Utah Woman Has Son Stolen by DCFS Agent Despite Declaration of Innocence by Court and Social ServicesBrandon Turbeville But what happens when an individual within the system sets their sights on a child, and even their fellow state agents refuse to go along with the game? If a recent case in Utah is anything to go by, it apparently doesnt matter. You still end up having your child forcibly removed from you and you still have little hope of seeing him again after he is taken. If the case officers declare you have done nothing wrong you still find yourself childless. While a case such as this should make the headlines if for no other reason than the brazenness of certain officials, not a word has been spoken in the media, with the notable exception of Alan Watt ofCuttingThroughTheMatrix.com, who reported on the case several days ago and posted a summary of the events (a letter for public viewing) to his website on April 30, 2012. It appears that, during the course of a nasty divorce proceeding, Katerina Jeleva was accused of sexually abusing her son (who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons) by her ex-husband. According to Jeleva, the motivation behind this accusation was her ex-husbands desire to avoid child support payment in light of a recent bankruptcy. Regardless of the reason behind the accusation, however, Jeleva was served with a Protective Order. After the judges signing of the Protective Order, Jeleva and her son were then dragged into the government system requiring an investigation by Family Court appointed case officers. After interviewing both Jeleva and her son, however, the clinical psychologist who conducted an interview determined that evidence for sexual abuse was nonexistent. In addition, she stated that it was possible the child had been coached to implicate his mother in abuse and that the child did not display any signs of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse during my contact with him or while he was observed in my waiting room. Dr. Stringham, the psychologist who conducted the aforementioned interview, then recommended that the Protective Order be dropped and that Jeleva should resume maintaining physical custody of her son. Jeleva claims that, when it came time for the Protective Order hearing, her ex-husband did not show up, thus causing his case to be thrown out and the Protective Order dropped. This is where the state-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), Amber Ruder, enters the picture. As GAL, Ruder is tasked with the representation of a minor child in cases such as these. Essentially, Ruder was appointed as legal Guardian of Jelevas son during the Protective Order investigation process. This is because, only one day after her son was returned to her, Jelevas ex-husband filed yet another Protective Order against her. This, Jeleva claims, was done at the behest of and with the aid of Ruder. The new PO is set to last a period of five months. With the PO signed by a judge, the police immediately came to Jelevas house and removed her son from his home yet again. Jeleva states that she and her son were at the dinner table when the police came and that the brave officers, upholding their oath to serve and protect, literally took him from her arms. Thus, the process of investigation began anew with more case officers and detectives interviewing Jeleva and her son. Like in the first round of investigations, all of those involved (with the notable exception of Ruder) determined that there was no evidence of child abuse. In fact, the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) investigator of the special sex abuse unit, Carly Echols, even wrote a report exonerating Jeleva. Echols closed the case due to the fact that the accusations were unsupported. Yet, according to Jeleva, although the reports of the detectives and investigator Echols are in the public record, they were dismissed as hearsay at the first hearing because the individuals themselves were not there to testify. This was an oversight made by Jeleva who is representing herself with very limited resources and knowledge of the law, as opposed to the state which responds to a prosecution as if there is no bottom to its pit of finances. Jeleva claims that Amber Ruder then went on to testify to the judge that Jeleva did, in fact, abuse her son, even though Ruders qualifications are that of an attorney as opposed to the sexual abuse investigators, psychologists, and other relevant personnel who determined otherwise. Ruders presentation was evidently convincing to the judge as Jeleva was forced to appeal the decision in order to have the detectives and Echols testify in her defense so as to remove the claim of hearsay from the reports exonerating her. Ruder, however, again testified that Jeleva had abused her son. Jeleva states that, although the second judge at the second hearing upheld that she cannot directly contact her son, he at least ruled that Amber Ruder must make a recommendation as to when, where, how long, and how often Jeleva can resume meeting her son, along with a therapist. According to Jeleva, the judge stated, We must put this family back together. I might add that it never should have been broken apart to begin with. After having been cleared twice, the judge should have ruled that the child be returned to his mother immediately instead of the silly idea that she can only meet with her son in the presence of a therapist at the pleasure of the State and the parasites that make a career of destroying the lives of others. Nevertheless, even though Ruder was tasked with making a recommendation for visitation scheduling, it is apparent that she has not met these requirements. Once the court has ordered the Guardian ad Litem to make such recommendations, it is the responsibility of the GAL to organize and arrange the meetings between the parent, child, and therapist. In fact, the judge unequivocally ordered that the GAL take whatever steps are necessary to facilitate Jelevas appointed time with her son. However, Ruder evidently has a much different interpretation of the judges order, as she has yet to facilitate anything beyond expressing her opinion that it is the parents responsibility to arrange all aspects. This presents a major problem for Jeleva who claims she has repeatedly tried to do just that but has yet to receive a call back from the therapists she has contacted. There is no reason to doubt Jelevas claim as Ruder, in an email to Jeleva, confirms that not returning phone calls seems to be a trend at the requested mental health agency. In addition, Ruder states in no uncertain terms within the same email that I cannot and will not do this for you. Furthermore, Ruder hints that the court-ordered therapy might not even occur at all, stating that it will only happen if the childs individual therapist feels that it will not traumatize him to see his mother. Presumably, she means that, because the child has been away from his mother for so long and has been subjected to constant disruption, it could be traumatizing to return him to Jeleva and possibly put him in the same position again. However, it is not Jeleva that has caused trauma for her son. It is the state; it is the Social Services system and individuals like Amber Ruder that are responsible for subjecting this child to the harassment and mental anguish he has been put through for years. From point A to point B, it is the State that has been responsible for this unfortunate situation.Furthermore, Jeleva claims that a move is now being made to terminate her parental rights. Unfortunately, Katerina Jelevas case is different from so many thousands of others all across the country only in that the court and social-services system are largely in agreement that she is innocent and that her child should be returned to her. The culprit in the dismantling of her relationship with her son is mostly one person Amber Ruder. For most parents, every agent encountered at every step of the way is determined to remove the child and place them far away from their home. Katerina Jelevas case is indicative of what happens when a population allows the power of the State to run wild. We are now able to see clearly the results of allowing services to become authorities and allowing the Government to involve itself in the private affairs of families and individuals. As Mothers Day approaches, which Jeleva will likely spend without her son, we are given a choice. We can sit back while Katerina and her son are robbed of the only childhood he will ever have traded for the personal agenda of power-tripping parasites like Amber Ruder or we can take action. We can take a stand in this case and use it as the first shot fired in the resistance to a State that clearly believes it has the right to remove a child from a loving home with absolutely no evidence of abuse. As Jeleva states, I cant win in this rigged system. There is no logic here. How would it be too traumatic for my son to come home to the only home hes ever known and to his pets that keep crying by his empty room? I have included the contact information for Amber Ruder in case any readers would like to explain the moral implications of her actions and how she might address this situation better. I have also included the information of Judge Mary T. Noonan so that she might be contacted and encouraged to return Katerina Jelevas son to her as well as take immediate action against Ruders open contempt of her orders. Amber M. Ruder If you would like to offer support to Katerina Jeleva, you can contact her directly at katia_830@hotmail.com or call her at 1-801-489-7446. You can help support this information by voting on Reddit HERE. Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here. 