The Cupcake Bill

A child’s right to prohibit reunification to a parent convicted of felony child abuse, neglect, and or endangerment against a child under the age of 13 via a tag of special circumstance.

cupcake logo2

Any person convicted of a felonious crime against a child under the age of 13 by way of malice, intent, neglect, and or endangerment should have the placement of special circumstances attached to their charge and or conviction. Once a person has the attachment, it would eliminate this party from child protection services attempts to reunify their custodianship to said child on all platforms. 

Why is this important?

Children legally cannot speak on their behalf in a custody case until they reach an age of cognitive skill. Their constitutional wishes are then represented to a court by way of social services and or a guardian ad litem who’s job is to reunite families at all costs. Since all children have the legal right to live an abuse-free life, they should then have the judicial powers of law presenting their wishes, eliminating them from the reunification to any party that has caused them substantial and or intentional harm.

Case comparative: 

Ohio vs. Britney (Roll) Mayes. Ms. Mayes was charged and plead guilty to criminal child endangerment (Felony-5). The infant that was less than one month of age having a skull, ulna, and tibia fracture while hospitalized. After serving a six-month sentence for these damages, Mayes was released and began the current policies under the reunification process. During that time, multiple parties motioned for custody due to the child sustaining injuries, mental anguish, and sexual assaults on the continuum. CPS’s employees and guardian ad litem, at all costs, ignored, refuted, and diagnosed all offenses as typical. The state awarded Mayes custody nearing a four-year battle and, once reunited, child protection removed that child from Mayes care within a few months for similar injuries of concern for the second time. Not wanting to blame the mother, parties concurred that this child had an immediate onset mental disorder that caused her mother to abuse her and that the child would assault herself, removing blame from said parent. The child was once again reunited with her mother for the second time within a year while acknowledging said injuries exactly mirrored those that the motioning parties incited throughout the custody trial. Social Services also acted against a court mediated agreement that if custody changed, all motioning parties would have a notification to renew their motion. Not only were these parties not notified, but social services misled them. Six months past the second faulty reunification, Mayes tortured and murdered this child shortly after the guardian ad litem was to intervene via a magistrate’s orders. The guardian ad litem stated nothing was of concern. The child was half her weight, bald, fearful, tortured, beaten, and overdosed on drugs. At no time during the custody battle or reunification processes was this child permitted forensic interviews per allegation. Therefore, this child’s rights to live an abuse-free life were diminished by social services via their motto of what is in the best interest of a child. 

Conclusion:

The cupcake law would have prohibited this mother from murdering her child via statute as it would have eliminated the burdens of social services while keeping this child alive in an abuse-free state.

A proposal of law titled “Avery’s Law” for procedural change has been on many social platforms earning signatures that all agreed that a move to change policy within child protection is dire. The Cupcake Bill is the forefront of that title and would be the stepping stone for positive change to Ohio’s communities.

http://chng.it/qQ4JzqP9nh           Avery’s Law (Copyright 2020)

To Sign the Bill    http://chng.it/BVRCBwPwKc