1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the matter of O.R.A.M., a minor
child.
DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
Respondent on Review,
v.
A.O.M.,
Appellant,
Petitioner on Review.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Washington County Circuit Court

Juvenile Department
Washington County Case
No.:J100344
Petition No.: D3J100344
CA A155073
N004479
S
(TERMINATION OF PARENTAL
RIGHTS CASE EXPEDITED
UNDER ORAP 10.15)

---------------APPELLANTS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PRO SE
---------------Of the Court of Appeals Decision on March 5, 2014
Before: Duncan, P.J., Haselton, C.J. and Wollheim, J.; per curiam.
Affirming without opinion the Judgment of the Circuit Court
For Washington County, Juvenile Division
Honorable Suzanne M. Upton, Juvenile Court Judge
---------------Megan L. Jacquot,#972797
Stanton Crane Shelby, #044151
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Child
th
Karpstein & Verhulst PC
455 S. 4 St., Ste 1
Coos Bay, OR 97420
220 NE 3rd Ave.
Phone:(541) 267-2214
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Attorney for Father
(503)648-7383
Cecil Reniche-Smith, #961479
DOJ Appellate Division
1162 Court St. NE
Salem, OR, OR 97301-4096
Phone: (503) 378-4402
Attorney for Plaintiff-Respondent
4/14

NOTICE: Pursuant to ORAP 9.05(3)(a)(v), Petitioner hereby gives notice of

intent to file a brief in the Supreme Court if review is allowed.
4/14

FATHERS PETITION FOR REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nature of the Proceeding.....1

The Attorney General/Courts Failure to follow Statute.....1

The States Failure to Follow Federal Regulations5

Ethical and/or Procedural Violations of Due Process8

Reconsideration and reversal is Necessary Under Law.13

Persistence of the Petitioner14

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

______________________________________

Nature of the Proceeding

This is a Termination of Parental Rights case in which Father seeks

review of the Court of Appeals decision Affirming the Trial Courts
Judgment Terminating his rights to his three-year-old son, Owen, on
grounds of unfitness pursuant to ORS 419B.504.
Father request that the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
reconsiders review with the additional information and claims not previously
submitted by his Attorneys, under advice that the Petition for Review was
more than sufficient for reversal.
The Petition For Review was originally filed on April 30th, 2014, by his
appointed Attorney, Megan Jacquot.
The Attorney General/Courts Failure to Follow Statute

The State failed to follow the following Oregon Revised Statutes, and
Motions and Memorandums In Support were filed, Pro Se, prior to the

Contested Jurisdiction hearing on November 16th , 27th and 29th , and December
14th and 27th, 2014.

ORS 419B.100 1(e)D states that the juvenile court has jurisdiction if the
Person having custody of the child has failed to provide the person with the care,
guidance and protection necessary for the physical, mental, or emotional wellbeing of the person. The court has made no such claim against the father AT
ANY TIME DURING THE PROCEEDING.
Although the Father concedes that such grounds existed against the
Mother, Taylor Marie Marcus (Kuhn), and that the determinations by the
Department of Human Services were sufficient to begin proceedings and
terminate the rights of the Mother, and the allegations against the Father were
sufficient to begin proceedings against him, that, upon investigation by
the Department with ALL of the available evidence, that upon review of the
evidence, the Department was legally bound to assist the Father with
reunification rather than proceed with Termination proceedings under a
technicality of Law, especially one that is not supported by any previous
determinations of Law through the Appellate or Supreme Court.

ORS 419B.118 (1)(2)(3), 419B.127, 419B.157, 419B.168(2)(3) were

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IGNORED by the trial Court. The child was in no

danger from the father and no order for protection was ever issued or pursued by
the State. Neither parent lived in Washington County, the child was taken into
custody in Multnomah County at birth, while the Mother was living in Portland,
Oregon, and brought to Washington County by DHS and the Juvenile Court
refused to transfer upon motion AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
The State alleged that they believed the mother was residing with her sister
in Washington County, but offered no evidence or testimony to the claim.
However, the mothers sister did not live within Washington County at the time of
Owens birth. Venue was improper, and was contested with no legal remedy
granted, prior to Termination Proceedings.

The State intentionally, knowingly, and with ILLEGAL INTENT willfully

created a false jurisdiction for the sole purpose of ensuring that a fair trial
WOULD NEVER BE AVAILABLE TO THE FATHER.
The Oregon Revised Statutes are LAW. No judge, Court, Deputy Attorney
General or State worker has the sole right to negate, subtract from, add to, or
ignore the application of Statutes, especially when such Statutes were specifally
enacted to prevent violations of Due Process.
The Statutes protecting Oregon Parents from criminal conspiracies against
rights to kidnap children WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED IN ORDER TO COMMIT A
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER, AGAINST THE
PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF

OREGON.
The Federal Regulations set forth by the Adoption and Safe Families
Act were completely ignored, as it pertains to protecting children and
families from the illegal actions intentionally, willingly and purposefully
committed against not only the Father, but the childs grandmother, who was a
viable placement throughout the majority of the proceedings.

ORS 419B.923 (4) states that Notice and hearing must be provided in any
case when the effect of modifying or setting aside the order or judgment will or
may be to deprive a parent of the legal custody of the child or ward, to place the
child or ward in an institution or agency or to transfer the child or ward from one
institution or agency to another.

The Washington County Juvenile Court held no such hearing, and the intent
was to deprive a parent of legal custody of his child. Most importantly,
Washington County intended to deprive a parent of the legal custody of his child
as form of punishment for attempting to preserve his parental rights, and proving
his case in a court of Law.

The States Failure to Follow Federal Regulations

case. At no time should the State have moved for Termination or Adoption, when
such placement was proper and required by the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Rather, the Department of Human Services completely twisted the spirit of the
ASFA to ensure that placement would never happen, and, against the peace and
dignity of the Citizens and Government of the State of Oregon, to ensure that no
family in Oregon will ever be safe.
Not only did the State commit perjury (through the sworn testimony of DHS
Caseworker Michele Aragon) by claiming Connie Thompson (childs grandmother)
was denied as a placement (such statement being contradicted by the sworn
testimony of Ken McDermott, Ventura County ICPC Program Supervisor), but
continued to deny placement when such placement would clearly the be the
secondary course of action with a greater importance than adoption under the
ASFA.
Michele Aragon went on further to claim that the Father made threats
directed at her to Ken McDermott, which was refuted by Mr. McDermotts

testimony.
The ASFA also requires, when possible, that the child be placed within the
county of the childs residence, as close to relatives of the child (not including any
parent(s) whose rights were previously terminated). Instead, the child was in the
county that favored the State and imposed the most restrictive access to
visitation, services and legal resources. Father was limited to public transit, and
access to these resources required a two hour trip when, if the child would have
been placed in the county of residence, he would have been able to attend visits,
court hearings, services and employment. The State intentionally violated the
ASFA to prevent Mr. Marcus from being able to receive any services actually
necessary for reunification, but, rather, claimed to have employed and reserved
the ASFA, against the purpose of reunifcation mandated by the AFSA, and to
intentionally prevent reunification when such reunification was intended by the
AFSA.
The ASFA includes provisions to allow State Courts to provide services
necessary for reunification, and, when absolutely necessary, issue an order
requiring a parent to complete such services NECESSARY for reunification.
In this case, services were ordered that were NOT NECESSARY OR
authorized by ANY Law, or to ameliorate alleged circumstances (not proven by a

preponderance of the evidence, but alleged by an impeached witness) that,

according to ALL expert witnesses, had no nexus to his ability to safely parent his
son.
In stark contrast to the States claims, ALL expert witnesses stated that Mr.
Marcus was an extremely low risk of harm to his son, and that, if the States
collateral information was NOT factual or based on a non-credible witness
statements (childs mother, whose rights were previously terminated with
prejudice) , that even their minor claims of personality disorder were completely
incorrect.
In summary, the state required unnecessary services that had no benefit to
the parent or the child, but only to benefit the States agenda: to Terminate the
Parental Rights of the Father as a form of illegal punishment, or Tortura Pessima
Legum.
No rational person, regardless of intelligence, lack thereof, or regardless of
capable mental thought, or lack thereof, or educational degree, or lack thereof, or
political influence, or lack thereof, would, could or should EVER agree that the
case of In The Matter Of Owen Riley Alexander Marcus was valid or legal, and if

that he had not been denied a 90-day return to parent plan to prevent him from
accessing services that would have allowed his child to be returned to his safe
care.
Ethical and/or Procedural Violations of Due Process

The State waited over two years to amend the petition to include
jurisdictional claims that were the basis of permanency and continued placement,
effectively making referrals to services impossible. After a lengthy denial of Due
Process, Mr. Marcus obtained a new attorney and was ordered to conduct a new
psychiatric evaluation with Dr. Marc Stuckey. The diagnosis of the personality
disorder were paranoia and narcissism based on the statements the Father
made about the lack of Due Process and persecution the Department of Human
Services and the Court conspired to carry out.
The new Attorney, John Guinn, was brought into a private conference by
Deputy Attorney General Marcia Lance-Bumb, Caseworker Michele Aragon,
Supervisor Tricia Hartfeld and the childs Attorney, Stanton Shelby. The Father
was denied participation in this conference.
According to John Guinn, the State actors made false statements regarding

Fathers criminal background in an attempt to dissuade Mr. Guinn from providing

the full defense Mr. Marcus was entitled to. Upon review of the case file,
evidence, and proof of the Fathers claims Mr. Guinn had to undergo a medical
procedure to defribrillate his heart back into sinus rhythm.
Due to the monstrosity behind the case, and acknowledgement from the
State that Mr. Marcus could not possibly win the case even though the Law
required reunification, Mr. Guinn retired from Law and now is a court advisor to a
Judge in Montana to prevent cases like this one from happening.
The Mothers Parental Rights were terminated prior to John Guinn being
assigned to the case. Her trial lasted less than 45 minutes. She arrived at the
courthouse, and was advised by the Attorney General that if she left and the TPR
defaulted that she would be allowed future contact with Owen and her brother
Robert Kuhn, who was in protective Foster care.
The Mothers rights were terminated on the grounds of continued
methamphetamine use, severe psychiatric illness requiring medication (and
failure to pursue medical options), and failure to follow through with any of the
services. She was kicked out of her grandmothers house after a report of
violence and threats to burn her condo down, then received referrals from DHS

