Site Index

     You have no right to a trial by a jury of your peers.

     Parents on Indian nation reservations have a better chance of proving their innocence.

     Your rights can be terminated for frivolous reasons.

     Your rights can be terminated for something you might do some day.

     Your family will likely be impoverished if you fight to stay together.

     If the State goofs up, oh well!

     Your children may be drugged (for profit) and raped in the foster care system.

The Utah Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), under the direct control and oversight of the Utah state legislature, has declared war on Utah families, on parental rights, and on your right to seek your own medical opinion, diagnosis, and medical treatment.

Every Utah citizen ought to be asking, "Could this happen to me?"

Barbara and Daren Jensen, of Sandy, have been charged with "kidnapping" P.J. Jensen, their own 12-year-old son. This is a 1^st Degree Felony charge that carries a penalty of up to life in prison.

Why, you ask? How can parents kidnap their own son?

A talented viola player, P.J. unfortunately developed what doctors diagnosed as Ewing’s Sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer, which appeared in the soft tissue of his mouth. The Jensen’s sought qualified medical help and had the tumor surgically removed.

Such tumors only metastasize about 30% of the time. Despite further tests showing that P.J.’s cancer had not spread elsewhere, doctors at the Primary Children's Hospital demanded that P.J. undergo both radiation and chemotherapy, procedures that would stunt his growth and render him sterile.

The Jensen’s, wanting to first check out other alternatives to treatment and questioning whether the treatment was really even necessary, refused to allow doctors to perform these procedures and sought second opinions. Two other specialists tested P.J. and declared that they could find no evidence of cancer, but they nevertheless refused to countermand the orders of the Primary Children's Hospital doctors.

In accordance with state law, the doctors notified the DCFS, which initiated court proceedings. In a secret trial (not open to the public), Third District Juvenile Court Judge Robert S. Yeates refused to consider other medical opinions, and ordered the Jensen’s to turn P.J. over to the DCFS so the medical procedures could be forcibly administered to him while he stayed in a foster home.

Horrified that the state could take such drastic action, the Jensen’s fled the state and have since been charged with felony kidnapping. Daren was recently downsized out of his job, and his lovely Sandy home is in the process of being foreclosed on.

At this moment, P.J. and his mother are in hiding. P.J.’s father is in Idaho and is free on $50,000 bail while he fights extradition to Utah. P.J.’s four other musically talented siblings are holed up with relatives in Idaho and are also fearful of being "taken" by the state. P.J. is quite healthy: a family friend reported seeing him doing hand springs the weekend after they fled.

The Jensen's are one of many proofs that Utah is not a "family-friendly" state.

Top

Thanks to the Utah legislature, if you are accused of some type of abuse or neglect:

You have no right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
Your parental rights can be permanently terminated by a single judge in a secret civil court. One man determines the fate of your entire family. Yet, according to the Utah Supreme Court ruling (In re J.P. Utah, 648 P.2nd 1364, June 9, 1982):

"This parental right transcends all property and economic rights. It is rooted not in state or federal statutory law, to which it is logically and chronologically prior, but in nature and human instinct." (p. 1373).

Citizens can receive a trial by jury for most property and economic rights cases. If parental rights truly transcends property and economic rights, then why are parents not allowed a trial by jury? What then is the purpose of a trial by jury?

Parents on Indian nation reservations have a better chance of proving their innocence.
What lawmakers also conveniently ignore is that parents on Indian nation reservations have an even higher evidentiary standard in their favor. Under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the standard of proof for the same termination is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest burden of proof. (See also In re S.D.C., 435 Utah Adv. Rep 22, December 4, 2001). Why don't Utah parents have the same rights as Indian parents?

Your rights can be terminated for frivolous reasons.
Your parental rights can be permanently terminated if one judge decides that you:

"…Failed to have shown the normal interest of a natural parent, without just cause". (Utah statute 78-3a-408(1)(c))

What does "normal interest" mean exactly? It means whatever the judge and DCFS want it to mean.

