From: Matthew Simechak
To: # Free Baby Holm FaceBook Group
Date: January 5, 2017
Time: 11:00 PM MT
So, I agree in principal with what you are saying. I think there are plenty of government actors out there who have, shall we say, less than the best of intentions. It’s easy to apply that standard to overworked, under paid, social workers, who often don’t or can’t take the deep dive into a case that they should to properly investigate that situation. I am much less comfortable slapping judges with that standard. Judicial recusals are much more rare, and often occur after a party has made a request for the judge to recuse. Occasionally, the court does discover a reason for recusal on its own, but that is most likely to happen when the case is fresh/new to a judge and they are doing their initial conflict checks. So it’s actually more normal for a judge to recuse quickly than for it to take a while.
Let me tell why I care about this case, and what the heck I’m doing in this group in the first place.
I’m an attorney, who is most often in the position of being the guardian ad litem of these poor babies that are taken from their parents. Sometimes, I find myself agreeing with DHR that the child should have been summarily removed, and sometimes, I vehemently disagree with DHR, and let the courts know that I think what is going on is shenanigans and that, in my opinion, the child should be returned to the parents.
And one of the things that I can tell you from being involved in hundreds of these cases over the years, is that when the public gets ahold of one of these stories, they very rarely even get ahold of even half of truth.
The problem is that nobody is allowed to correct the public perception.
The parents in these matters are able to wholly shape the public perception by themselves because the state agencies, the judges, the Guardian ad Litem, and the attorneys aren’t free to share whatever they want about a pending juvenile case with the public.
I could give 50 specific examples of times when parents either blatantly lied and/or innocently and completely misunderstood and thus mis-stated to their friends, family, and the public about the circumstances of why/how DHR was involved and why their children are in foster care, but I can’t tell the news lady, or you, or anyone else what the “truth” appears to be from the evidence and from my own independent investigation because I am forbidden to by law, by privilege, or by rules of ethics.
Having not been involved in this particular case at all myself, I obviously have no knowledge about what is going on in this case other than what the parents are sharing with the public and what the “rumors” are.
I really like the fact that the Holms themselves are involved in this page, and even this very thread, and it is helpful in trying to understand their impression of what exactly is going on here.
Unfortunately, it’s not hard for me to imagine a DHR scenario, which could be as simple as this: DHR could view the Holms as nomads with no particular plan for meeting the basic needs of the child (i.e. Shelter, access to regular medical care, etc).
That view could be based on statements made to various parties including, but not limited to: the park ranger, the hospital staff, DHR case workers, etc.
If what DHR effectively heard was
– “we are going to leave the hospital and continue
– to live as we have been, going from campsite to
– campsite, from park to park, living in tents and
– cooking our food by campfire”,
I can at least conceptually understand why that would give the Department some pause with respect to a newborn baby.
Despite what people may think, the State CAN put you in the position of essentially having to prove to the State that you are both willing and able to provide for the basic needs of your children.
That might mean sitting down and answering some tough questions.
You are free to refuse to answer the questions, but if you do, you should be prepared to be asked those questions by a judge (or guardian ad litem) at a shelter care hearing after DHR performs a summary removal because they are not able to determine if you are willing and able to care for your child to an objectively reasonable level.
They have to be able to ascertain that information.
If the judge orders the child to continue in DHR shelter care while the issue is ironed out, and you refuse to cooperate with the individualized service plan (ISP) scheme, at least to enough of an extent where DHR can even determine IF any services are actually needed or not, then again…DHR (and sometimes the GAL) report again to the court that they are unable to ascertain whether or not you are willing or able to care for the child at this time.
The State doesn’t err on the side of “absent any information at all, we will assume the parent can indeed properly care for the child” when a possible Child Neglect report has been made by a mandatory reporter.
In those situations, the state errs on the side of caution, that a child be properly cared for by the State, until such time as we are able to ascertain that he parents are indeed both willing and able to care for the child to an objectively reasonable standard.
Mr. Holm,
I know you have been reading this conversation, as you replied to something I said earlier.
I want you to know that I am NOT calling you a liar, and I am NOT saying that you don’t know what is going on in your case.
I was merely illustrating that I have, in fact, seen both of those things happen in many cases in the past.
I also don’t have any knowledge that you are being in any way uncooperative with the Department in this matter, but if you are, perhaps because you want to fight them over the “principle of the matter”, know that doing so will likely continue to prolong this matter even longer than it has already been going on (in my personal experience and opinion).
I know you have attorneys and you have to follow their advice.
I hope and pray you are getting good advice.
Additional Comments From Matthew Simachak
From: Matthew Simechak
To: #freebabyholm FaceBook group
Date: January 6, 2017
Time: 1:45 PM MT
DHR has a way, but apparently the parents aren’t interested in doing it DHR’s way. I finally listened to that audio that was recorded at the DHR ISP.
I wish I would have listened to that before I typed the above.
Regardless of the parents’ opinions on whether or not the State had the power to remove their child (it did), or did so properly (this can be litigated), this matter could have been over by now if they were willing to let DHR and/or the GAL make a simple home visit to the shelter to assuage themselves that the child will have proper shelter.
When I typed my long post above, I assumed with no knowledge, that the parents were perhaps more interested in “proving a point” than getting their child back.
Now, having heard it directly from the father’s mouth in the recording, I know that my assumption was 100% correct.
I’m sad that I was right.
I wish I wasn’t.
My favorite part was at the end, when the father was talking to an unknown person, he told the person that they “missed a good show” (meaning the antics at the ISP), and then proceeded to laugh about how he declined accepting any services from DHR by saying to the DHR social worker.
– “Services? What, am I getting an oil change?”
Bravo, sir.
That’s all I needed to hear.
Have fun on the crusade.
When they decide they actually want their child back though, they might want to take the GAL out to their proper shelter and show them that they are willing and able to care for their child (following the Reasonable and Prudent Standard established by the State of Alabama).
From: Matthew Simachak
