Lorena B- Tennessee Mother in court of appeals had parental rights terminated - her claim is Satanic Conspiracy of Ritual Abuse and fear for organ harvesting of her child (pizzagate)

submitted ago by awarenessadventurer

This woman has lost her child and is in the court of appeals. Her claims and court records below:

http://tncourts.gov/courts/court-appeals/opinions/2017/04/19/re-lorenda-b

IN RE: LORENDA B. In Re: Lorenda B. M2016-01841-COA-R3-PT This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Davidson County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Judith B. (“Mother”) to her minor child Lorenda B. (“the Child”). Mother has alleged throughout this case that there is a satanic conspiracy against her and that the Child is at risk of having her organs harvested for trafficking purposes. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and mental incompetence, but we reverse the grounds of willful failure to support and persistence of conditions. We also affirm the Juvenile Court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

Date Filed: Wednesday, April 19, 2017

FULL TEXT - http://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inrelorendab.opn_.pdf IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE IN RE: LORENDA B. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Davidson County No. 211759 Sheila Calloway, Judge No. M2016-01841-COA-R3-PT

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Davidson County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Judith B. (“Mother”) to her minor child Lorenda B. (“the Child”). Mother has alleged throughout this case that there is a satanic conspiracy against her and that the Child is at risk of having her organs harvested for trafficking purposes. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and mental incompetence, but we reverse the grounds of willful failure to support and persistence of conditions.We also affirm the Juvenile Court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

EXCERPTS BELOW:

1 The Child’s father’s parental rights are not at issue in this appeal, only Mother’s. 04/19/2017

OPINION Background The Child was born to Mother in March 2005. DCS became involved in the Child’s life in November 2013 because of Mother’s alleged erratic behavior and the Child’s not receiving sufficient education. The Child was placed with a family for a period of time but that arrangement ended. The Child entered DCS foster care. In June 2014, the Juvenile Court magistrate found the Child dependent and neglected. After a rehearing before the Juvenile Court, the Child in November 2015 again was found dependent and neglected. That order was appealed to Circuit Court, and that appeal was not decided as of the entry of the final order in this parental termination action. Mother has been evaluated by psychologists on multiple occasions. In 2002, a psychologist who evaluated Mother opined that Mother suffered from “subtle thought disorder” which involves paranoid tendencies. In 2015, two doctors diagnosed Mother with “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.” Two permanency plans were designed for Mother. These plans required Mother, among other things, to obtain a legal source of income and stable housing, undergo a psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations, and, undergo a mental health assessment and follow all recommendations. Initially, visitation was ordered, but this was suspended after the Child allegedly expressed a desire that the visitation cease. In October 2015, DCS filed a petition in the Juvenile Court seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Child. Trial was held over the course of five days in March and July of 2016. The testimony at trial ranged far afield as to Mother’s history and general beliefs. We summarize only the pertinent testimony from key witnesses. Mother testified. Mother stated that she worked temporary jobs. Mother, once homeless, had lived at an apartment for about six months leading up to trial. Mother receives food stamps. Mother, citing her religious beliefs, refused to take any medication o address her mental health issues. A recurring theme from Mother over the course of trial was her adamant belief that sinister forces threatened her and the Child. Mother testified at trial as follows:

Q. (By Mr. Perenich) were you ever evaluated for possible medication regarding mental health issues?

A. At the beginning of this case, there was some sort of an evaluation I would not consider. But, yes, I did cooperate and show up for the appointment.

Q. Now -- A. I’m not depressed. I don’t cry. Q. No. I’m just asking if you cooperated with the evaluation. A. I’m not sitting around moping and crying. I don’t need antidepressants. I don’t want them.

Q. Do you believe that you’ve completed the permanency plan DCS has set forth for you to do to get [the Child] back?

A. I believe that DCS has taken my daughter prisoner, and I should not have to complete the plan. I believe that I have been denied due process of law in a timely fashion. They failed to do an adequate investigation. They should have talked with my father and the father of my firsttwo sons who bribed the judge to use a false psych. eval. against me. I think that was a good psych. eval. They discarded it after Jeff bribed the judge, and they replaced it with a faulty one. I’m not denying that I have need for counseling. But I have sought counsel, and I have found it, and I have been ministered to it, by it. It has been helpful to me. I have received miraculous, medically-documented healing. Subpoena my doctor, Clarissa Arthur. Ask her about it. Did I receive a miracle, was I really sick, and did I get really well? Yes, I did. So I must be doing something right. You should be asking me, how did you come from being a satanic ritual abuse survivor who was bleeding to death for years on her cycle and not able to work, to a mom that is able to endure this kind of stress, bear up under it, and still have a good attitude and live with hope and work and be well-respected and well-received and appreciated by many people who know me. They should be taking notes. Why is it that signs and wonders are following me, and what are those signs saying? Because God has given us grace, and we all need it desperately. And we need to work together, not against each other.

Q. Do you have any concerns about [the Child’s] care at the present time in DCS custody? A. Yes. I have great concern. I feel that God has given us a three-year window to get it together here, to get it right. And if it were to go beyond that, I would fear for her life. I would fear for her becoming a victim of organ trafficking. I have been concerned that there may have been sexual abuse in the [Ms’] home. There are tangible reasons I can point to that were circumstantial evidences that were extremely upsetting, but I’m not quite as concerned about that. Pardon me?

Q. You said you’ve got tangible reasons why she might be a victim of sexual abuse? A. Yeah -- Q. What are those? A. -- the yeast infection and the doctor’s visit. The way DCS responded to the doctor’s referral was very inappropriate and distorted. It’s very suspicious. Why would they do that? Why would they try to accuse me of coercing the doctor to make a referral? That’s absurd. Get the doctor in here to testify.

EXCERPT:

Q. Do you have any intention of following the recommendations of that assessment? A. I have every intention of taking good care of my mental, spiritual, emotional health, and my physical health. And I will do whatever it takes to do so. I am well connected with the Most High King, Jesus Christ, and He informs me and points me where to go, how to get what, and I most of the time obediently do it.

Child: “Tell them that you don’t want your organs to be donated if you are adopted, and, like, whatever the judge decides, like, we hope that she just has the right heart to decide the correct outcome of this case. And if she doesn’t, then a higher power will deal with her.” In August 2016, the Juvenile Court entered its final judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. The Juvenile Court found the grounds of willful failure to support, persistent conditions, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and mental incompetence. The Juvenile Court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. As relevant, the Juvenile Court stated the following in its final judgment:

The child has remained continuously in foster care since February 13, 2014. 12. DCS filed a petition to terminate both parents’ parental rights onOctober 13, 2015.

(TEXT REMOVED FROM POST BUT INCLUDED IN DOCUMENT )

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

awarenessadventurer ago

EXCERPT 2:

No expert testified at trial as to Mother’s mental condition. However, evidence in the record on appeal reflects that on different occasions, Mother has been diagnosed with or shown signs of suffering from “subtle thought disorder,” “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder,” and anxiety disorder. Apart from those considerations, perhaps the most glaring evidence concerning this issue comes from Mother’s own testimony at trial. Mother testified at great length about her concerns over her or the child being victimized by human organ traffickers, satanic conspirators, and other alleged nefarious forces. This is, of course, a free society, and Mother is entitled to her personal beliefs. However, as pertains to the Child’s welfare, these beliefs and patterns of thinking have serious ramifications that are of public concern. In our judgment, Mother’s untreated paranoia prevents her from making well-founded decisions necessary to successfully parent the Child. To review, DCS became involved in this case in part because of the Child’s lack of proper education. Any doctor, teacher, or official or authority of any sort, from Mother’s perspective, could be an organ trafficker or satanic occultist in disguise. Were Mother to resume parenting the Child, critical decisions necessary for the Child’s welfare likely would be made in this outlandish context. Moreover, Mother has shown zero genuine inclination toward remedying her mental health issues. In fact, as demonstrated by her own testimony, Mother will not commit to cooperate fully with the recommendations of mental health experts. It is, therefore, unlikely that Mother’s mental health issues ever could be rectified to an extent that she could assume responsibility for the care of the Child. We find, as did the Juvenile Court, that the ground of mental incompetence has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm this ground. The final issue we address is whether the Juvenile Court erred in finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. The evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s findings relative to this issue. The Child is doing well in her foster home. While there is evidence of a bond of love between Mother and the Child, this fact is outweighed by the appropriateness of the Child’s current placement as opposed to the serious hazards implicit in a return to Mother’s care given Mother’s ongoing and unresolved mental health issues. We find by the standard of clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest.

In summary, we reverse the grounds of willful failure to support and persistent conditions. We affirm the grounds of substantial noncompliance with permanency plan and mental incompetence. We also affirm the Juvenile Court’s determination that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We, therefore, affirm the Juvenile Court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights. Conclusion The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, and this cause is remanded to the Juvenile Court for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the Appellant, Judith B., and her surety, if any.

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE http://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inrelorendab.opn_.pdf

Laskar ago

Sure, as if a normal person wouldn't have "anxiety" when their child is taken away.