Maribeth A. Dickerson, Attorney General Office
Will our Attorney General's office knowingly use fraudulent documents to win a case? You bet they will and do.
There was a hearing at the trial court on February 7, 2007. The trial court made an opinion and the court's order was to revoke the Michigan Children's Institutes (MCI) jurisdiction over Alyssa and Amber because, nothing was done except to deny our consent to adopt and try and talk Nicole into adopting.
Here is the order and order from The Honorable Terrance Thomas.
The Attorney General's (AG) office is the legal representation for MCI. Our AG used these documents during the reconsideration with the lower court as well as with the Court of Appeals (COA).
Do they have fraudulent information in these documents?
You bet they do. If you look at the consent forms you will notice Suzanne checked the box that states,
The recommended family is the only family requesting to adopt the child. There are no competing families for adoption.
The AG knew there was a competition and this was in part the reason they were involved.
Now look at the following document.
Nicole's Adoption Assessment Contacts.
MS. GONZALEZ-BORSTLER: "They are in foster care with the same foster mother throughout this whole ordeal. She does not feel it's in their best interest for her to be the adoptive parent. She believes that those children need a two-parent family. I wish she would reconsider, but that's not going to happen." - court 8/09/2006
During the post termination hearing on November 8, 2006 Nicole was never mentioned as a possible adoptee.
"The girls' foster mother, Nicole Coppess, said she is definitely considering adopting the Alyssa and Amber. She discussed concerns over being able to financially care for them. We discussed subsidy as she was unaware of this help. She was concerned about health insurance costs as well as day care expenses. She was also interested in knowing more about the other approved adoptive family that will be interested in the girls.
As Christmas is so close. she asked if we could hold off beginning visits until after the holidays, which will give her the cha1nce to talk with her family members about moving forward with the adoption. This should coincide with hearing something from the Consent Office.
It is this workers opinion that Nicole will decide to pursue the adoption of Alyssa and Amber. If so, a home study will need to be completed and consent and subsidy requested. If she does decide not to adopt the girls, we will begin visitation with the other family as soon as we receive a go-ahead from the Consent Office." -Adoption Progress Report 12/19/2006
As you can see Nicole still hadn't decided if she wanted to adopt 12/19/2006
"And it's been recent that the foster mother has wanted to adopt the children. The foster mother, or I'm sorry, and the children have indicated that they would like to stay with her." -Lacy Gonzales-Borstler (CPS worker) 2/07/2007
The above statement was told to the trial court the same day as that court was going to take under consideration whether or not to revoke MCI.
When we started our adoption assessment all the forms were signed during our first meeting. The record indicates Nicole didn't sign the background check and adoption subsidy forms until 1/31/2007 so it is reason to believe that is when the adoption assessment was started.
If Nicole started her adoption assessment sometime in January then how could she have contacts in her assessment before then? Now look at the contacts that were made during our adoption assessment.
Our adoption assessment contacts.
What do you see when you compare the two adoption assessment contacts? That's right, Suzanne (BCS) used a good majority of our contacts for Nicole. The AG use those fraudulent assessment contacts during the reconsideration with the trial court and used that same document at the COA. These were used to show Nicole's adoption was moving forward when the trial court took under consideration whether or not to revoke the jurisdiction of MCI over Alyssa and Amber on February 7, 2006.
Don't attorney's have a code of ethics they are bound to follow? Wouldn't one of those ethics be they are not suppose to use fraudulent documents during court proceedings? By doing so isn't this fraud against the court?
During the oral argument at the Court of Appeals, Maribeth talked about this false sex accusation. Yes, the AG will go to any length to to win a case for William Johnson, Michigan Children's Institute, (MCI).