10

to Oxford housing, and was kicked out within three days for drug use. Prior to the
Oxford house, she was kicked out of a residential treatment facility for smoking
marijuana in her room.
Prior to the Contested Jurisdiction hearing, Mother was contacted by the
AG and referred to Victims Advocates to receive money from the CVAF more
than a year after the statute of limitations had expired. Her testimony at the CJ
hearing was obviously coached and instructed. A review of the tape will reveal
that she even asked the AG if what she said was what she was supposed to say.
The Mother was pregnant at the time and feared losing another child. The
mother received a grant from the Oregon CVAF to move to Vancouver under the
agreement that she would not have her unborn child removed, would receive
housing and could begin video visitation with her brother, Robbie. Washington
DSHS was also denied information regarding her psychiatric disorders as part of
this agreement, and she was to provide testimony against the Father that was
specifically NOT factual, and proven so by the physical evidence provided by the
Father, and her own testimony was incongruent to a ridiculous degree.
No party or witness to the case believed the Mother to be credible, yet
Judge Upton and Judge Rini both ruled that she was credible to refute the

11

testimony of Dr. Olivero and any other witness who truthfully testified that the
Father could safely parent his Son, with the express purpose to lend false
jurisdiction to the State to pursue their outside agenda.
Mother still has custody of her daughter, even after a physical altercation
with her sister was posted on a social networking site, claiming that her 9-month
old daughter was kicked in the face. It was not stated who kicked the infant.
The Mother has a history of lying about abuse and violence and completely
reversing the story in her favor.

Dr. Oliveros testimony and recommendations were falsely deemed not

credible. The trial court ruled that because he did not give full weight to the
collateral provided by DHS and refuted the previous evaluation by Dr. Basham.
However, the collateral information included secret reports with findings that the
Mother was denied a DV grant after admitting to providing false information in
order to receive a grant for her Father and Stepmother, by falsely claiming that
Mr. Marcus had assaulted her. This Report was concealed from the Father for
over 2 years into the case.
If Dr. Olivero would have lent full weight to the collateral, his diagnosis

12

would be exactly the same, as it was a personal observation which had nothing to
do with the collateral. His professional opinion was that rumor is not
substantiave enough to make a diagnosis of personality disorder, and that, all
things withstanding. The criteria looked for over 9 sessions did not add up to a
diagnosis of personality disorder under the DSM IV or V.
DSM-IV and V both require a long-term diagnosis for personality disorder.
The State argued that a forensic diagnosis was equal, which it is not.
Dr, Olivero took into consideration the report of Dr. Robert Mow, who
observed visitation and affirmed that the Father could safely parent his son.. Dr.
Robert Basham and Dr. Mark Stuckey did not dispute Dr. Oliveros opinion and
had very little confidence in their own opinion if the Mother was not credible,
according to the the content of the letters of referral provided by caseworker
Michele Aragon.
Judge Michele Rini and Judge Suzanne Upton continued proceedings and
eventually terminated Fathers parental rights on a totality of circumstances.
There is no foundation in law that says multiple denominations of zero equals
enough to terminate the rights of a Parent.
It is grossly unethical to deem a witness credible for the sole purpose of

13

striking credible witness testimony from consideration to lend special favor to a

party that is clearly pursuing an illegal action through the courts. When it involves
the termination of parental rights, it is defined as Conspiracy Against Rights
Under the Color of Law to Commit Kidnapping. 18 USC 241,242.

Reconsideration and Reversal is Neccesary Under Law

Such cases as these are bound to happen in the course of Law within our
courts.
In, the pursuance of error, a Noble government would have conceded
error. This Court has reviewed this case for 90-days, and issued an order
Denying Review. The Father is concerned that the Court could not lawfully, and
in good conscience, issue an order favoring the State with the legal questions
presented, and merely tossed this case aside rather than adjudicate the affairs of
the State. Such circumstances could warrant a move to a Federal Court rendering
the Younger abstention moot.
The State, upon service of the Petition For Review, did not file a response
and therefore made no argument against review, or reversal. In most trial courts,

14

this would warrant a default judgment.

To avoid a Tort Claim is also not a reason that this Court should deny
review.

Persistence of the Petitioner

The Petitioner is well aware of the procedures of the higher courts, and will
Appeal to the 9th District U.S. Court of Appeals. Inasmuch as this is currently a
State matter, the Petition requests that this Matter remain within the State of
Oregon. This case has historical significance, and this Petition for Reconsideration
will be made available to the Oregon House and Senate, as well as the current
U.S. House Constitutional Subcommittee currently reviewing the policies States
employ under the ASFA, the White House, Australian House of Commons
(currently reviewing policy in their country) and will be widely distributed to
organizations and U.S. members of Congress.
The Petitioner will continue to pursue all available legal remedies, until
such remedies have ensure the return of his son, in accordance with the Law.

15