The Boerners were Ignored during a Relative Search and were denied their legal right to adopt their Neice by Nicollet County Department of Human Services.
An Introduction to the Boerner's story may be found here
Boerner's homepage: Holmes City
May 24, 2004
Robert A. Carrillo
5408 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419
Judge Norbert Smith
Chief Judge / Blue Earth County District Court
204 South 5th Street
Mankato, Minnesota 56001
RE: Hearing: May 18, 2004
Subject: Motion to Convene Grand Jury / Appoint Special Prosecutor to investigate unlawful conduct relating to various Blue Earth County Department of Human Services Public Officers / in addition to Blue Earth County employee and Social Worker (now Foster Parent of A.A.S., Mr. Dennis Teachout), in the Matter of multiple Out-of-Home Placement(s) of A.A.S., a minor child and ward of the State of Minnesota.
Dear Judge Smith:
I am writing this letter to you as a private citizen of the State of Minnesota, an interested party relating generally to the subject matter of examining serious irregularities relating to the out-of-home placement of children throughout the State of Minnesota, and as an individual in attendance in the audience on the morning of May 18, 2004 in your courtroom relating to the above referenced matter before you at that time.
By way of introduction, during the past thirteen years I have served as a member of multiple State-Wide Task Force and Minnesota DHS Advisory Committee activities, including one Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force relating to Minnesota families and children. Per my active involvement in related matters I have also painfully learned a great deal about human nature.
During that time the learning curve has also taught me a great deal about the various interrelated agencies, both public and private, throughout the State of Minnesota, purportedly having to do with the "welfare" of Minnesota's children in particular. Oftentimes not much more than a code word for some rather nefarious activity, the practical application of public policy, in my view, has proved to be anything but in the "best interest of the children" involved.
Via my personal experience following many surprisingly similar situations such as this, my education has also included exposure to the various and oftentimes bizarre and out-of-the mainstream definition(s) of what has now become the fashionable tool of those involved in the process today, as to what now questionably passes for a definition of the "Minnesota family" in today's politically correct environment. Of course this a complete contradiction to the legal and moral traditions in this State.and this country---but always to an interesting purpose I have discovered.
As I understand the situation, and the matter before you this past Tuesday, your duty as the Chief Judge for Blue Earth County, and as a respected judicial officer in the community, was to impartially and responsibly examine the voluminous written evidence recently presented to the Court in support of the above referenced motion, and entertain said Motion to advance a request to send this matter on to a grand jury for an impartial, proper, and independent and thorough investigation of this matter.
You were also asked to appoint a special prosecutor to simply and impartially investigate what I would consider to be very serious irregularities relating to certain Blue Earth County employees, who have apparently violated the law on a routine basis on a number of occasions, and by doing so, may be involved in a pattern of additional inappropriate out-of-home placements of children in your county.
The law requiring such filing with the Court (even for voluntary placements), as I understand it, is designed to act as a necessary "checks and balances" in the social services system in order to prevent the illegal and systematic trafficking of children for profit, and to insure proper supervision by the Court, as a means of preventing abuses by those involved in the social services system.
What I witnessed on May 18th in your courtroom was astonishing, even considering my above referenced experience in Saint Paul, and per my various Task Force and DHS Advisory Committee activities over the years. I was initially struck by the fact that County Attorney did not even bother to show up for the proceedings, producing an immediate impression that he already knew that you, in advance of the hearing, might have made your decision relating to this matter. In fact, I was struck by the bailiff's responsive smile as he engaged the County Attorney, Mr. Ross Arneson by telephone in the hallway prior to the proceedings, and as he inquired as to whether Mr. Arneson was planning to be in attendance. Evidently, and per my impression, and of course some speculation on my part at the time, some inside humor was exchanged in that telephone conversation, which caused the bailiff to believe that something was humorous about the proceedings was about to take place. I would not like to believe that there was some sort of prearranged decision discussed prior to the hearing.
Your intemperate remarks from the bench during the proceedings were, to say the least, most undignified and disrespectful to both counsel representing the motion before you on that morning. In the presence of the local press, and clearly intended to discredit the legal team for the benefit of the local newspaper writer in attendance as a potential smokescreen, I was not impressed with the unnecessary and inappropriate theatre. With extremely hostile and discourteous emphasis on your part, your reference as to the supposed intent of counsel, and intimating that this motion was some form of "publicity stunt" on their part only gave rise to the immediate question in my mind: Who's doing the grandstanding for the press here?
In fact, my belief is that you were protesting far too much, and that there had to be a serious reason for this behavior and attitude on your part. And finally, when you stormed out of the courtroom like an angry child having a temper tantrum after telling counsel that they were "dismissed", my impression on several levels was complete and crystal clear for the day, and did confirm my initial impression.