It gets worse. Here are other "grounds" a judge can use to terminate your parental rights:

"Repeated or continuous failure to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, or other care necessary for his physical, mental, and emotional health and development by a parent or parents who are capable of providing that care. However, a parent who, legitimately practicing his religious beliefs, does not provide specified medical treatment for a child is not for that reason alone a negligent or unfit parent." (Utah statute 78-3a-408(1)(d))

Explain that to the parents of P.J. Jensen. Utah judges have interpreted loose statutes like this to include parents who have messy kitchens, dirty laundry on laundry day, not giving their child mind altering medication mandated by government school nurses. (For more information, see topic "3. Religious Persecution Against Non-traditional Healing Methods".)

Perhaps the worst example is "failure of parental adjustment" in Utah statute 78-3a-407 (5) and its related definition. A "reunification plan," crafted by DCFS bureaucrats, specifies the hoops parents must jump through to demonstrate that they are sufficiently "adjusted" to warrant a return of their children. If parents do not comply with every jot and tittle of that plan, this is all a judge needs to permanently terminate their parental rights.

This shifts the burden from the state to the parents to demonstrate their fitness or risk losing their children. It makes it easier for the state to establish its case for termination.

Even basic statutory definitions of terms have been trivialized and can mean almost anything in Utah. Abuse, for instance, includes:

"…Actual or threatened nonaccidental physical or mental harm" and "negligent treatment". (Utah statute 62A-4a-101(1)(a) and (b))

"Tommy, if you don't come down off that precipice, I'm going to strangle you!" is evidence DCFS employees and a judge could use to claim that you have threatened physical or mental harm. As there are virtually no limits to the extent of this definition, harm in the eyes of Utah courts has included swatting your child and yelling at your child for any reason.
(For more examples, see "Child Abuse Prevention Laws Place Parenting Under Attack," by Steven Russell.)

Neglect includes "subjecting a child to mistreatment or abuse". (Utah statute 62A-4a-101 (18)(a)(2)(ii)) Again, mistreatment can be broadly defined.

"Parental unfitness" includes:

"A single incident of life-threatening or gravely disabling injury to or disfigurement of the child". (Utah statute 78-3a-408(4)(c))

What if your child fell off the playground slide and was gravely disabled? What if he seriously burned his hand playing on the hot stove you try to keep him away from? A court could find you unfit for these and other more ridiculous reasons, and permanently terminate your rights as a parent.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled (In re J.P. Utah, 648 P.2nd 1364, June 9, 1982), that parental rights can only be terminated if there is serious detriment to the safety of the child and some showing of wrongdoing or unfitness on the part of the parents. According to the court:

"We conclude that the right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect is so fundamental to our society and so basic to our constitutional order that it ranks among those rights referred to in Article I, Section 25 of the Utah Constitution and the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution as being retained by the people." (p. 1,375)

The Supreme Court went on to rule that this finding of fault must be by "clear and convincing evidence." Never overturned, this ruling has been violated and ignored by lower courts and the Utah legislature. Parental rights continue to be terminated based upon charges that have little or nothing to do with whether a parent is guilty of any legitimate abuse or wrongdoing.

[Note: It is important to understand that the state justifies termination as an action that is "in the best interest of the child." (Utah statute 78-3a-402)  This language is vague so as to allow the judge complete power and latitude once he finds you in violation of some other vague statute.]

Your rights can be terminated for something you might do some day.
Parents can also lose their children based on what they might possibly do in the future — or the risk of harm it is anticipated they will pose at some time in the future. See, for example, Utah statute 78-3a-407(1)(f), which permits termination based on "token efforts" of parents to "eliminate the risk" of neglect or abuse — a ground which is obviously future-oriented.

