Mrs. Amtower rightly attempted to protect her child from further abuse by approaching Mineral County authorities (Family Court Judge) for a protection order in 1999 and was refused. The Family Court Judge refused to issue a protective order and stated, "Hunting is a way of life in West Virginia." Mrs. Amtower attempted to protect her child from further abuse by informing WV DHHR CPS and the Courts of the abusive nature of her ex-husband and the criminally violent history of the said child's stepmother. WV DHHR CPS worked to aid the Batterer in gaining custody of Mrs. Amtower's son. Mrs. Amtower has unjustly been allowed no contact with her son in one year eleven months.

Petition: Please, view, sign, and forward the following url: HELP MOTHERS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CHILD ABUSE AND/OR NEGLECT - HELP THEM PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/512966888

Mrs. Christina Amtower and her husband separated in 1999 and divorced in 2000. Mrs. Amtower was awarded sole custody of the couple's biological son. Mrs. Amtower's ex-husband had become extremely abusive, especially in the latter part of the marriage and the abuse escalated after the onset of the separation.

On April 23, 2001 the home of Christina Amtower in Fountain, WV was surrounded by a (male) member of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WV DHHR) Child Protective Services (CPS) and three (male) West Virginia State Police (WVSP). The home was forcibly entered and searched without consent, without permission, and without any court order or search warrant. There were no emergency circumstances whatsoever.

Mrs. Amtower had just transported her son to his private Catholic school in Westernport, Maryland and was home alone as she had just returned home to continue working on decluttering/reorganizing/spring cleaning the home. Mrs. Amtower had sustained injuries in an auto accident, worked on the spring cleaning tasks as she could, but always made certain to meet her son's needs. Mrs. Amtower could not hire cleaning help to have the spring cleaning tasks accomplished immediately due to lack of funds.

CPS and WVSP knew Mrs. Amtower's son was not in the home before they illegally entered Mrs. Amtower's home, as Mrs. Amtower had informed them of this fact, and the name of her son's school earlier in the day (when Mrs. Amtower was unlawfully detained and coerced into going to the Keyser City Police station). Mrs. Amtower's son was safe, in school with friends and classmates, was clean, in a clean uniform, well-fed, happy, healthy, and in good physical and emotional condition. The said child had no signs and showed no signs of abuse/neglect whatsoever. Any reasonable person, upon viewing/interviewing the said child would have concluded the child was NOT an abused or neglected child.

WV DHHR CPS received one "anonymous" telephone complaint against Mrs. Amtower. There had been no history of any abuse/neglect, no history of allegations or complaints of abuse/neglect, and Mrs. Amtower had no previous contact with WV DHHR CPS and had not received "services" from WV DHHR CPS previously.

Based on the home being in disarray (due to spring cleaning and the condition of the home was viewed due to an illegal warrantless entry and search), a female WV DHHR CPS worker seized Mrs. Amtower's son from his school in Maryland and transported the said child across state lines to West Virginia for questioning by the Mineral County Prosecutor. The said child told those involved that Mrs. Amtower had treated the said child very well, that the said child wanted to be returned to live with Mrs. Amtower, that the said child's biological father, Mrs. Amtower's ex-husband, had treated the said child abusively, and that the said child did NOT want to live with his biological father. The said child was placed in foster care. The said child's first and most preferred choice for the seven long months he was in foster care was to be returned to live with Mrs. Amtower.

WV DHHR CPS workers made a large number of knowingly false statements in this case and to the Court in order to obtain an Order for Emergency custody of Mrs. Amtower's son after CPS had seized the said child and had him in CPS custody.

WV DHHR CPS falsely claimed the home was "uninhabitable". Mrs. Amtower denies this allegation and contends that the home being in disarray due to spring cleaning does not meet the definition of Abuse/Neglect under West Virginia State Code nor was any aspect of Mrs. Amtower's care of her son abusive or neglectful in any way.

WV DHHR CPS falsely claimed Mrs. Amtower "intended to take the said child and flee investigation". Mrs. Amtower denies this allegation. Mrs. Amtower's actions, attempting to reach her attorney's office in Keyser, WV and returning to the home to make immediate arrangements to put the house in order indicates Mrs. Amtower intended to resolve the issues, not flee investigation.

WV DHHR CPS falsely claimed the said child was in "danger", and the said child was "currently being homeschooled". Mrs. Amtower denies this allegation. The said child was safe and in a private parochial school in Maryland, a school which the said child had attended for almost two years by that time, and the said child was not being homeschooled as alleged. The said child was in no danger whatsoever. WV DHHR CPS received the one anonymous telephone complaint on April 19, 2001 and the female CPS worker waited four full days, until April 23, 2001, to investigate the complaint, proving the CPS worker did not believe the said child was in any imminent danger.

The Gaurdian Ad Litem (GAL) for Mrs. Amtower's son investigated the allegations, determined them to be unfounded, and recommended that custody of the said child be returned to Mrs. Amtower. This recommendation was not followed by the Circuit Court Judge.

WV DHHR CPS falsely claimed that the female CPS worker had contacted a supervisor by telephone with Maryland Social Services and had requested permission to go to the school to interview Mrs. Amtower's son. Mrs. Amtower recently wrote to the said supervisor to make inquiry about the incident and has recently received a letter in response from a Maryland attorney which states that the WV DHHR CPS worker had NOT contacted the supervisor and had NOT obtained permission to enter the Maryland school to interview the said child.

Although both Mrs. Amtower and her son told those involved in this case of the abusive nature of the said child's biological father, CPS worked to aid the biological father to gain custody of the said child. Custody of the said child was awarded to the abusive biological father, against the child's wishes in January 2002. The biological father has refused and returned Mrs. Amtower's cards, letters, and gifts for the said child, keeps an unlisted telephone number, and has refused all of Mrs. Amtower's attempts to arrange visitation. Mrs. Amtower has not been allowed to see or visit with her son in one year eleven months as of November 2003.

The biological father had the terms of his custody of the said child modified in Family Court on October 9, 2003 in ways which, for all practical intents and purposes, has terminated Mrs. Amtower's parental rights. The Family Court Judge has denied Mrs. Amtower a parent-child relationship with her biologicial son and has ordered Mrs. Amtower shall be no visitation and Mrs. Amtower shall not attempt to contact the said child by any means, and revoked Mrs. Amtower's rights to view/access the said child's educational and medical records.

Mrs. Amtower objects to these decisions on the grounds that the biological father does not wish for Mrs. Amtower to have any parent-child relationship with her son, that the biological father has done everything in his power to destroy the loving and appropriate parent-child relationship Mrs. Amtower once had with her son, and the biological father has employed numerous tactics to alienate the said child from Mrs. Amtower as well as on other grounds.

Mrs. Amtower contends Family Court is not the proper court to terminate parental rights, that Mrs. Amtower's parental rights were not terminated or revoked by previous court orders in this matter. Mrs. Amtower is currently working PRO SE (representing herself). Mrs. Amtower has started researching these matters and found numerous incidents of constitutional violations, denials of due process, and violations of WV State Laws in her case. Mrs. Amtower is attempting to appeal these unjust and unwarranted decisions.

Family Rights West Virginia
email [email protected]