Tammy E. Risen/Author & Petitioner.

“The Bunny Bill”

Victims’ Rights: Immediate Termination of Custodial Rights under Filicide.

Victims' Rights: Immediate Termination of Custodial Rights under Filicide.

Avery’s Bill: Victims’ Rights

“Immediate Termination of Custodial Rights under Filicide”

In similarity to the “2011 Forfeiture Rule & Law of Succession” enacted in the United Kingdom based on the case of Scotching Vs. Birch.

Any child who is slain by a custodial party & or that party played an active role in said child’s death, will automatically lose their custodial rights in part to all decisions regarding how the child’s remains will be buried & or cremated at the time of death if they are:

* Under suspicion/investigation by Local Authorities/CPS/Mandated Reporters.
* On a safety plan or under the supervision of local Child Protection Services.
* Had previous allegations of abuse via CPS/Local Authorities/Mandated Reporters.
*Admitted to their role in said child’s death.
* Is charged & or convicted in part of said child’s death.
* Had been incarcerated for child abuse-related convictions.

Once the custodial right is removed, the next of kin not residing at said custodian’s residence will then have all rights over that child’s remains whereas the party under suspicion will be denied all communication and access.

If multiple parties fall as next of kin equally, if disputed, can individually file a petition to probate court for custodial rights within a maximum of 72 hours post-mortem after which they forfeit their rights to custodianship and an objection to another party’s petition.

A Probate Court would concede and hear the petition expeditiously. No later than one business day after the petition is filed. This would be actionable much like Juvenile Court removing a child from a custodial party on an emergency basis without the delay of notification to said custodian. This method under an urgent basis has functioned successfully for decades within the Juvenile Court System and Child Protection Services.

If a relative cannot be located for custodianship, the State will adhere to the burial of said child’s remains with aid through Victim’s Services.

All Coroner Offices shall be notified by local authorities to hold all children’s remains who fall under the suspicion of homicide until a new custodian is appointed and or cause of death is determined.

Why is this important?

Ohio vs. Britney Mayes. Mayes received custodianship of Averylee D. Hobbs through the Hamilton County Juvenile Court system after years of battle for her custody. Mayes spent 6 years under a cloud of suspicion for her role in the abuse of Averylee & her sibling. In 2011, Mayes had been convicted of assaulting Averylee and served a 6-month sentence in an Ohio Prison when Averylee was 3.5 wks. old for a skull, tibia, & ulna fracture in & around a bathtub. In 2010 Mayes was under suspicion of the strangulation of Averylee’s eldest sibling where local courts decided that Mayes was a danger to her minor child & forbid her custody prior to the ruling in Averylee’s case.

On July 29th, 2016, during a 72-hour period between Averylee’s fatal traumatic brain injury in & around a bathtub until her time of death, local authorities and CPS were conducting investigations against Mayes and her spouse in connection to the then assumed homicide. Mayes at the time of death had five CPS cases active, one under investigation, and two confirmed where Averylee was removed from Mayes’s care. The first custodial removal was from 3.5 weeks old to almost 4 years old. Three months post-reunification Averylee was removed for an additional extended period due to injuries mirroring those brought forth during the custody trial. CPS was involved at all times on a safety plan prior to & post-reunification to Mayes. Along with the supervision of a Hamilton County Guardian & child welfare therapist. These parties were active in Mayes & Averylee’s entire life and witnessed the abuse (Mental, Physical, & Sexual) but decided to disallow the Juvenile Magistrate the information required to spare Averylee’s life. All confirmed to the Magistrate & Appeals Judge that there were no concerns in Averylee’s welfare in the care of her mother, Britney Roll Mayes. All were instructed to inform the custodial petitioners on a court-mediated agreement if placement changed. All decided against the agreement & misled the petitioners. The results of that action were grim.

During the 2016 autopsy of Averylee, it was proven that there were years of abuse and her body showed a distinct timeline pattern of continual physical, torturous, & sexual abuse. Also, in 2016, The Hamilton County Homicide Unit confirmed that the only possible perpetrator was Britney Roll Mayes. Averylee’s court-appointed custodian was convicted in 2020 when she pled guilty to Aggravated Murder to avoid the death penalty.

When Averylee’s father & grandparents (Averylee’s long-term guardians) organized her burial, the funeral home was denied Averylee’s remains. A notification from the coroner’s office went to the father that he would have to file a petition with the probate court to stop the suspected offender from collecting Averylee’s remains for cremation. It was by human compassion solely on the part of the coroner’s office to hold her remains until the father filed said petition. However, it was Mayes’ right to be served the petition for Averylee’s remains and to adhere to a court date which resulted in a 17-day lapse where multiple non-petitioning family members battled for Averylee’s remains on the father’s petition. This delayed her burial by 19 days. At which time, Averylee’s body laid at a coroner’s office rotting to the point that no mortician could prepare her for viewing. This resulted in irreversible devastation on the family. Notably when they could not honor and embrace Averylee’s beauty on the day of her final departure.

No family should have to fight non-petitioning family members to bury a murdered child. No custodian should have legal authority over a child’s remains that they murdered or played an active role in, either alleged or confirmed. Nor, should any party have to endure the mental anguish in waiting to lay that child to rest.

No child should become unrecognizable because parental rights dictate, they must.

If a custodian kills, all parental rights bestowed to them should be legally & immediately forfeited.

It should be a child victim’s right to be buried with dignity and peace from their murderer.

To sign this petition, please follow this link.

Victims’ Rights: Immediate Termination of Custodial Rights under Filicide. | MoveOn

Avery’s Law:

Children’s Rights/Immutable Circumstances

Avery's Law: Children's Rights/Immutable Circumstances

A child’s right to prohibit reunification to a custodian convicted of felony child abuse against a child under the age of 13 where the crime committed resulted in physical or mental harm.

Immutable Circumstance: The creation of a “tag” added to a criminal charge much like the tag of a special circumstance. “Special circumstance being an act of the accused or conditions under which the crime was committed.” The immutable circumstance would be unchangeable over time or unable to be changed when a criminal charge pertains to a victim under the age of 13. It is actionable when the accused committed a crime of abuse, malice, endangerment, and or neglect that was either felonious in nature or a secondary charge of similarity. The immutable circumstance tag would adhere to that criminal charge. This tag’s immutable construct would define that the accused be prohibited from reunifying to the said victim through legal interaction by any entity designed to do such.

Once a person has the attachment of immutable circumstance, it would eliminate this party from child protection services and or the courts’ ability to restore these parties’ custodianship to said child.

Why is this important?

The importance of a tag of immutable circumstances should speak for itself. For it is a condition that cannot evolve by crime or resolution.

When a crime against a child threatens that child’s life, we should never permit the interference of an agency to lessen the value of that life. Yet, we have done so through outdated laws dictating that all parents have rights to their children & that concept, at times, is deadly.

Child Protection is a state’s service. Its purpose is to investigate, educated, & reunify. The courts often adapt to the decisions made by that agency. Meaning a child’s life is in the hands of a social worker. Yet, if that agent causes harm to that child via their choices, that social worker is immune to prosecution.

The concept of an immutable circumstance tag would, at minimum, protect the children who fell into the direst of situations.

In my history, I had a mother who had historical markers from injuring two of her children. One by strangulation & one by near deadly force within a year of one another. Both were in court for custody at the same time with two different outcomes.

The child of strangulation was not under the services of child protection. The courts classified the mother as a threat & reunification was void. The child of deadly force was under child protection. The ruling was that the mother was appropriate & reunification took place.

The difference, the child not in the service survived.

The policy of the agency states they must try to rehabilitate these parents. But should this be a standard policy? It should not.

We cannot begin to change the laws or policies that have been in place for decades, but what we can change is who would be applicable for those policies to apply.

With immutable circumstances added to a felonious criminal charge, we can ween the direst of children away from the possibility of reunification to parents that should never have the opportunity to harm that child again. Hense, saving their lives, their future, & the person they may become if we keep violence out of a life already scarred.

To sign this petition, please follow this link.

Avery’s Law: Children’s Rights/Immutable Circumstances | MoveOn

Avery’s Law:

Children’s Rights/The Fair Assessment & Welfare Response Act.