So as to avoid any misinterpretation on your part relating to the foundation for my remarks, please allow me to inform you, as well as the additional Blue Earth and Nicollet County personnel involved in this matter, and people obviously routinely talking to one another "around the water cooler", that I have also read this file, and have attended the numerous hearings in your sister county relating to this matter. As a result, I am overwhelmed by the unmistakable impression that this "hometown attitude" is pervasive, and indicative of a very strong possibility that there is a massive cover-up afoot, and an obvious attempt by many to control and contain the damage at a local level.
I am also under the impression that this drama may relate too much more than just this one case, and that this situation may just be the tip of the social services iceberg in your community. I am also very concerned that this activity in this case may be a part of your social services departments unwritten and routine extra-legal public policy relating to the extraction of children from one home and placement in another, while circumventing proper and required legal procedures as a normal course of conducting business amongst, what unfortunately appears to be, local "business partners" relating to such matters. In this case, your Blue Earth County insider and employee, and unlicensed social worker Mr. Dennis Teachout appears to be taking his work (children) home with him permantly and literally, and potentially with extra-legal County assistance outside of the boundaries of established legal procedures set forth by our legislature. I believe that based upon the evidence presented, you would have been hard pressed to avoid appointing a grand jury to investigate these facts to a legitimate and above board conclusion.
To be clear, it is not in dispute that this child (A.A.S.) was placed three times during the past four years without a petition required by law to the District Court (your court), in order for there to be supervision by the Court (your court). It is also not in dispute that a thorough "family search", paternal as well as maternal, is required by law, and per legislative mandate. A "law", and not merely a strong suggestion to be ignored for the sake of expediency, and requiring the filing timely petitions within thirty days with the Court relating to out-of- home placement of other people's children. There is no distinction made between "voluntary" and "involuntary" placements in this regard, and according to the law, as I understand it. These laws were crafted for solid legal and moral reasons to be certain, and to prevent situations just like this one. The present situation straddled between your two counties is ample evidence in support of this conclusion.
Per your acknowledged reading of the file, I am confident that you are aware that it is also alleged that the mother of the child is mentally ill. Therefore, even though these were voluntary placement(s) [not one.but three], all the more reason for all of the procedural safeguards required by law in the form of proper filing with the Court (your court), and for the purpose of necessary Court supervision. Safeguards created by our legislature to protect the rights of everyone involved, especially the child and the immediate and extended family of this child. As you are certainly aware, these safeguards were established and created to protect the child or children, as well as a potentially defenseless and incapacitated natural parent or parents, and to account for public funds spent in such cases.unless of course, children have now become some sort of behind-closed-doors marketable commodity in your community, like cattle, hogs or sheep, to be sold to the highest bidder from behind closed doors--or---perhaps to an insider with local influence.
Upon the backdrop of all of the above is that your two counties will probably squander, in the form of massive taxpayer dollars, something to the tune of a quarter of a million to a half million dollars for this effort. As an organized and collective effort in my opinion, these funds will be spent, not to place this now 6 ½ -year old child with responsible and decent family members (Bruce & Sara Boener) who wish to provide for their niece without the assistance of taxpayer funds. Rather, the collective sister county(s) effort thus far is to prevent this child from going home with her real family in favor of one of your own Blue Earth County Employees, Mr. Dennis Teachout, and at an incredible ongoing and continuing cost and burden to an unsuspecting taxpaying public. A county employee incidentally, who appears to have mastered an assisted inside fast-track for acquiring multiple children at will through your public as well as private agency sources in the Mankato area, and apparently without the unnecessary burden of following the law by the people involved.
State government agencies, as I would imagine your county government as well, are being forced to tighten its fiscal belt these days, and bleeding red ink like every other community social services program throughout the state. I hardly think that the average taxpayer would be particularly pleased to learn the truth relating to even this outrageously expensive and tax- funded contest, and perhaps only one of many similar and not so isolated situations of this nature in your community. The State and Federal funding your respective counties are receiving for your social services programs demands compliance with the law, and not the cavalier attitude and behavior as demonstrated in your courtroom.
The bottom line here is that I am now of the opinion that this deplorable group think, and astonishing group effort on the part of your collective public authority team, is much more about protecting the County "system" and perhaps unclean hands within your system, and far less about protecting this child or any other child for that matter. The collective ulterior purpose in my view is far too obvious to ignore at this point in my research.
And now, by all means, let's close up this case nice and tight and away from public view under the guise of now "protecting the child"? This appears to be anything but the truth here, and not designed to protect the innocent in my view, but to cover up the truth and protect those complicit in this rather specious activity. Fortunately, the barn door has been open for some time now, and there has been enough information made public about this situation to paint an accurate picture of many of the players involved, and the interconnected nature of their relationship to this matter. In my opinion, their collective agenda is far too obvious to ignore at this point, and has now become quite political.