In P.J. Jensen's case, the parents are refusing to allow doctors to subject their son to high doses of radiation and chemotherapy. They are not complying with the futuristic desires of DCFS employees, doctors, and judges.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled against this anticipatory, crystal ball approach in State of Utah, in the interest of Ricky Winger, 558 P2d 1311. Yet lower Utah courts continue to flagrantly violate this ruling.
(Note: The Utah legislature also continues to thumb its nose at this Utah Supreme Court ruling. For example, it passed Senate Bill 27, sponsored by Sen. Leonard Blackham, in the last general session. SB 27 removed the requirement that the accused be an "immediate" physical danger to himself or others and now permits judges to incarcerate people who they feel are a potential risk of danger at some point in the future. See Senate Bill 27, Substitute 3).

Your family will likely be impoverished if you fight to stay together.
The courts often garnish the wages of parents whose rights have not been terminated and who have not been convicted of any crime or wrongdoing.  Utah Statute 78-3a-913(6) permits courts to force parents to pay for state-appointed counsel and even for child care expenses the State incurs while the parents await their day in court!  The impact on parents who are poor to begin with and who must take off work to attempt to keep their family together is horrific and unconscionable!

Families who are serious about keeping their children must sacrifice significant financial resources — often to their complete financial ruin — to obtain decent legal services. For this reason, DCFS frequently targets poorer families who cannot hope to defend themselves.

The accused parents also have NO right to a regular, state-funded attorney.  The only state-funded attorney they don't are guaranteed is a "guardian ad litem" (paid for by your tax dollars), who has no motive to keep families together.

Innocent families, bereft of the means to defend themselves, must stand alone against the combined onslaught of the Utah Attorney General's Office, the Guardian Ad-Litem's Office, DCFS, CPS, and loose statutes that can mean just about anything.
(Note: In fact, these attorneys have perverse financial incentives to split families apart.  Stay tuned for additional developments on the funding mechanisms between the federal government, DCFS, and the legislature.)

If the State goofs up, oh well!
The legislature has granted DCFS and its agents almost complete immunity from financial and criminal suit (see Utah Statute 63-30-3, 63-30-4, and 63-30-10).  Up until House Bill 28 went into effect on May 6, 2002, DCFS agents could even commit FRAUD and PERJURY without criminal or financial penalty! Apparently, government is beyond accountability and families who are destroyed are simply out of luck.

Your children may be drugged (for profit) and raped in the foster care system.
According to reports from whistle blowers, children in state custody are frequently subjected to mind-altering psychotropic medication without physical diagnosis or parental approval.

From an article published by The Spectrum:

"The Adoption and Safe Families Act passed by Congress in 1997 gave financial incentives to states for removing children from their homes and placing them up for adoption. The federal government allocates states an average of $13,000 per child in foster care each year out of the Social Security Trust Fund, with up to $50,000 a year to provide services to that child.

"Furthermore, another $4,000 to $10,000 is given to states that can terminate a parent's rights and successfully get the child adopted. Federal funding also pays a per-child bonus to each state that boosts its annual number of adoptions from foster care.

"Of the nearly $124 million budget of DCFS, half is provided by the federal government. In contrast, Utah receives nothing to leave a child in his home, and zero dollars if that child is placed in kinship care.

"[Child Protective Services Supervisor in Tooele County, Troy] Randall confirmed the federal government reimburses DCFS with nearly a two-thirds match of funds. For every $25 the state pays, the federal government will pay $75, he said.

"Randall said the definition of an 'eligible child' is complex with varying levels of eligibility, but basically explained that a child (or family) that is eligible for federal resources like Medicaid, or other federal programs, who is taken into custody has a 'very good possibility to be eligible for the federal match.'"
Source: "Child, Family Services faces abuse concerns," Jennifer Weaver, The Spectrum, Jun 18, 2003.

DCFS also receives Title XX block grants, Title IV-E adoption grants, and TANF grants.  According to our research, the federal figure jumps dramatically, to more than $100,000 per child diagnosed with a mental disability of some kind.  Even DCFS Director, Richard Anderson partially admitted the existence of these enormous, perverse federal incentive to break up families:

"'It looks bad to give what appears to be an incentive for states to have more adoptions,' Anderson said. 'But that money supplants money a state has already spent and helps build on a system that has shown it can get kids placed and not kept overly long in foster care.'"
Source: "Parents decry state 'tyranny'", James Thalman, Deseret News, Sep 7, 2003

Utah is not unique.  Consider a recent expose of the Los Angeles, California, DCFS:

"Up to half of Los Angeles County's foster children were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their homes because of financial incentives in state and federal laws, a two-year, Los Angeles Newspaper Group investigation has found.

