William J. Johnson (MCI Superintendent)
I am going to start out this page with some accusations that attorney Sherrie C. Ross apparently made against William Johnson in a brief during the Smith vs Cromwell federal case.
Violating state law and FIA policy
Stealing babies
Selling babies
Development of a “black market” for babies
Licensing friends for placement of babies
“Stalling” making of a decision in this matter
Making a decision about adoptive placement prior to termination of parental
rights of the children.
If a person were to talk to Sally Borghese she would tell you that Johnson was all for her adopting her granddaughter until he learned Social Security Title IV funds were available. After he learned about those funds then she was denied consent to adopt. Isn't that stealing and selling of a child?
Before I start I want to make one thing perfectly clear. Why were Alyssa and Amber placed into foster care? This decision was made by Barb and myself. We decided this would be best over getting guardianship, so our daughter could get the help our granddaughters deserved. We were told this was the only way CPS could help our daughter.
We certainly didn't place them in foster care so people at CPS could tell his lies, file his fraudulent documents and then remove these young ladies from their family forever. We certainly didn't do this so these precious young ladies could be emotionally abused and drugged by the ones that are suppose to be the protectors of children.
Now I will discuss the reason's we were denied by William Johnson the consent to adopt our granddaughters and the facts why his reason's were arbitrary and capricious.
This is the document which states the reason why were denied consent by Johnson.
Lets start with the first bullet. From day one there were never any restriction as to the contact our daughter could have with her children. We were told Erica could live in our home with her children. Could contact between the girls and their mother be supervised every minute of every day? I seriously doubt it. When Brian was informed Erica was allowed to take the girls on Mothers Day, May 8, 2005 he said absolutely nothing about that. If the contacts between the children and their mother were suppose to be supervised he would have said something about it at that time. He didn't. Further more, when Brian told us Erica can take the children to church he left it in our discretion when the children were returned. He did tell us he didn't want the boyfriend to have contact with the children. A court order was never mentioned. If you read the court document that Brian provided to the court, WHICH IS HERE, you will read that Erica allowed those contact to happen.
"Although Erica is complying with recommended services, she violated the Parent Agency Agreement. She violated the terms of the agreement by allowing Richard Wingfield to stay at her residence. She also allowed Mr. Wingfield to have contact with the children." -Court Report
Imagine that, Brian tells us Erica can take the children to church, Erica allows the boyfriend to have contact and that is our fault?
Yes, on July 13, 2005 I told the Foster Care Review Board we were aware to supervise any contact between the children and their mother and that the children were not to have contact with her boyfriend. Brian told us our daughter's contacts with her children were suppose to be supervised June 17, 2005. The only visitation Erica had with her children after that date was when she took the children to church. That visit we were told we had to let happen even though we were against it..
"Adoption policy specifically cites relative's inability to protect children from the birth parents as a reason for denial of consent to adoption.
Isn't that amazing? We are told Erica can live with us and her children, so there are no restriction to any contacts. We are never told any contacts are to be supervised until June 17, 2005. The children are removed June 25, 2005 and the only contact Erica has with her children between those dates are the contacts we are told we have to let happen. Yes, this is an EXCUSE Johnson uses to deny us consent to adopt.
Yes I used to experiment with hard drugs when I was younger. When I learned Barb was pregnant for Erica I decided to quit. I never went into a drug treatment program for that and I have never used any hard drugs since. That has now been 30 years. Did I relapse? NO. I decided to quit smoking marijuana February 2004. Yes I took a couple puffs of marijuana July 2004 after Erica begged and pleaded for about 15 minutes. I did it just to shut her up. Do you actually think she wouldn't have smoked it anyways? The record shows she would have. The only other time I smoked any was March 7, 2005, again that was only a couple puffs. I have my own reasons for that incident which I may disclose at a later date. I will state this, I didn't do it because I wanted it nor needed it. So for Johnson to claim I may have a relapse after not smoking any for more than 22 month's at the time he did his report is just another of his EXCUSES to deny consent. I did have a drug assessment that states:
"Due to abstinence of cannabis for over one year, no treatment is needed at this time."
Now I get to discuss his lack of insight comments. You bet I blame DHS/CPS for these beautiful innocent young ladies behavioral and emotional problems. In fact, in my opinion, they are child abusers. When these children were in our care they had neither emotional nor behavioral problems. I made a point to try and get these girls some counseling when they were first placed in our care. My reason wasn't for the emotional or behavioral issues, it had to do with the fact there was evidence, in my opinion, one or both may have been sexually abused. Alyssa was the only one DHS/CPS made a referral for. She was taken to Sandy Terwillager at Regional Psychology. After the session, we were told there isn't anything wrong with Alyssa. "She is a happy, normal 5 year old." I don't know, Johnson must think I'm a moron and I can't read. Their mental health problems are documented. Furthermore, during Nicole's testimony, she stated in court that when she got these children they were "wild animals". So my blame for the children being removed from our care unjustly, then being placed with a stranger, was what caused these children their mental health and behavioral issues and are not unfounded. When we believed we were going to get our babies back after the January 3, 2006 hearing, what was the very first thing I did the following morning? That's right. I called a psychologist to see if he could take care of our granddaughter's mental health need. HERE IS MY PHONE BILL along with a picture of my caller ID to show the phone call's were returned.
'The children's therapist feels that their present placement has been beneficial and that returning to the grandparents would be detrimental to their mental health."
Exactly who are the children's the rapists? That's right, they are Kellie Holm and Heather Darwin from Newaygo County Mental Health (CMH) and co-workers/friends of Nicole. These pictures were taken when we had overnight vitiations with Alyssa and Amber on 4/11/2007. They though they were coming home for good and we were going to adopt them. Now does either of these pictures look like returning to us is detrimental to their mental health? Talk about cronyism and a lack of insight...
As a matter of fact, who was really detrimental to these beautiful young ladies mental health? First it was Newaygo County CPS (June 2005) and later William Johnson (April 2007). By Johnson's lack of insight and his own decisions it took these young ladies 3 month's to get "settled back down". Alyssa had a "melt down" after Johnson's decision and the girls were drugged even more. So, should Johnson be considered a child abuser by causing these girls more emotional and mental health problems?
All of the reason why Johnson denied us consent were nothing but EXCUSES. As mentioned earlier about Sally Borghese's case. This case is similar to hers. Johnson knows these children are special needs, after what DHC/CPS did to them, in return he also know they are Social Security Title IV eligible. So is he stealing our babies and selling them just like he did to Sally? You bet.
Let discuss who really has a lack of insight. I made a page specifically just for that which you can READ HERE. This page is a combination of lack of insight and the "best interest" factor.