Brian A. Vanderzalm
GRANHOLM - Bailey resident receives "Hero" award
In both of these pages Brian is described as either a "team player" or "ultimate team player". What exactly does that mean? I have my own opinion as to these descriptions.
Team Player- Ultimate Team Player: One that will do exactly as told by superiors including lying, committing perjury, authoring false documents and reports...A DHS/CPS PUPPET.......?
Now I will address the fraudulent information Brian put in his reports and such and address the perjury he committed during court.
I received a copy of all the documents May 14, 2007.
This is the court report Brian submitted for the periods of April 25, 2005 - June 17, 2005
As you will notice this document is an addendum report.
American Heritage Dictionary - addendum
Something added or to be added, especially a supplement to a book.
So if this is an addition to, where is the original report this is added to? It certainly wasn't in the court file. As you will notice this is not date and time stamped by the court. Did someone switch these reports? I ask this as Brian has things in this report that was never revealed until much later in time.
Brian came to our home on either May 18th or 19th 2005. This was the date he told us Erica could start taking the children to church unsupervised and it was up to us if the children were returned right after church or not. Why isn't this date in his contacts?
"The children have had some difficulty adjusting to their new home environment. They struggle with the fact that their mother resides on the same property. It is difficult for them to understand they cannot reside with their mother at this time."
I don't know where Brian came to this conclusion. Alyssa and Amber have always loved being around us and this wasn't the first time these children had been in our care for a considerable period of time.
"Currently, the children visit their mother at Mr. and Mrs. Atwood's home; Mr. and Mrs. Atwood supervise parental visitation."
Another bit of misinformation Brian provided. Whether Erica have supervised visitations or not was never discussed until June 17, 2005. In fact when Brian was told Erica was allowed to take the girls on Mother's Day May 8, 2005, unsupervised, Brian had no comments about that.
"When confronted about using marijuana, Mr. Atwood admitted to using marijuana. He also admitted to smoking marijuana with his daughter, Erica Keast. He claims the last time he used marijuana was approximately three months ago. Mr. Atwood denies using marijuana in front of the children. Mrs. Atwood denies using any illegal drugs.'
This whole statement by Brian is a bald face lie except the last sentence. When Brian asked me if I smoke marijuana the only thing he was told, "In the past I may have smoked it a couple time a year, sociably". That was the extent of my comment so how does he come up with the rest of his comments? He lied.....Erica's name was never mentioned. He was never told when I last smoked it during this conversation. This brings me back to my earlier comments about this document.
The first time I went into details about my past marijuana usage was during our adoption assessment with Susanne Adams from Bethany Christian Services. This was July of 2006. So how did that information get into a document that was supposedly done a year prior?
I will be coming back to this document when I talk about the times Brian committed perjury during court.
This is the Parent Agency Agreement others have been using against us.
Ever since June 17, 2005 this agreement has been referenced saying we weren't following it and has been used as a tool to unjustly remove Alyssa and Amber from our care.
First off there isn't anything in this document that was ever discussed with us. There aren't many thing in here I need to talk about but I will address the few that do need to be addressed. I will start here.
12. I, Erica Keast, agree to practice honesty with the Department of Human Services.
I believe this is standard for most "Parent Agency Agreements.' Imagine that, Brian wants other's to be honest yet he doesn't practice what he preaches. He has been anything but honest.
Supervision was never mentioned until June 17, 2005
"This plan was developed in coordination with Erica Keast, the children's mother, and Timothy and Barbara Atwood, and the children's grandparents."
This is another of Brian's misrepresentations of facts. As I stated earlier there is not one thing in this agreement that was ever discussed with us. We were never shown this agreement and in fact we never knew it existed until recently then, how could it have been written in coordination with us? Boy is seems like Brian just can't quit his lying and using fraudulent information in documents.
You will also know by looking at the last page, this document was only signed by Brian. It makes me wonder if my daughter even knew about or saw this agreement.
This isn't the end of it though, now I get to talk about Brian committing perjury.
This is Brian Vanderzalm's testimony under direct examination during our section 45 hearing.
I will discuss this person perjured testimony in order as it was testified to in court.
(Page 96)
Q
Had the Atwood's told you that her boyfriend was living with her at any point in time?A No.
May 18 or 19, 2005 Brian came to our home and told us Erica can take the children to church on Sundays. Brian told us it was in our discretion if the children were returned straight after church. Brian told us if we wanted Erica could take the children our to eat or go to the park and such. This was the same day I informed Brian, Erica was allowed to take the children a couple hours on Mothers day. Prior to this date we were never told of any restrictions as far as contacts between Erica and her children. How can there be any restriction? We were told Erica can live with us and her children. After I told Brian about the Mother's Day visit this was when he told us the boyfriend can have no contact with the children. This was when Brian was informed the boyfriend was staying next door with Erica. Brian went next door and let both Erica and her boyfriend know he could have no contact with the children and he can't live next door. Even this date we were never told any of Erica's visitations were to be supervised.
Q Did you actually observe her boyfriend at that residence on one occasion?
A
Yes, I did.Q
And was that before you allowed, or before you told the Atwood's to allow unsupervised visitation on her church?A Yes.
When Brian told us the boyfriend was to have no contact with the children, this was when he was informed by me that the boyfriend had been staying next door with Erica. Brian said he was going next door to let our daughter and boyfriend know he can't live there or have contact with the children.
(Page 100)
Q Did you ever tell the Atwood's that they--that the mother could not take these children unsupervised?
A Yes.
Q Did you tell them before they let her take them on Mother's Day?
A I recall telling them on multiple occasions including on the very first time that I met with them, when I was assigned the case, that that was a part of the discussion. But I don't recall the date.
Q So, you're saying the 'very first time you met with them in March you sat down with them and you said, look don't take these--don't let Erica take these kids unsupervised?
A Yes, mae' am.
Q
That's your testimony?A Yes.
The very first visit Brian had with us, I did most of the talking. Brian was told a complete background history. There was never any talk about visitations, period. In fact the first and only time we were told visitations with Erica and the children are suppose to be supervised was June 17, 2005.
Page 101
Q
Just one other question. How did you find out that Erica tookthe children unsupervised from my clients' home?
A Ms. Erica Keast called me and had informed me of that.
Q Did she inform you of that before the Atwood's told you?
A Yes.
Most of this has already been gone over. I will also mention that when Erica had the first visitation for church May 22, 2005, we found out the boyfriend had contact with the children that day. Brian came back to our home May 26, 2005 and was informed about this contact by me. He then confronted Erica about this.
Also if you were to look back at the court report Brian filed, which is mention at the top of this page, you will see it was us that was informing Brian of things....
I'm going to step back a bit to page 93.
Q
I want to ask you, are you familiar with the Alyssa and Amber Keast file?A Yes, ma'am.
For someone that is familiar with this case Brian certainly can't recall much. Most of what he did recall Brian lied about.
When Alyssa and Amber were place in our care the only reason why foster care became involved was so our daughter could get the help she needed. We were told help isn't available unless this was to happen. This was done instead of us getting guardianship so our daughter could be the mother these children deserved.
We certainly didn't place them in foster care so people such as Brian 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.
Do social workers think they have absolute immunity?
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Social Workers Don't Have Absolute Immunity When.....
Brian, how about if you and I go take a lie detector test? This will show who has been telling the truth and who is the LIAR.