I was not impressed with, your attitude, behavior, or your performance as a responsible judicial officer on the 18th of May 2004. In my opinion, and as an officer of the Court, you had a duty to put aside any "hometown" bias, or even the appearance of such bias, appoint a special prosecutor, and allow a public grand jury to examine and air the facts in this matter, and all of the potential dirty laundry regardless of where it led. Even the possibility of misconduct relating to multiple public officers, and the possible extra-legal trafficking of children in your respective communities is a very serious matter to be explored here, and deserves serious attention by responsible people.
In my view, your response this past Tuesday was not even jurisprudence "lite". After reading this file, for you to seriously suggest that "it was not in the public interest", and that the motion before you was some sort of "publicity stunt" per the back of your hand demeanor, and then abruptly bark at counsel, that [they] "you are excused", was gut-wrenching to witness to say the least, particularly given the gravity of this situation.
In fact, upon leaving your courtroom I was struck with a certain irony, which has troubled me since. My overwhelming impression these days is that the very people entrusted to keep and preserve with care, "the rule of law", appear to be the very judicial officers in front of the "bench" and on the "bench", who appear to possess the least respect for the law.
In closing, and since it is clear that you are all possibly talking to one another anyway, please allow me to pass on to all of those connected with this public authority disgrace and scandal within your sister counties, and clearly interconnected with this remarkable situation, the following. Since it is painfully clear thus far that no one connected directly and indirectly with your various tax-paid systems are willing to perform their duty to properly examine the seriousness of these interrelated matters and allegations, I intend to take this matter to our state legislature for proper consideration, and make a formal request for an investigation of everyone potentially involved.
Additionally, I intend to make it my business to explore every media source, local, statewide and national, who my have interest in this potentially deep-rooted child trafficking scandal.
Minnesota is unfortunately number one in the nation by far in some rather dubious categories. Number one for out-of-home placements (25,000) of children. The tax-funded bill for this effort alone is over ½ billion dollars annually. This number and corresponding taxpayer cost of course, does not even begin to include the possible addition of thousands of children involved in out of-home placements throughout the State of Minnesota where county personnel simply decided not to comply with the law. Additionally this "policy" makes it virtually impossible for anyone to track the whereabouts of such children, as is true in this case. With no coincidence attached, Minnesota is also number one in the nation in the area of termination of parental rights.and number one again with regard to the number of children in foster care programs throughout the State. None of the above bodes well for our great State of Minnesota and its social services public policy, written or otherwise.
Add to this mix the fact that the largest employer in the State of Minnesota is.the State of Minnesota---and that the largest agency (s) within state and county government.and growing like an out of control behemoth.are the various Departments of Human Services. Like they say.follow the money and the power, and the fast-and-loose attitudes connected with the acquisition of both--and obviously with little to no oversight by those in charge.
Betrayal of the public trust is a very serious matter, even in the cynical society in which we find ourselves today. Nonetheless, even today there are some who possess a moral and legal compass still. I would like to count myself among them, and I am hopeful that many others will explore this situation from that perspective.
Lastly, and from a purely self-serving perspective, and with no joy whatsoever attached, this story will make terrific multiple chapter material for my book in progress entitled: "Welcome to Minnesota.Children for Sale".
Final question: How much in tax-free subsidy is Blue Earth County employee, unlicensed County Social Worker, and County insider, Mr. Dennis Teachout receiving for each of the children placed in his home over the years? Is this altruism or a business?
Thank you for your time, and for the experience of May 18, 2004 in your courtroom.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Carrillo
CC: Minneapolis Star Tribune
Saint Paul Pioneer Press / Mr. Rueben Rosario / Mr. Dave Peters
KSTP Television / Producer / Ms. Julie Jacoby
Mr. John Stossel / ABC News / KSTP Television Affiliate
Associated Press / National & local Bureau
Additional Media Sources
State Representative Torrey Westrom
State Senator Dallas Sams
US Senator Norm Coleman
Mr. Michael Mc Cormick / American Coalition of Fathers & Children /
/ Washington DC
Professor Stephen Baskerville / American Coalition of Fathers &
Children /
/ Howard University
Minnesota Law & Politics Magazine / & Frank Jossi
Mark Fischenich / Mankato Free Press Newspaper
Minneapolis City Pages / Ms. Jessica Armbruster / Mr. Steve Perry
Taxpayers League of Minnesota / Mr. David Strom / former State
Senator
Linda
Runbeck
State Senator John Hottinger
State Representative Howard Swenson
State Representative John Dorn
State Senator Julie Rosen
State Representative Tony Cornish
Minnesota Family Council / Tom Prichard
Minnesota State Representative Fran Bradley
Minnesota State Representative Linda Boudreau
United States Senator Mark Dayton
Unites States Congressman Mark Kennedy
United States Congressman John Klein
"Problems cannot be solved by the same consciousness that created them".
Albert Einstein
Footnote: The only difference between Sara & Bruce Boerner compared to the thousands of Minnesotan's experiencing a similar fate is, and at a personal cost to them both financially and emotionally.is that they are fighting back.
May God bless their effort.
For additional information relating to this matter please refer to the following web site: