Peter Amschel, SBN 56448

2 41110 Quail Road

Hemet, California 92544
4 Tel: 951-797-8592
6
Attorneys for: Parents in trial and on appeal;
8

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
14

16

Case No.: SWJ009263

Kendel B. Amschel Date: July 27, 2010
Time: 8:00 A. M.
Department: S102
Motion to Disqualify Juvenile
Court Judge, County Counsel and
DPSS for Impermissible Financial
Interest in Case Outcome and to
Dismiss This Case and Return
Forthwith the Infant Child Herein
to her Parents

18

20
Riverside County has scheduled herein an adjudication in which the rights
22 of the parents to their own child and in which the rights of the child to her own
parents are each threatened with termination. Parents and child are each entitled to
24 an impartial adjudication with full constitutional individual rights herein.
Parents contend herein that “financial incentives” and other financial
26 arrangements provided to the court system and and to petitioners herein by the
United States federal government presens a conflict of interest for said parties
28 which results in a constitutionally impermissible level of bias on the part of the
Riverside County Superior Court Juvenile division and on the part of the
30 petitioners.

32 LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN CASES ALLEGING FINANCIAL

BIAS
 The California Supreme court in the case of Haas v. County of San
2 Bernardino, 27 Cal.4th 1017, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 45 P.3d
280 (Cal., 2002) sets forth several principles applicable in
4 cases, such as this case, in which it is alleged that
pecuniary factors are threatening the substantial rights
6 of the parties to an impartial adjudication:
1. That of the types of bias that can affect
8 adjudication, “pecuniary interest”, as alleged herein,
“has long received the most unequivocal condemnation
10 and the least forgiving scrutiny.”
2. An adjudication in which the court has a direct,
12 personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in rendering a
judgment against a party “certainly” deprives the party
14 of due process of law and violates the Fourteenth
Amendment. .
16 3. In cases where the adjudication is challenged for
reasons other than financial interest the adjudications
18 have been afforded a presumption of impartiality, but
adjudications challenged for financial interest have not.
20 4. It is not necessary to determine whether the
adjudicator has actual bias but only whether or not the
22 particular circumstances would present a possible
temptation to the average judge to “lead him not to hold
24 the balance nice, clear and true.”
5. "The requirement of due process of law in judicial procedure is
26 not satisfied by the argument that men of the highest honor and the
greatest self-sacrifice could carry it on without danger of injustice."
28
THE NATURE OF THE FINANCIAL FACTORS INVOLVED IN THIS
30 CASE
 1. Parents herein attach hereto as exhibit “A” a copy of a publication by
2 the Federal Department of Human Services which is an information
memorandum regarding Adoption Incentive Payments provided in the
4 “Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008” and parents request that the court take
judicial notice of the federal laws referred to therein.
6 Pertinent references in this publication include the following:
Federal law provides for payment of incentive funds to States that
8 increase the number of children adopted.
Federal law that States must exceed a baseline number of adoptions to
10 qualify for incentive funds.
A newly enacted provision of federal law provides that States now may
12 also earn an additional incentive payment for exceeding the State's highest ever
foster child adoption rate.
14 Incentive funds are paid only for finalized adoptions.
 On the second page of exhibit “A” it sets forth incentive payments of
2 $4000.00 for every adoption over baseline, and $8,000.00 for every older child
adopted over the baseline and $4000.00 for every special needs adoption over the
4 baseline. It is difficult for a lawyer to locate information on on federal incentive
payments for finalized adoptions because of the voluminous and scattered nature
6 of such laws, but Nev Moore, a reporter for the Massachusetts News has spent the
time necessary to review the laws and facts involved and the reporter has
8 published his review of incentive payments in his article: “ADOPTION
BONUSES: THE MONEY BEHIND THE MADNESS . DSS and Affiliates
10 Rewarded for breaking up families” a copy of which is attached hereto as
exhibit “B”and incorporated herein by reference. Parents request that the court
12 take judicial notice of the facts and the federal laws referred to therein.The
reporter notes the vast amounts of money involved and the great numbers of
14 individuals who receive money and jobs from the financial incentives
provided including judges and evaluators and adoptive parents. The reporter
16 informs us that the reality of effect of the financial incentives is that an
adoption business has been created in the Superior Court, Juvenile division,
18 in which the juvenile court system and CPS has been motivated to take
peoples' children and not give them back. The reporter also notes that in the
20 business created by such pecuniary incentives, buyers need a desirable
product that sells so that a supply of nice children with reasonably good
22 genetics is needed with the result that statistics in Massachusetts show that
more children from the working class and wealthier areas are being taken
24 away from their parents and adopted out than children from the inner-city
areas and from the projects.
26
On page B3 of the report, we learn that federal law not only provides cash
28 adoption bonuses to the states, but in it also provides cash adoption subsidies to
adoptive parents until the children turn 8.
30
 On page B3 and B4 we learn that the law provides assistance to states and local
2 communities to expedite the termination of parental rights and to encourage fast
tracking of children not yet one year old by placing them into pre-adoptive
4 arrangements even before parental rights have been terminated.

CONCLUSION

8 The adjudicative process involved in this case is tainted with a shocking

level of pecuniary incentives for the system to rule against the parents and to
10 terminate their parental rights and to rule against the infant child herein by
adopting the infant out to strangers. The fact that the jurisdictional hearing in this
12 case showed little or no harm at all to have occurred to the infant makes it even
more imperative that this case be dismissed and the child returned immediately to
14 the parents because of the lack of impartiality in the process and because of the
blatant conflict of interest in the adjudication process and the resulting severe
16 potential of bias in the process resulting from the financial and pecuniary facts
existing herein. The slavish devotion of the Riverside County Superior Court to
18 the requirements of federal financial statutes is clearlydemonstrated by superior
court procedures herein requiring expedited hearings and finalized adoptions as to
20 children under one year old. In order to comply with federal financial
requirements, this court has even resorted to “best interest of child” standards, just
22 as in divorce court but the divorce process in inapposite because in divorce court
the child is at least going to be placed with one parent or the other, with
24 opportunities ever six months for further modification. I this case, the superior
court juvenile division proposes and adjudication which both parents' rights are
26 shredded contrary to the law of parental rights and the rights of the child to family
re-unification set forth in the Welfare and Institutions Code, andin State and
28 Federal statutory and case law .

30 Dated:
 By:

2 __________________________________
4 Peter Amschel
Attorney for Parents
6