"The county receives nearly $30,000 a year from federal and state governments for each child placed in the system — money that goes to pay the stipends of foster parents, but also wages, benefits and overhead costs for child-welfare workers and executives.  For some special-needs children, the county receives up to $150,000 annually.

"Called the 'perverse incentive factor,' states and counties earn more revenues by having more children in the system whether it is opening a case to investigate a report of child abuse and neglect or placing a child in foster care,' wrote the authors of a recent study by the state Department of Social Services Child Welfare Stakeholders Group.

"Since the early 1980s, the number of foster children in California has gone up fivefold, and doubled in the county and nation. About one in four children will come into contact with the child welfare system before turning 18, officials say."
Source: "Money motive in foster care: Children: Half of county placements unnecessary, often driven by desire for funding,"  Troy Anderson, Long Beach Press Telegram, December 7, 2003

In addition, children in foster care are often raped and molested. Sadly, this is why most foster children are not placed in families with younger children.  From a CPS Watch article:

"[CPS Watch National Director Cheryl] Barnes said that her national watchdog organization relies upon data published by the federal government in making comparisons of child protective practices among the states. The US Department of Health and Human Services maintains NCANDS, which publishes the data annually. The latest available data was published last year in 'Child Maltreatment 1998: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.'

"The NCANDS data shows that children were 2 times more likely to be abused while in foster care while in foster care than in their own homes. DCFS reported to the federal government that 37 of the 1,362 taken into custody were abused while in foster care -- a rate of 15 per thousand children. The rate was 6 per thousand for children living at home.

"'The state makes a terrible parent,' Barnes said.

"DCFS child removal policy became the subject of controversy after parents staged rallies across the state claiming their children were wrongfully removed due to false allegations of child abuse or neglect. A federal district judge recently said that DCFS's policy of removing children without a warrant might be unconstitutional.

"'Utah is especially unsafe for families because DCFS caseworkers are empowered to take children into custody on personal whim,' Barnes said. 'They are not accountable to the courts or the public they serve.'

"Barnes explained that state officials need a warrant to enter a house to search for and remove property but children inside the home are not afforded the same protection. She said that children should not be incarcerated unless the state can show a court reasonable cause to do so.

"'I notice that Patterson neglects to mention the overwhelming, irreparable emotional damage suffered by innocent children forcibly removed from their home,' Barnes said. 'Clearly, such a traumatic option should only be considered when DCFS can prove that the child has actually been mistreated by her family.'

"Barnes said that non-abused children are often removed from their homes based upon 'risk assessment' tools unilaterally applied by caseworkers. When in doubt, DCFS tends to lean towards 'erring on the side of caution' by incarcerating the children.

"Instead, Barnes suggested state bureaucracies consider the tenet adopted by physicians' centuries ago: 'At first, do no harm.'"
Source: "DCFS Removal Rate High, Watchdog Group Claims," CPS Watch, Oct 20, 2003.

Finally, below is a 2004 press release from the federal Health & Human Services on perverse incentives for states that adopt children.  Keep in mind that these and many other federal funds are in no wise predicated on parents receiving substantive due process:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Contact: ACF Press Office
(202) 401-9215

HHS AWARDS $17,896,000 IN ADOPTION BONUSES

HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the awarding of $17,896,000 in adoption bonuses to 31 states and Puerto Rico. The funding comes from the Adoption Incentives Program and is given to states that were successful in increasing the number of adoptions from the public child welfare system over the number of adoptions in 2002.

This is the first time that bonuses have been given to states and territories since the program was revised and strengthened in December 2003. The bonuses go to state child welfare agencies for a variety of child welfare and other related services including adoption and adoption-related services.

“Adoption is a wonderful option for families and must be promoted by all levels of government,” said Secretary Thompson. “The federal bonuses we are announcing reward states which have worked hard to help children -- particularly older children -- in the child welfare system find loving, adoptive homes.”

The Adoption Incentive Program, which was revised and strengthened last December by the Bush Administration, for the first time adds a focus on the growing proportion of children aged nine years old and above who are in dire need of adoption before they “age out” of foster care. Two key changes which strengthen states’ adoption and child welfare services are:

An additional bonus of $4,000 to states for each child aged nine and above adopted from the public child welfare system. This bonus is on top of the current $4,000 provided for each child and on top of the $2,000 for each special needs child adopted; and

The threshold to receive incentives has been reset based on the number of adoptions in FY 2002, making states that reached their highest number of adoptions in the earlier years of the program more likely to qualify for a bonus.

“President Bush has worked hard to increase the number of adoptions so more children can grow up in safe, stable and loving homes,” said Dr. Wade F. Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families. “Today’s grants continue this Administration’s efforts to promote adoption from the foster care system so no child will be left behind.”

Currently, there are 129,000 children in the public child welfare system waiting to be adopted. Of this number, approximately 50,000 children each year are placed into adoptive families. Approximately 19,000 children “age out” of the foster care system without ever having the opportunity to be adopted. The adoption bonus is in addition to a website previously launched by ACF -- www.adoptuskids.org -- aimed at the recruitment and retention of adoptive families for children in the foster care system.

For a complete list of HHS’ adoption bonuses, go to http://www.acf.hhs.gov/adop_inc_2003.htm.

###

Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at www.hhs.gov/news

Top

As previously cited, Utah statute provides the following "exemption" for parents who face termination:

However, a parent who, legitimately practicing his religious beliefs, does not provide specified medical treatment for a child is not for that reason alone a negligent or unfit parent." (Utah statute 78-3a-408(1)(d))

What exactly is meant by "legitimately practicing his religious beliefs?" Who will judge the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of an individual's commitment and devotion to his religious beliefs?

America seems fixated with finding unique ways to protect those who do not agree with dominant religious beliefs. But what about those who follow their conscience to worship through alternative medicine and spiritual healing?

Barbara Jensen is the daughter of Dr. West, a well-respected chiropractor and an expert alternative medicine practitioner in Pocatello, Idaho. It is possible that the Jensen family has a desire to supplement their son's care through alternative methods of medicine, rather than subject their son to the invasive and damaging treatments at Primary Children's Hospital.

Forcing drugs or invasive treatments against the will of the family is religious persecution. Many self-care practitioners view Western medical philosophies as a religion in itself. They find fault with the notion that man and his intellect are all-important and take issue with the near-deification of doctors. (For example: More people die in America due to mistakes made by doctors than in auto accidents).  In many alternative methods, a spiritual attribute is involved on the path to wellness and to prematurely seek Western methods is to insult God.

The doctors at Primary Children's Hospital claim abuse because P.J.'s parents will not immediately do everything they can — in the exact manner in which they dictate — to extend his life. They perhaps view death as a negative occurrence to escape and postpone at all costs. P.J.'s parents, on the other hand, could feel that subjecting him to radiation is more abusive than their alternative.

Primary Children's Medical Center, DCFS, and the courts have shown a harsh and heavy hand full of prejudice and intolerance. If their abuses are not reversed, other families who practice alternative medicine, who practice home births, who refuse to vaccinate, fluoridate, or over-medicate their children, and even those who educate their children outside government schools, will all become the next logical target of megalomaniac government officials and doctors.

Top

By the mere whim of a vicious DCFS employee, and with the wink and nod of Utah legislators and doctors, parents are forced to either:

1. Surrender their children, perhaps forever, to a dangerous foster care system while DCFS workers, the Utah State Attorney General's Office, and the Utah Office of the Guardians ad Litem, stack the deck against them. The parents' only recourse is one judge and costly, limited appeals.

