The sinister nature of government “child protection” agencies has been known to many since their inception. The fact that DSS (Department of Social Services), CPS (Child Protective Services), and other variants of the same child kidnapping system routinely engage in removing children from perfectly healthy families based on accusations alone is no secret. Indeed, it appears that the United States and England have initiated a race to see which nation can abduct the most children for the most ridiculous reasons.
But what happens when an individual within the system sets their sights on a child, and even their fellow state agents refuse to go along with the game? If a recent case in Utah is anything to go by, it apparently doesn’t matter. You still end up having your child forcibly removed from you and you still have little hope of seeing him again after he is taken. If the case officers declare you have done nothing wrong – you still find yourself childless.
While a case such as this should make the headlines if for no other reason than the brazenness of certain “officials,” not a word has been spoken in the media, with the notable exception of Alan Watt of CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com, who reported on the case several days ago and posted a summary of the events (a letter for public viewing) to his website on April 30, 2012.
It appears that, during the course of a nasty divorce proceeding, Katerina Jeleva was accused of sexually abusing her son (who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons) by her ex-husband. According to Jeleva, the motivation behind this accusation was her ex-husband’s desire to avoid child support payment in light of a recent bankruptcy. Regardless of the reason behind the accusation, however, Jeleva was served with a Protective Order.
Protective Orders are yet another example of how Family Court proceedings and DSS-style child removal agencies are unconstitutional. Protective Orders, almost always rubber-stamped by Family Courts, level an accusation against an individual who is then required to appear in court (with no jury) and prove that he/she is innocent. Traditionally, the idea of justice rests upon the presumption of innocence until proven guilt. However, in the case of Family Court and Protective Orders, the defendant is assumed guilty until he/she proves his/herself innocent. The burden of proof, in effect, is placed on the back of the accused not the accuser.
After the judge’s signing of the Protective Order, Jeleva and her son were then dragged into the government system requiring an investigation by Family Court appointed case officers. After interviewing both Jeleva and her son, however, the clinical psychologist who conducted an interview determined that evidence for sexual abuse was nonexistent. In addition, she stated that it was possible the child had been “coached” to implicate his mother in abuse and that the child “did not display any signs of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse during my contact with him or while he was observed in my waiting room.”
Dr. Stringham, the psychologist who conducted the aforementioned interview, then recommended that the Protective Order be dropped and that Jeleva should resume maintaining physical custody of her son.
Jeleva claims that, when it came time for the Protective Order hearing, her ex-husband did not show up, thus causing his case to be thrown out and the Protective Order dropped.
This is where the state-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), Amber Ruder, enters the picture. As GAL, Ruder is tasked with the representation of a minor child in cases such as these. Essentially, Ruder was appointed as legal Guardian of Jeleva’s son during the Protective Order investigation process.
This is because, only one day after her son was returned to her, Jeleva’s ex-husband filed yet another Protective Order against her. This, Jeleva claims, was done at the behest of and with the aid of Ruder. The new PO is set to last a period of five months. With the PO signed by a judge, the police immediately came to Jeleva’s house and removed her son from his home yet again. Jeleva states that she and her son were at the dinner table when the police came and that the brave officers, upholding their oath to serve and protect, literally took him from her arms.
Thus, the process of investigation began anew with more case officers and detectives interviewing Jeleva and her son. Like in the first round of investigations, all of those involved (with the notable exception of Ruder) determined that there was no evidence of child abuse. In fact, the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) investigator of the special sex abuse unit, Carly Echols, even wrote a report exonerating Jeleva. Echols closed the case due to the fact that the accusations were unsupported.
Yet, according to Jeleva, although the reports of the detectives and investigator Echols are in the public record, they were dismissed as hearsay at the first hearing because the individuals themselves were not there to testify. This was an oversight made by Jeleva who is representing herself with very limited resources and knowledge of the law, as opposed to the state which responds to a prosecution as if there is no bottom to its pit of finances.
Jeleva claims that Amber Ruder then went on to testify to the judge that Jeleva did, in fact, abuse her son, even though Ruder’s qualifications are that of an attorney as opposed to the sexual abuse investigators, psychologists, and other relevant personnel who determined otherwise.
Ruder’s presentation was evidently convincing to the judge as Jeleva was forced to appeal the decision in order to have the detectives and Echols testify in her defense so as to remove the claim of hearsay from the reports exonerating her. Ruder, however, again testified that Jeleva had abused her son.
