IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: Baby Boy Correia
COMPLAINT AGAINST HONORABLE JUDGE CURTIS J. NEAL
In Febuary 2012, the Honorable Curtis J. Neal entered a final judgement terminating the parenatl rights of Rachel Correia. The court's decision to terminate Ms. Correias' parental rights of her son , Grayson Correia , was illegal, cruel, and unconscionable. The consent was obtained under Extreme Fraud/Duress and proof of this is sustainable throuh eye witnesses, documentation, and as well as the unethical conduct by the adoption entity themselves to obtain the consent. The ruling was egregious and intended to protect the interest of the Adoption Entity A Beautiful Life Begins With Angels of Love Adoption Agency, Inc. and the law firm of Darryl W. Johnston.
Ms. Correia is a fit, capable, caring and loving mother.This is evident by all who know and meet the family.
Ms. Correia has never been declared an unfit mother by any court, agency, nor individual.
Ms. Correia has fought tenaciously for the return of her son, but yet Judge Curtis Neals' ruling to terminate Ms. Correia's parental rights were based upon character assasination, deliberate omission of crucial evidence, distortion of facts, unfounded, assumptions, conclusions, and failure of an unprejudice trial.
Judge Curtis Neals' ruling was predetermined by a strong bias, favoring the adoption entity and the law firm. His attention was primarely given to the input from the adoption agency and the law firm, and Ms. Correia was barely ever acknowledged or asked to give and input on her behalf. Ms. Correia was never even given a chance to plead her case and was completely ignored at the trial. She was never questioned about the events that lead to the signing of her termination of parental rights nor was given the opportunity to have key witnesses speak on her behalf.
Judge Curtis Neal justified his premeditated outcome by fashioning a ruling, which favored the adoption entity and its law firm and protected them from possible civil lawsuit, and sanctions resulting from violations of Florida State Adoption Statutes.
All of these actions commited by Judge Curtis Neal are violations of the code of judicial conduct and MS. Correias' Constitutional civil and human rights.The ruling was clearly biased against Ms.Correia
The ruling ignored mulitple discrepencies, inconsistencies, contradictions, and violations carried out by the adoption entity and their lawyer.
The ruling violates the constitutional rights of Rachel Correia to parent her son, and the right Grayson Correia has to a realtionship with his family. Judge Curtis Neal ruled to sever the ties between Ms. Correia and her son, ignoring the constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, and invasion of privacy rights.
There were several Florida State Statues that were overlooked by Judge Curtis Neal that were never even addressed. They are as follows.
The consent obtained by the Agency was obtained through FRAUD/DURESS which, the facts to this were overlooked and not even taken into account.
FLA.STAT. 63.082 (b) A consent to the adoption of a minor who is to be placed for adoption may be executed by the birth mother 48 hours after the minor’s birth or the day the birth mother is notified in writing, either on her patient chart or in release paperwork, that she is fit to be released from the licensed hospital or birth center, whichever is earlier. A consent by any man may be executed at any time after the birth of the child. The consent is valid upon execution and may be withdrawn only if the court finds that it was obtained by fraud or duress.
The Adoption Agency failed to provide copies of all documents pertaining to the consent and waiver to Ms Correia at the time of signing. As pursuant in
FLA 63.082 (5)(5) A copy or duplicate original of each consent signed in an action for termination of parental rights pending adoption must be provided to the person who executed the consent to adoption. The copy must be hand delivered, with a written acknowledgment of receipt signed by the person whose consent is required at the time of execution. If a copy of a consent cannot be provided as required in this subsection, the adoption entity must execute an affidavit stating why the copy of the consent was not delivered. The original consent and acknowledgment of receipt, or an affidavit stating why the copy of the consent was not delivered, must be filed with the petition for termination of parental rights pending adoption.
Ms.Correia validly revoked her consent, and under the Florida Adoption Statutes
b) Upon receiving timely written notice from a person whose consent to adoption is required of that person’s desire to revoke consent, the adoption entity must contact the prospective adoptive parent to arrange a time certain for the adoption entity to regain physical custody of the minor, unless, upon a motion for emergency hearing by the adoption entity, the court determines in written findings that placement of the minor with the person who had legal or physical custody of the child immediately before the child was placed for adoption may endanger the minor or that the person who desires to revoke consent is not required to consent to the adoption, has been determined to have abandoned the child, or is otherwise subject to a determination that the person’s consent is waived under this chapter.
The agency violated the this statute keeping the chid with the prospective adoptive family even after the consent was revoked.
Judge Curtis Neal arbtrarily and capriciously ignored these statutes requirements. If Judge Curtis Neal complied with the Florida Statute requirements Grayson Correia would have been returned to his mother immediately.
The notary for the adoption agency is also the the owner of the agency. As stated in
FLA 117.107(12),
A Notary Public may not notarize a signature on a document if the notary public has a financial interest in or is a party to the underlying transaction; however, a notary public who is an employee may notarize a signature for his or her employer, and this employment does not constitute a financial interest in the transaction nor make the notary a party to the transaction under this subsection as long as he or she does not receive a benefit other than his or her salary and the fee for services as a notary public authorized by law. For purposes of this subsection, a notary public who is an attorney does not have a financial interest in and is not a party to the underlying transaction evidenced by a notarized document if he or she notarizes a signature on that document for a client for whom he or she serves as an attorney of record and he or she has no interest in the document other than the fee paid to him or her for legal services and the fee authorized by law for services as a notary public.
*Article C: Screening for Awareness III-C-1: Awareness Essential in Signer;
The Notary shall not notarize for any person if the Notary has a reasonable belief that can be articulated that the person at the moment is not aware of the significance of the transaction requiring a notarial act. III-C-2: Coherent Communication Necessary; The Notary shall not notarize for any person unable to communicate coherently with the Notary at the time of notarization.
*Article D: Proper and Improper Influence II-D-1:
Avoidance of Influence in Lawful Transaction; The Notary shall not attempt to influence a person to sign or not sign, to act or not act, nor to proceed or not proceed in any lawful transaction requiring a notarial act that is to be performed by the Notary.
*III-B-2: Deterring Undue Influence;
The Notary shall not notarize for any person if the Notary has a reasonable belief that can be articulated that the person is being bullied, threatened, intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced into acting against his or her will or interest.
The notary notarized the consent that was filled in by she herself. The document that holds the notarazation was completed by the notary, not in the presence of Ms.Correia. Ms. Correia did not print her name on the consent. The only document the Ms. Correia was made to fill out was the signature piece.And did not have access to the rest of the documents that have Ms. Correias and Graysons' name printed on them which were filled out by the notary not in the presence of Ms. Correia. The notary Notarized a consent that was not complete and thus stated in
Florida statute.117.107
(10) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the document is incomplete or blank. However, an endorsement or assignment in blank of a negotiable or nonnegotiable note and the assignment in blank of any instrument given as security for such note is not deemed incomplete.
Notary refused to allow the individual signing the document to seek legal counsel prior to signing even after it was requested numerous times
In summary, the consent to adopt and all supporting documents are riddled with improper notary jurat's.
It is clear that this paperwork was improperly handled and that Ms.Correia was pressured and threatened by the notary to sign these documents. The Adoption entity knew that the adoption was not in the best interests of Ms. Correias' newborn son but wanted the transaction completed as soon as possible before Ms. Correia had the opportunity to secure legal council.
In proceedings involving the possibility of permanent termination of parental rights to a child, indigent parents are entitled to the appointment of counsel. In re L.N., 814 So. 2d 1142, 1143-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing In Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83, 90–91 (Fla.1980)). In fact, section 39.807(1) Florida Statutes provides: (1)(a) At each stage of the proceeding under this part, the court shall advise the parent of the right to have counsel present. The court shall appoint counsel for indigent parents. The court shall ascertain whether the right to counsel is understood and, where appropriate, is knowingly and intelligently waived. The court shall enter its findings in writing with respect to the appointment or waiver of counsel for indigent parents.
Judge Curtis Neals' dismissal of these violations and unethical actions by the adoption entity is a complete disregard for a parents civil rights.
The role of a judge is to protect the public, uphold the federal and state constitutions, and protect the civil rights of citizens, especially mothers of newborn infants. Judge Curtis Neal failed to meet these obligations and has betrayed public trust. Judge curtis Neal, The adoption entity and the law firm have abused their authority and power.
Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerley,
Rachel Correia