2. Run from the law and attempt to protect their children from emotional and physical/moral abuse.

Is it any wonder that Utah families feel compelled to run from this perverted mockery of law and justice? Innocent parents, relegated to the role of fugitive slaves — with no hope of receiving a fair criminal trial by jury — are justifiably willing to risk it all — even life in prison — for the hope of freedom in hiding.

The Underground Railroad of the 21^st Century is alive and well, and will continue to grow, until Utah legislators, the Utah Attorney General's Office, and DCFS are brought under control.

Top

Act today to expose and end this corruption! Here is what you need to do:

1. Forward this message to your family, friends, and associates. Let them know that Utah families are in great peril!

2. Call Senate President Alma Mansell, who resides near the Jensen family in Sandy, and House Speaker Marty Stephens, who desires to be the next Utah governor. Tell them to take immediate action to protect the Jensen family, to open investigations on DCFS abuses, and to hold a special session to restore your right as a parent to a trial by jury and due process.  Also ask them what criminal charges will be filed against these DCFS employees.

Senate President Alma Mansell:
Home: (801) 942-6019
Office: (801) 563-7600
Fax: (801) 563-7847
E-mail: amansell@utahsenate.org

House Speaker Marty Stephens:
Home: (801) 731-5346
Work: (801) 538-1930
Fax: (801) 538-1908
E-mail: martystephens@utah.gov

3. Call your local legislator and demand that he take immediate action to protect your rights and the rights of the Jensen family. Tell him to publicly call for a special session to deal with these matters, to press for public hearings, and to set up a town meeting in his neighborhood.  Also ask them what criminal charges will be filed against these DCFS employees.
If you need help finding your legislator, visit our elected official contact page.

4. Call Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and demand that he take immediate action to end the prosecution and persecution of the Jensen family.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff:
Main number: (801) 538-9600
Main fax: (801) 538-1121
Main e-mail: uag@utah.gov

From early citizen reports, Shurtleff is trying to pass the buck, claiming that Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom is to blame for pressing this matter so far.  Remind Shurtleff that, according to Utah State Statute 67-5-1, he is required to:

"Exercise supervisory powers over the district and county attorneys of the state in all matters pertaining to the duties of their offices, and from time to time require of them reports of the condition of public business entrusted to their charge". (subparagraph 6)

This same section requires Shurtleff to prosecute county attorneys when necessary.  You might ask Shurtleff questions like: "If you haven't take disciplinary action against Yocom, and you are empowered to do so by state statute, doesn't that mean you agree with his actions?" or "Why haven't you at least taken Yocom publicly to task for his behavior?"

Also note that Shurtleff's office sent the letter to the Houston clinic ordering them to refuse the Parkers treatment, turn them away, and call the police if they entered the building.
Source: "The Jensens: The family insists Parker is healthy and state has no reason to interfere," by Matt Canham, Salt Lake Tribune, September 2, 2003.

5. Contact Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom and demand that he back off of this case and leave the Jensen family alone.

SL District Attorney David Yocom
Phone: (801) 468-3300
Fax: (801) 468-2985
E-mail: districtatty@co.slc.ut.us

6. Contact the Governor of Idaho and request that he deny the extradition of Daren Jensen to Utah. 

Governor Governor Dirk Kempthorne
Phone: (208) 334-2100
Fax: (208) 334-2175
E-mail: governor@gov.state.id.us
See a secondary site.

7. National groups should take heed of this high profile case and take steps to ensure that justice is served in Utah. In instances like this, there can be no state boundaries.

8. Monitor this site for new and updated information.  For instance, since this alert, AU held a Citizen Action Town Meeting on September 20 in the Salt Lake City Library.

Various groups are now planning a rally for this Friday, September 26, at the State Capitol.  Read the  rally notice.

Top

If you have comments or suggestions, please email us at info@accountabilityutah.org.

Home | Issues & Alerts | Mission | AU Team | Reports | Citizen Library | Other Resources

Address: P.O. Box 141, West Jordan, Utah 84084
E-mail: info@accountabilityutah.org  |  Website: www.accountabilityutah.org