Jeleva states that, although the second judge at the second hearing upheld that she cannot directly contact her son, he at least ruled that Amber Ruder must make a recommendation as to when, where, how long, and how often Jeleva can resume meeting her son, along with a therapist. According to Jeleva, the judge stated, “We must put this family back together.” I might add that it never should have been broken apart to begin with. After having been cleared twice, the judge should have ruled that the child be returned to his mother immediately instead of the silly idea that she can only meet with her son in the presence of a therapist at the pleasure of the State and the parasites that make a career of destroying the lives of others.
Nevertheless, even though Ruder was tasked with making a recommendation for visitation scheduling, it is apparent that she has not met these requirements. Once the court has ordered the Guardian ad Litem to make such recommendations, it is the responsibility of the GAL to organize and arrange the meetings between the parent, child, and therapist. In fact, the judge unequivocally ordered that the GAL take “whatever steps are necessary to facilitate” Jeleva’s appointed time with her son. However, Ruder evidently has a much different interpretation of the judge’s order, as she has yet to facilitate anything beyond expressing her opinion that it is the parent’s responsibility to arrange all aspects.
This presents a major problem for Jeleva who claims she has repeatedly tried to do just that but has yet to receive a call back from the therapists she has contacted. There is no reason to doubt Jeleva’s claim as Ruder, in an email to Jeleva, confirms that not returning phone calls seems to be a trend at the requested mental health agency. In addition, Ruder states in no uncertain terms within the same email that “I cannot and will not do this for you.”
Furthermore, Ruder hints that the court-ordered therapy might not even occur at all, stating that it will only happen if the child’s individual therapist feels that it will not “traumatize” him to see his mother.
Presumably, she means that, because the child has been away from his mother for so long and has been subjected to constant disruption, it could be traumatizing to return him to Jeleva and possibly put him in the same position again.
However, it is not Jeleva that has caused trauma for her son. It is the state; it is the Social Services system and individuals like Amber Ruder that are responsible for subjecting this child to the harassment and mental anguish he has been put through for years.
From point A to point B, it is the State that has been responsible for this unfortunate situation. Furthermore, Jeleva claims that a move is now being made to terminate her parental rights.
Unfortunately, Katerina Jeleva’s case is different from so many thousands of others all across the country only in that the court and social-services system are largely in agreement that she is innocent and that her child should be returned to her. The culprit in the dismantling of her relationship with her son is mostly one person – Amber Ruder. For most parents, every agent encountered at every step of the way is determined to remove the child and place them far away from their home.
Katerina Jeleva’s case is indicative of what happens when a population allows the power of the State to run wild. We are now able to see clearly the results of allowing “services” to become “authorities” and allowing the Government to involve itself in the private affairs of families and individuals.
As Mother’s Day approaches, which Jeleva will likely spend without her son, we are given a choice. We can sit back while Katerina and her son are robbed of the only childhood he will ever have — traded for the personal agenda of power-tripping parasites like Amber Ruder — or we can take action. We can take a stand in this case and use it as the first shot fired in the resistance to a State that clearly believes it has the right to remove a child from a loving home with absolutely no evidence of abuse.
As Jeleva states, “I can’t win in this rigged system. There is no logic here. How would it be too traumatic for my son to come home to the only home he’s ever known and to his pets that keep crying by his empty room?”
I have included the contact information for Amber Ruder in case any readers would like to explain the moral implications of her actions and how she might address this situation better.
I have also included the information of Judge Mary T. Noonan so that she might be contacted and encouraged to return Katerina Jeleva’s son to her as well as take immediate action against Ruder’s open contempt of her orders.
Amber M. Ruder
Guardian ad Litem, Attorney
32 West Center Street, Suite 205
Provo, Utah 84601
Clerical Department for Judge Mary T. Noonan
4th District Juvenile Court – Orem
99 E Center Street
Orem, UT 84057
Wendy Matheney – 801-724-3820
Crystal Tua’One – 801-724-3802
Sandra Willard – 801-724-3811
Christine Wilcox – 801-724-3810
If you would like to offer support to Katerina Jeleva, you can contact her directly at [email protected] or call her at 1-801-489-7446.
You can help support this information by voting on Reddit HERE.
Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.