Servicemen & Civilian Protection.

*Any individual or agency that conducts investigations into the welfare of the people shall wear a bodycam while on duty.
*Any business conducted during times where bodycams are not in use or restricted shall be witnessed by another individual or entity.

This would be inclusive to any form of media contacts from agent to civilian.

Equitable Investigative Response.

*If a call is placed to local authorities over the concerns of a child(ren), no matter the severity of circumstance, that authority will do a fair assessment under a welfare investigation within 8 hours of that claim.
*If a claim is made to children’s services, a call from that service will be made to local authorities to adjoin the initial welfare investigation.

As with police, all servicemen such as social services shall record all active duty via a bodycam. The Special Children’s Crime Unit at any time can review documented and recorded investigations as can any legal individual or entity involved with the said child(ren) or custodian.

Why is this important?

The act of investigation holds merit when combined with modern technology & human response. It is our nature to seek & to aid those in peril. It is also our inquisitive nature to achieve truth. We cannot do either based on someone’s word.

The welfare of children, even if unfounded, should not be taken lightly. There is no wasted time spent securing a child’s well-being. If we avoid a cry for aid due to an instinct that implies it’s not at a level of intervention may reveal the actual danger of the situation.

Child protection is not fallible. Time & again, we hear of social workers who dropped the ball. No child is a ball & an agency in design to protect them should not fail. Unfortunately, there are many bias people within this service & their immunity should not delay technology. If they partake in criminal or negligent responses, they should be held accountable. On the other hand, if these parties fall under scrutiny, the capture would exonerate them from any crime.

This petition of modern protection to all is inconceivable that it is not currently in use.

To sign this petition, please follow this link.

Avery’s Law: Children’s Rights/The Fair Assessment & Welfare Response Act. | MoveOn

Avery’s Law:

Children’s Rights/Power Against Predators.

Avery's Law: Children's Rights/Power Against Predators.

“The Children’s Protections Registry”

“This is a petition to promote a searchable database dedicated to victims in the attempt to protect others.”

The National Sexual Abuse Registry has been in operation since 2007. States have mandated that convicted “sexual” abusers register to allow law enforcement and citizens the knowledge of their existence, location, and crime(s) committed.

This petition is to remove the word “SEXUAL” from the national registry & promote a registry that encompasses all forms of abuse as they are equally destructive.

After someone commits intentional harm to another, that person is left in an abused state. Sexual abuse is not the only heinous act that affects our people. Therefore, anyone who has been convicted of a felonious act where they caused trauma to others should be included in this modernized registry without the restriction of it being a sexual crime.

Currently it is within our Civil Rights that convicted parties be forced to register as a “Sexual Predator” of a specific type of abuse. In 2016, when presenting this petition, a member of the house noted that a children’s abuse registry would be against our civil rights. If that was correct, then it seemed logical that the registry as a whole would be revoked.

Abuse is described as cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal. That description does not uphold one type of abuse, and with that, nor should we. All forms of abuse should be treated equally, especially if that crime was against a child.

A database for child abusers presents: POWER AGAINST PREDATORS.

Why is this important?

It should be within our civil rights & duty to eliminate the word “Sex” from a criminal registry. Since 2007, we have had the right to know our surroundings. The registry has been to our protection, but only when the crime pertains to one particular act. However, that act is not the only one to cause lifelong damage or one to put us in peril.

If we had a registry open to crimes against children, we could keep them from situations that may harm them.

As an example, I could say that you have a neighbor who has children. One day it is asked that your child spends the night or goes on a family outing. Your children have played off and on for a year. You have talked to the parent(s) for the same year. All appeared normal. So, you let your child go. Then it is discovered that this neighbor abuses their child physically, but not sexually. Would the crime make a difference in your decision? Would you have been thankful to know that person’s history? Could you have prevented your child from being injured?

I would hope that the word “yes” would have followed each question & that is what we can change with this petition.

To sign this petition, please follow this link.

Avery’s Law: Children’s Rights/Power Against Predators. | MoveOn

Avery’s Law:

Children’s Rights/Child Protection Reform

Procedural Inclusion / Protocol Reform / Children’s Wishes Amendment

Part A: Periodic Medical Assessments. (P.M.A.) Post-Reunification.

P.M.A. consists of: Forensic interviews, radiology assessments & medical examinations.

Current protocols in use include Assessments, Commitment/Preparation, and Integration.

(These protocols are currently utilized by child welfare on the intake of a child into family services to determine abuse. If used post-reunification, these same protocols may change the course of a child’s right to live a safe and abuse-free life. It would be unimaginable that this protocol inclusion, as minor of an action it is, could not pass as law.)

With P.M.A., once reunification has been achieved. The periodic monitoring will begin for an undetermined length of time. No less than double the time a child was in service with no less than two exams within the first-year post-reunification.

All reunified children would undergo random medical assessments to screen for ongoing violations when a parent has had historical indicators of abuse with any findings reported to local enforcements.

Part B: Immediate Medical Response Act (I.M.R.A.)

(When a child is removed from their homes and placed under the custody of Child Protection Services, evaluations take place to begin or deny the reunification process. If reunification is the goal, the child who resides in a foster care situation has visitations to parties attempting to regain custody. The response act could make a difference in the decisions made by the court. Therefore, advancing the protection of children.)

During the reunification, process visitations are available to abusive parents. This act could prevent ongoing maltreatment when there are signs of suspicious, reoccurring injuries, and or mental declines in a child—byways of authorizing foster parents to have said child evaluated if there are any indicators of abuse.

(During these evaluations, the person(s) that the allegation is against cannot gain access to these screenings.)

Under this new ACT, foster parents would be seen as mandated reporters and would have the right to I.M.R.A. screenings without permission from any case party.

This screening would be non-negotiable by any case party. If these parties negotiated such testing, it could taint the results. These examinations would be utilized much like any rape case where the collection of evidence is imperative for people’s welfare while identifying the persons who violated them. Therefore, this testing would play a vital role in a child’s safety when integrated with investigations of a party already suspected of abuse.

Part C: A Right to Self-Protection

Under Children’s Wishes established in 1974, it stated any child with the ability of reasoning may be interviewed by a magistrate to determine their wishes.

Most states have an age limit for a child to self-speak. When a child is not of age, that child becomes interviewed by a Child Protection worker or associate. That worker then relays their client’s wishes but in their opinions. A child’s wishes can become tainted by bias intent at this point.

The Rights to Self-Protection would allow the fostering parent(s) to act as a mandated reporter. These parties could then move to speak on the child’s behalf as an equal or to request a formal interview by the courts.

If a motion for a child to self-speak becomes denied, the placement should be the secondary voice of the child with the highest position for consideration for the child’s wishes since they are the acting parents.

In all cases, when reunification is the goal to place an abused child back to their predatory parent, that child should be interviewed directly by the Magistrate. If rejected, the child’s caregiver should then be acknowledged as a mandated child advocate and privately interview with the Magistrate. If both interviews become rejected by the Magistrate, recorded adjacent interviews would be available for review.

Why is this important?

Part A: The importance of these assessments is to aid:
*Non-verbal children who cannot indicate their maltreatment.
*Children who are unaware of their abuse.
*Children who are fearful of their abusers. *Children who are unable to communicate.
*Children who fell victim to bias behaviors of social services that were unsupported.

Part B: The importance of this screening:
A) It’s a significant measure of protection of a victim that may mitigate further and ongoing abuse.
B) It would aid children that are non-verbal, fearful, and or mentally unable to protect themselves.
C) It would provide safety to children by way of forensic evidence from proper medical examinations & is directly reported to a Juvenile Court and Local Authorities if there are findings.
D) It ministers foster parents the right to adopt safety standards for the child within their care by providing that individual with the power of customary advocacy.

Part C: The importance of this action:
Its importance not only would uphold the current Children’s Wishes, but it would accelerate the 1974 ACT into this millennium with the use of our technologies and advancements. The improvement would also lend children a voice in their safety. Much like the progress of DNA lends the court.

To sign this petition, please follow this link.

Avery’s Law: Children’s Rights/Child Protection Reform | MoveOn

%d bloggers like this: