At Least 8 Laws That Were Broken By All Government Agencies Involved in the Kidnapping of Baby Cyrus
At Least 8 Laws Broken by Police, CPS, and Others When Kidnapping Baby Cyrus:
#1 - Idaho Statute 16-1601 was broken
No effort was made to maintain family unity, on the contrary, Baby Cyrus was ripped away from his parents and his breast-feeding mother was arrested and put in jail without just cause and without any evidence to justify her arrest.
You can watch the videos yourself and see that the actions taken by police officers under the direction of CPS/Idaho Department of Health and Welfare did not obey §16-601. Baby Cyrus was snatched out of his mother's arms, was taken out of his home and the privacy and unity of the family was not preserved even though it was more than "possible."
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title16/T16CH16/SECT16-1601/
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title16/T16CH16/SECT16-1601/
#2 - Idaho Statute 16-1627 was broken
No physician who had personally diagnosed Baby Cyrus gave any evidence that Baby Cyrus's life would be endangered.
There was not a written or oral testimony from a physician that has been provided as evidence in this case that Baby Cyrus's "life was greatly endangered" by simply being with his own parents.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title16/T16CH16/SECT16-1627/
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title16/T16CH16/SECT16-1627/
#3 - Idaho Statute 32-1010 was broken
The government of Idaho did not preserve the fundamental rights of the parents as guaranteed in this statue. They also did not satisfy the requirements noted in section 32-1013 (read below):
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title32/T32CH10/SECT32-1010/
The Parental Rights Act was completely disregarded and disobeyed. Section 6 above notes that the Idaho State Government only has permission to interfere with Parental Rights if the "strict scrutiny standard" provided in Section 32-1013 is satisfied.
Well that "strict scrutiny standard" reads as follows
32-1013. INTERFERENCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED. (1) Neither the state of Idaho, nor any political subdivision thereof, may violate a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by this act, and any restriction of or interference with such rights shall not be upheld unless it demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the restriction or interference is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) The least restrictive means available for the furthering of that compelling governmental interest.
How was kidnapping Baby Cyrus essential to further a compelling government interest? And how is kidnapping him and terminating parental rights the "least restrictive means of furthering" that non-existent "compelling governmental interest."
This law was broken, plain and simple.
The Parental Rights Act was completely disregarded and disobeyed. Section 6 above notes that the Idaho State Government only has permission to interfere with Parental Rights if the "strict scrutiny standard" provided in Section 32-1013 is satisfied.
Well that "strict scrutiny standard" reads as follows
32-1013. INTERFERENCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED. (1) Neither the state of Idaho, nor any political subdivision thereof, may violate a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by this act, and any restriction of or interference with such rights shall not be upheld unless it demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the restriction or interference is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) The least restrictive means available for the furthering of that compelling governmental interest.
How was kidnapping Baby Cyrus essential to further a compelling government interest? And how is kidnapping him and terminating parental rights the "least restrictive means of furthering" that non-existent "compelling governmental interest."
This law was broken, plain and simple.
#4 - Idaho Statute 16-1629 subsection 11 was broken
After Baby Cyrus was wrongfully kidnapped by the State of Idaho, he still should have been placed with a "fit and willing" relative according to this Idaho Statute. There were any of a number of fit and willing relatives or "fit and willing non relatives with a significant relationship with the child," but the state made zero effort to place Baby Cyrus with any of them. They broke this law:
#5 - Idaho Statute 32-1013 was broken
This law requires that both a "compelling government interest" and "the least restrictive means available for the furthering of that compelling government interest" be demonstrated in order to justify the forceful taking of a child. In Baby Cyrus case, no evidence was presented and Baby Cyrus was simply kidnapped and taken away from his breast feeding mother. All evidence from doctor's who reviewed Baby Cyrus demonstrated that he was healthy and in no imminent danger. This law was broken.
#6 - Idaho Statute 16-1610(2)(i) was broken
This law requires that the government provide PROOF that "reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement of the child in care to prevent the removal of the child from his home." Absolutely ZERO efforts were made and they even admit this in their own documentation which you can see below:
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title16/T16CH16/SECT16-1610/
Again, the State of Idaho requires in State Statute 16-1610 subsection i-3, that “reasonable efforts be made prior to the placement of the child in care to prevent the removal of the child from his home.” In other words, it is required in the state of Idaho that CPS demonstrate that it made “reasonable efforts” to ensure that a child is not forcibly removed from its parents when it is not necessary. The proof of these “reasonable efforts” must be attested to in the affidavit. But the only thing Roxanne Printz put in her affidavit was:
"4. That reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for shelter care were: the Department has no prior history with this family."
Again, the State of Idaho requires in State Statute 16-1610 subsection i-3, that “reasonable efforts be made prior to the placement of the child in care to prevent the removal of the child from his home.” In other words, it is required in the state of Idaho that CPS demonstrate that it made “reasonable efforts” to ensure that a child is not forcibly removed from its parents when it is not necessary. The proof of these “reasonable efforts” must be attested to in the affidavit. But the only thing Roxanne Printz put in her affidavit was:
"4. That reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for shelter care were: the Department has no prior history with this family."
If you are shaking your head in dismay trying to figure out what that means, you are not alone. This is a clear demonstration of either one, total incompetence or two, blatant disregard for the rule of law. There is no third option. It appears that Roxanne Printz is using a form letter or template and simply copying and pasting information into this document and that she copied and pasted a statement that has nothing to do with “reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for shelter care.”
#7 - Idaho Statute 16-1602 was violated
Idaho State Law requires that "abuse" be defined as something that was CAUSED by the parents through "conduct or omission." Therefore if Levi and Marissa Anderson (Baby Cyrus's parents) were to be charged with "abuse," evidence would have to be shown which demonstrated that they were the cause of Baby Cyrus's "failure to thrive." Not a single shred of evidence was provided in the entire process.
#8 - Idaho Statute 16-1608 was violated
Idaho State Law requires that a child may only be taken from his family "where the child is endangered in his surroundings and prompt removal is necessary to prevent serious physical or mental injury to the child or where the child is an abandoned child." Baby Cyrus was neither abandoned nor was any evidence ever provided which demonstrated that he was endangered had he not been "removed" from his parents physical custody. REMEMBER—they kidnapped Baby Cyrus! If they were concerned for his health and welfare, they could have allowed the parents to accompany Baby Cyrus to the hospital, which the video record demonstrates they were willing to do!
Baby Cyrus Quick Links:
Isaiah 44:28 "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure."
Isaiah 45:1-3 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight…that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel."
Isaiah 45:1-3 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight…that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel."
SITE SECURED BY:
