are adjudicated the father and get a court order mandating that you be placed on the birth certificate.  Be sure that the court order the mother to sign whatever paperwork is necessary to modify the birth certificate.  Of course, if you can afford to get an order of custody then the birth certificate becomes less important.

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, a biological dad cannot petition the court for a surname change.  The mother pretty much has to agree if a biological dad wants his kid to have his last name even after the biological dad is placed on the birth certificate.

Had Corey Gautreaux not signed the birth certificate, then he would not be considered the “legal” father.  Obviously, since his daughter has his last name (and we know they were not married) then at some point the parents made an agreement to have this done.

There is a BIG, BIG difference between being just the “biological” father and the “legal” father.

State law needs to be modified so that whenever a DNA test is done to establish paternity then the actual father be placed on the birth certificate (or at least have a spot for “legal father” and “biological father”.  The problem under Louisiana law is that a birth certificate is treated more like a social document instead of a factual document.  Guess what, in Louisiana, the State has gone after the legal father and biological father for child support under the concept of “dual paternity”.

The law is outdated as it was written so that a husband’s paternity could not be questioned.  Nowadays, DNA tests can be bought at the drug store and therefore the law can no longer protect something that can so easily be revealed due to technology.  Louisiana law protects a husband’s rights, not a biological dad’s.  When a dad is not married to a pregnant woman, he must rely upon her to do the right thing, or bring her to court.

A biological dad gets rights under one of two circumstances:

1)  The mother’s good will;

2)  Legal action

A legal dad has rights by default unless a court says otherwise. (unless you live in Avoyelles Parish where they charge you with crimes for being a father).  Cops just don’t understand the difference and need better training.  Even a mere review of the information contained in this blog post would have been enough education to avoid the Gautreaux debacle.

If the mother is married to someone other than the biological dad when the child is born (or within 6 month)…then bio dad must SUE BOTH the husband and the mother for custody since husband in the “legal” father of the child.

In the Gautreaux matter, the mother did everything by agreement at birth and we of course applaud her for that.

Regardless of who the “legal” Dad is, once a custody order is established, you must abide by the orders of the court.  A “legal” parent can be charged with “kidnapping” if a court order is being violated.

Make sense?

This is not meant to be legal advice.  Contact an attorney if you are seeking legal advice.

Forgive any typos.  This was meant to be informative, not pretty.

Oh and BTW, they say Corey was charged with simple battery…you can spit on someone and be charged with simple battery.  So the State Police say they issued a news alert because of a “battery”…wtf?

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act

Nick mentioned that several people had sent some emails about the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and how it applies in the Grautreaux matter.  Let me try to explain.  Before this Act was passed, many parents who were not awarded custody “kidnapped” their children and ran to another state in order to seek a new court ruling in their favor.  The PKPA, along with other laws, now govern jurisdictional concerns and ensure enforcement of individual state custody orders.  Custody determinations are entitled to full faith and credit in all states.  The Act focuses on parents not entitled to custody (for example, someone whose rights have been terminated or parents violating a court order of custody).

In the Gautreaux matter, both parents appear on the birth certificate and the child has the father’s last name. There was no preexisting custody order and both parents are entitled to custody since neither parent is superior to the other in this matter.  Since there is no custody order to enforce, the term “kidnapping” cannot apply and therefore Mr. Gautreaux cannot be guilty of kidnapping his own child.

For those arguing that a father is not “legally entitled” to custody without legal paperwork then I suggest you tell us how a mother is “legally entitled” to custody without legal paperwork.  The maternal preference laws have long been abolished.

Many of you have said that a parent cannot kidnap their own child under any circumstances.  While this may make sense in a perfect world, this is not the case exactly.  If you are not entitled to custody or are keeping a child in violation of a court order without good cause then, yes, you can be held accountable for your actions and be considered a “kidnapper”.

Just wanted to clear that up.

This is not meant to be legal advice.  Consult an attorney if you are seeking legal advice.

Correction: Louisiana State Police issued a ‘Level II Media Advisory’ not an ‘AMBER’ alert !

Lt. Julie Lewis of the Louisiana State Police, Troop “F” promptly responded to our inquiry into the Corey Gautreaux case this morning.

She quickly cleared up one point that we had been misinformed on.  Lt. Julie Lewis stated:

“There was NO AMBER alert issued on this case, as the facts of the case did not meet AMBER Alert criteria.  However, we did issue a Level II Media Advisory that evening (est 8-9pm).”

We will provide updates on this case as information becomes available.

N.

Details:

When a case does not meet the criteria for an AMBER alert, the LSP can issue a Level II Media Advisory.  In these cases:

What if the Case Does Not Meet Criteria?

If the current case does not meet Louisiana’s criteria, there is a Level II action plan called a Media Advisory. Louisiana State Police can take the available information from the requesting law enforcement agency and forward that information to all media statewide from the agency’s current statewide media contact list. The requesting law enforcement agency and its telephone number will be listed as the contact for the public. A Level II – Media Advisory may be upgraded at a later time if the facts of the case warrant. The Level II – Media Advisory does not utilize the Emergency Alert System and will not interrupt programming.

Louisiana Level II – Media Advisory – for cases that do not currently meet AMBER Alert crieria

The Louisiana State Police Media Advisory stated:

IMAGE OF THE FIRST LEVEL II MEDIA ADVISORY:

LSP Media Advisory 1

Childf Abducted by Biological Father in Avoyelles Parish

TEXT OF THE FIRST LEVEL II MEDIA ADVISORY:

Troop E

Media Advisory

February 3, 2012

Child Abducted by Biological Father in Avoyelles Parish

A three-year-old female child has been abducted by her biological father in Avoyelles Parish.

The Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office has reported that three-year-old Riley Renee Gautreaux was taken by force from a residence at 300 Briarwood Dr in Bunkie, LA. At approximately 3:00 pm today, Corey Gautreaux reportedly forced his way into the residence in Bunkie and committed a battery on an elderly woman to abduct the child from the residence. The suspect’s whereabouts are currently unknown, but authorities believe he may be in the Ville Platte area. The suspect, Corey Gautreaux, is described as a 24-year-old white male who has black hair and is 6’1”, weighing about 160 pounds. He was seen leaving the area in a gold or brown colored Ford F-250 truck that was occupied by an additional unknown white male.

Riley Gautreaux is described as having blonde, shoulder length hair, about 3’2”, weighing between 40 and 45 pounds. She was last seen wearing a grey and black plaid dress with black stockings.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the suspect or child is asked to contact the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office at (318)253-4000.

Contact Information:
TFC Mark Dennis
Public Information Officer
Louisiana State Police – Troop F
Office: (318) 345-2810
Mark.Dennis@dps.la.gov
www.LSP.org

The following day, the Louisiana State Police issued a second Level II Media Advisory advising the public that the child was safe.
IMAGE OF THE SECOND LEVEL II MEDIA ADVISORY:

**Update**Child Abducted by Biological Father in Avoyelles Parish

Second Louisiana State Police Media Advisory

TEXT OF THE SECOND LEVEL II MEDIA ADVISORY:

Media Advisory

February 4, 2012

**Update**Child Abducted by Biological Father in Avoyelles Parish

Early this morning, Riley and the suspect were discovered in a residence in the Turkey Creek, LA area. Riley was safely returned home and the suspect, Corey Gautreaux, was taken into custody without incident.

Original release:
A three-year-old female child has been abducted by her biological father in Avoyelles Parish.

The Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office has reported that three-year-old Riley Renee Gautreaux was taken by force from a residence at 300 Briarwood Dr in Bunkie, LA. At approximately 3:00 pm today, Corey Gautreaux reportedly forced his way into the residence in Bunkie and committed a battery on an elderly woman to abduct the child from the residence. The suspect’s whereabouts are currently unknown, but authorities believe he may be in the Ville Platte area. The suspect, Corey Gautreaux, is described as a 24-year-old white male who has black hair and is 6’1”, weighing about 160 pounds. He was seen leaving the area in a gold or brown colored Ford F-250 truck that was occupied by an additional unknown white male.

Riley Gautreaux is described as having blonde, shoulder length hair, about 3’2”, weighing between 40 and 45 pounds. She was last seen wearing a grey and black plaid dress with black stockings.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the suspect or child is asked to contact the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office at (318)253-4000.

Contact Information:
TFC Mark Dennis
Public Information Officer
Louisiana State Police – Troop F
Office: (318) 345-2810
Mark.Dennis@dps.la.gov
www.LSP.org

Kidnapping claims “patently false”

The Alexandria Towntalk covered the Corey Gautreaux story with this story “Kidnapping claims patently false” on February 7th, 2012 at 11 pm.

It does not appear to contain any news that we had not already discussed here at LaDads.

The article states in part:

Allegations concerning a Turkey Creek man who is accused of kidnapping his daughter from a Bunkie home are false, according to a news release from attorney David C. Hesser’s law office.

The release said the allegations against Corey Gautreaux are “patently false and fabricated. Mr. Gautreaux is the legal father of the minor child and has just as much right to custody of the child as the mother. A bizarre story was concocted in an effort to manipulate law enforcement and punish Mr. Gautreaux.

We understand from the Louisiana State Police web site that the Louisiana Amber Alert system has not be used in 3 years.  It is a shame that the first use of the Amber Alert system in 2012 was for a fraudulent claim of child kidnapping by a father.

We hope that the people who abused the system for their own nefarious purposes will be punished.

N.

Falsely Causing an “Amber Alert” is a Crime

I wonder why Law Enforcement would issue an “Amber Alert” when they know that the child is safe with her legal father who exercises physical custody on a regular basis.

These are the steps the State Police are supposed to go through BEFORE they issue an ‘Amber Alert’.

From the website of the State Police:

“AMBER Alert Criteria”
The following criteria MUST be met before an AMBER Alert is activated:

  1. Law enforcement confirms a child, aged 17 or under, has been abducted.
  2. Law enforcement believes the circumstances surrounding the abduction indicate that the child is in danger of serious bodily harm or death.
  3. There must be enough descriptive information about the child, abductor, and/or suspect’s vehicle to believe an immediate broadcast alert will help the case.

Everyone involved in the Louisiana AMBER Alert Plan is extremely serious about each and every AMBER Alert request that is submitted. Each one is reviewed thoroughly and, if an error is made, it will be on the side of the child’s safety.

The issuance of an Amber Alert is so serious that only 12 Amber alerts have been issued in Louisiana since the system was implemented.  There were no Louisiana Amber Alerts in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The Filing Procedures and the Process

Louisiana AMBER Alert Reporting Form submittals will be accepted from a law enforcement agency only.

1.Does the situation meet the criteria? If unsure, call Troop F at (318) 345-0000.

A.Is there reasonable belief by law enforcement that an abduction has occurred?

B.Is the child 17 years of age or younger?

C.Does law enforcement believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death?

D.Is there enough descriptive information about the victim and/or the abductor(s) to make the issuance of an AMBER Alert viable enough to assist in the recovery of the child?

E.Has the law enforcement agency entered the child’s name and other vital data in NCIC (National Crime Information Center) using the “CA” (Child Abduction) code? (Using this code upon entry will automatically notify NCMEC – National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

2.The AMBER Alert Reporting Form is available online or a copy can be faxed upon request.

3.The form must be legibly completed in its entirety. Please include the name and direct phone number of an officer familiar with the case who is able to answer any questions Troop F personnel may have.

4.Call Troop F to advise of the forthcoming request and via which mechanism.

5.Submit the completed form via either:

a.Fax to Troop F – Primary Fax Number (318) 343-2006 or
Secondary Fax Number (318) 362-5198
OR

b.Email: AMBERALERT@dps.la.gov.

6.Email a recent digital photo of child and/or abductor as soon as possible to AMBERALERT@dps.la.gov.

7.Call Troop F to verify receipt of the form and photo.

8.Contact Troop F with case updates.

9.Notify Troop F when the child has been recovered, with some details as to how the child was located, etc. for media follow-up in the AMBER Alert Cancellation Message.

The entire AMBER Alert activation process is a detailed, on-going procedure until the case has been resolved. After LSP personnel receive the Reporting Form, it has to be reviewed to ensure it meets the criteria and enough information is available to make an AMBER Alert activation viable. Follow-up telephone calls may be required for more detailed information or clarification. If approved by the Troop F Captain or his designee, the information is formatted for the voice message to be disseminated to Louisiana broadcasters. The information is then forwarded to the LSP Command Staff, to the State’s AMBER Alert partners, and a back-up copy is faxed and/or emailed to the media statewide. All on-duty patrol troopers, all law enforcement agencies statewide and the Louisiana Lottery is forwarded the AMBER Alert information. If applicable, the LA Department of Transportation and Development is requested to activate its variable message boards.

All AMBER Alerts should be sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). In partnership with NCMEC, the Wireless Foundation provides AMBER Alert notification via text messaging on cell phones. This is a free service from the non-profit organization and can be sent to any cell phone that is capable of receiving text messages. Wireless subscribers can opt in by visiting a Web site: www.wirelessfoundation.org.”

****

More from the site:

“FALSE REPORTING OF INFORMATION TO ACTIVATE AN AMBER ALERT

The Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters take the Louisiana AMBER Alert program very seriously and will not tolerate any attempt to abuse or misuse the system. Due to the increased trend in the exaggeration of circumstances stated in order to prompt the activation of an AMBER Alert, the Louisiana Legislature amended L.R.S. 14:403.3, which took effect on August 15, 2005.

§14.403.3. Reports of missing children; procedures; false reports or communications; penalties
A.(1) Any state or local law enforcement agency receiving a report of a missing child and having reasonable grounds to believe such report is accurate shall within forty-eight hours after the date of receipt of the report notify each of the following of the fact and contents of such report:
(a) The Department of Health and Human Resources.
(b) The Department of Public Safety and Corrections, if it did not originally receive the report.
(c) The office of the sheriff for the parish in which such report was received, if it did not originally receive the report.
(d) The office of the sheriff for all parishes adjacent to the parish in which such report was received.
(e) The National Crime Information Computer System.
(2) The law enforcement agency may also notify any other appropriate local, state, or federal agency of the fact and contents of such report.
B. No person shall knowingly file a false missing child report with a law enforcement agency.
C. No person shall intentionally communicate false information concerning a missing child to a law enforcement agency when such information is communicated with the specific intent to delay or otherwise hinder an investigation to locate the child.
D. Whoever violates the provisions of Subsection B or C herein shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars or be imprisoned for not more than one year, with or without hard labor, or both.
Acts 1985, No. 393, §1; Acts 2005, No. 503, §1.”

****

I wonder why Law Enforcement would issue an “Amber Alert” when they know that the child is safe with her legal father who exercises physical custody on a regular basis.