Lisa and Anthony Demaree went
public warning the undue power of CPS

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007

Lisa and Anthony Demaree child removal, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. aired on September 18, 2009

Nightmare of the Demarees began when the parents took nude photos of their young daughters, then ages 1.5, 4 and 5, and developed these photos in a Walmart in Arizona. Without notice to the Demarees, overly zealous Walmart employee took these photos to the local police. Child protective service (CPS) was notified. Their children were removed and put in "protective" state custody for over a month. The judge who heard the case ruled that the photos are not pornographic in nature and returned the children to their parents.

Like most people who live in these so-called "free and democratic" English-speaking nations, Mrs. Lisa Demarees was unaware of the oppressive power of "child protection" agency before her family was scrutinized. She warned the public of how much power the state has and can pull children out of homes at will. Despite she has a master degree in education, she lost her job and is unable to teach. The Demarees are suing the state and Walmart for damages.

The parents subsequently sued the state and Wal-mart for defamation. In these two separate lawsuits, the Demarees say the "slanderous claims" state officials made during the investigation caused them serious economic losses. They also claim to have since suffered "emotional stress, headaches, nightmares, a general feeling of malaise, shock to their nervous system, grief and depression." The state of Arizona was specifically accused of making slanderous remarks against the Demarees at a hearing where 35 of their friends and family members showed up to testify in support of the couple.

The aforesaid situation of parents under the scrutiny a "child protection" agency is classical. Some parents are forced to divorce so that one of them can get their children back. Some committed suicide during or after the state-created trauma. Many end up losing their jobs and their homes. Some even face further persecution when they go public to uncover the corruption in the "child protection" industry (see the 2006 Jessica Laboy case in Florida). There is little merit to believe that removing children from their families is for the purpose of family development and serve the best interests of people.

This family is relatively luckier as their children were removed only for 1 month. Should this happen in British Columbia, Canada, it would have taken a lot longer to get a trial date. Typically, it would take 3 to 4 months before parents can get their first opportunity to argue their case in a Section 35 hearing. Parents are not only fighting against a very lopsided statute but also a very sluggish and inefficient legal process. Unless "child protection" social workers decide to return removed children to their families, which rarely happens, parents must face a minimum separation from their children for at least 4 months in the best case scenario. Statistically, the government stands a 98% of winning the interim custody of removed children. If parents lose the interim custody, it will take close to a year (at times longer if more court time is needed) before the next custody hearing can be scheduled. Special interest groups in the child removal industry have plenty of time and opportunities to milk taxpayers and parents under the pretext of "child protection".

This case proves the following:

  1. the harm of state-sponsored child removal activities on families and children;
  2. children from better educated parents and families of a higher social class are not immune to the scrutiny of "child protection" social workers;
  3. child removal authority is powerful, oppressive, inhumane, barbaric and open to abuse characteristic in totalitarian and tyrannous regimes;
  4. taxpayers are always indirect victims as such hideous activities are costly and will inevitably lead to lawsuits for damages.

To those who do not think that the child removal industry could affect them, think twice. A phone call is all it takes.

Lisa and Anthony Demaree


This is one of the few photos released to the media that led to the removal of the Demaree children. This proves our point (Preventive Measure # 15) in our Parent Support page written before this case occurred that taking nude photos of young children will attract unwanted attention.

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."

To view the news footage in another window, please click here.

[This page was added on added on September 25, 2009.]