To: #freebabyholm FaceBook group
Date: January 6, 2017
Time: 1:50 PM MT
If anyone wants to actually know what the actual laws of Alabama say about this stuff, instead of throwing around works like “kidnapping”, here are some snippets of the actual law, interspersed with some explanatory material by me.
Alabama Code Section 12-15-301
(2) ABUSE. Harm or the risk of harm to the emotional, physical health, or welfare of a child. Harm or the risk of harm to the emotional, physical health, or welfare of a child can occur through nonaccidental physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, or attempted sexual abuse or sexual exploitation or attempted sexual exploitation.
(8)NEGLECT. Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide adequate food, medical treatment, supervision, education, clothing, or shelter.
(11) REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT STANDARD. The standard characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the health, safety, and best interests of a child, while at the same time encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child, that a caregiver shall use when determining whether to allow a child in foster care under the responsibility of the state to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social activities.
Note: This doesn’t only mean that abuse/neglect has “already” occurred. Notice the language “harm or risk of harm”. It can also mean that it is imminently about to occur. If you telegraph your intentions to not provide adequate shelter for the child by saying you have no intention of doing so, it can meet the definition.
Alabama Code Section 12-15-306
Removing a child from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian.
(a) A child may be removed by a law enforcement officer from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian if there are reasonable grounds to believe any of the following:
The child is suffering from an illness or injury or is in imminent danger from the surroundings of the child and that the removal of the child is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of the child.
The child has no parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other suitable person able to provide supervision and care for the child.
(b) The person removing the child shall immediately deliver the child to the Department of Human Resources.
So all that is needed is a “reasonable grounds” to believe that any type of abuse and/or neglect has happened or that there is a imminent risk of it happening.
Then that triggers the 72 hour clause found here:
Alabama Code Section 12-15-308
Filing of petition and conduct of 72-hour hearing as to necessity for continuation of shelter care of a child.
(a) When a child alleged to be dependent has been removed from the custody of the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian and has not been returned to same, a hearing shall be held within 72 hours from the time of removal, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included, to determine whether continued shelter care is required.
(c) At the commencement of the 72-hour hearing requirement, the juvenile court shall advise the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian of the right to counsel and shall appoint counsel if the juvenile court determines he or she is indigent. If the juvenile court already has not done so, it shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the proceeding. It is the responsibility of the guardian ad litem to present evidence supporting the best interests of the child. The parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian shall also be informed of the contents of the petition and, except as provided herein, shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the allegations of the petition.
(d) All relevant and material evidence helpful in determining the need for shelter care may be admitted by the juvenile court, even though not admissible in subsequent hearings.
(f) If the child is not released, the juvenile court, at the earliest opportunity in the case, including the 72-hour hearing requirement or the adjudicatory hearing, may order the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian to provide a list of names and, if possible, addresses and telephone numbers, of known paternal and maternal relatives to the juvenile court.
There, the court hears that “reasonable grounds”, decided if it agrees, and if it does and finds it necessary to do so, will continue the child in shelter care. There’s nothing illegal about this process (it is literally in the statutory law), and it’s not a “kidnapping”. It’s literally the process that Alabama has inserted into the statutory law.
Alabama Code Section 12-15-309
Alleged dependent child to be released when continued shelter care not required; conditions imposed upon release; amendment of conditions or return of child to custody upon failure to conform to conditions imposed.
(a) When the juvenile court finds that continued shelter care is not required for a child, the juvenile court shall order the return of the child, and in so doing, may impose one or more of the following conditions singly or in combination:
(1) Return the child to the custody of the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian and, if necessary, place the child under the supervision of the Department of Human Resources.
(2) Place restrictions on travel, associations, or living conditions of the child pending the adjudicatory hearing.
(b) An order releasing a child on any conditions specified may at any time be amended to impose additional or different conditions.
Guess what it means for the court to “find” something?
The court has to be able to determine that the child no longer need shelter care. The court has to be provided with evidence that the child no longer needs shelter care (which would include the address of the shelter, pictures of the shelter, a home visit or home study of the shelter).
The easiest way to do that is to prove to DHR and the GAL that the child no longer needs shelter care, by complying with an ISP plan (which includes those dreaded “services”), and then allowing DHR to withdraw the petition themselves, or by giving the GAL a reason to advocate that the child should be returned to the parents even if DHR disagrees that the parents are ready.
No, a parent is not “required by law” to accept the services that DHR offers.
But which do you suppose is easier:
(1) having DHR convince themselves you are cool to parent your child by jumping through a couple of hoops that they offer you, and then them voluntarily asking the court to return the child,
(2) to get a hearing in front of the court and prove that you privately completed better reunification steps than DHR offered, and that the court should disregard the opinion of DHR, and the parents refusal to cooperate with DHR, and return the child anyway?
Hopefully I don’t have to answer that rhetorical question.
I hope the above helps people understand what is going on here, how the law works, why this is not a “kidnapping”, and that once the court places a child in shelter care, there is an entire process that has to occur, where things have to be proven to the court in order for parents to get their children back.
Non-compliance with the process results in delays in the process.
That’s reality, whether anyone likes it or not.
Whether or not someone has to participate in the process isn’t determine by the parents’ opinion of the status of the law.
It’s determined by the judge finding legitimacy in the allegations.
The law is what it is.
Clickable link to thread reference below:


Matthew Simechak on Baby Holm — 32 Comments

  1. Link to dropbox where a recording may be found (audio) of a
    meeeting between the Holm parents and DHS personnel, with
    additional unexplained audio at the end.

    This could be a key piece of evidence in understanding the
    responsibility the parents, Brady Byrum, Jonathan Payton,
    and others have as to why the custody matter was not
    resolved earlier or more quickly.


    The audio improves after the first moments which has considerable interference.


  2. Additional comments from the Matthew Simechak exchange in the #freebabyholm public FaceBook group:

    From: Jonathan Payton
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 4:30 PM MT

    That is exactly what needs to happen and the citizens of Alabama need to press hard for legislature that would make it impossible for DHR to commit these atrocities!!!


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 4:35 PM MT

    Jonathan Payton

    Let’s also remember that while we are changing the law, they need to write some law that restrict what administrative agencies like DHR can do as well.

    Right now, they can essentially promulgate whatever rules they want, as long as it’s not already covered by a statutory law.

    That’s crazy broad.


    From: Janne Witt
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 5:20 PM MT

    If, as Matthew states, CPS is able to take a baby from loving parents – with no evidence of abuse or neglect and assault the mother whilst kidnapping her child (all that has happened in the Holm case) – it disgusts me that people who knew this was possible with the current laws did nothing to change them.


    From: Janne Witt
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 5:25 PM MT

    A newborn baby needs close physical contact with its mother and breastmilk to survive; that is it.

    Billions upon billions of babies have survived throughout history with nothing more than this.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 5:30 PM MT

    Janne Witt ,

    The real scary thing that most people don’t understand, is that this is how our entire legal system works. It’s almost like a fancy honor system. I can literally go to the police department right now, claim that you pulled a gun on me (even though we have never met each other), swear out a warrant against you and have you arrested for menacing. You will be arrested, taken to jail, handcuffed, fingerprinted, embarrassed, have to post a bond, etc. all on my word that you did something.

    Now, that said, an investigation could then be done, and when they discover you don’t own a gun and that I can’t prove we have ever even met, you might either (a) succeed in getting the case dismissed, or (b) win at trial if they won’t dismiss the case because the DA believes me that it occurred despite no evidence.

    And perhaps even more interesting: the police officer who arrested you for my bogus allegation did nothing legally wrong, and has immunity from being sued. He had “probable cause” to arrested you because of my sworn statement.

    I could later be charged with making a false report (if anyone ever believes you that I was lying). But you won’t get the time or money back it took you to deal with your jail situation, or what it cost for you to hire and attorney to defend you (since it’s just a misdemeanor, you would have no right to a free attorney).

    But now that I’ve said all that, try to apply this current dependency case to the above scenario. What if in the above scenario, you got arrested, but you decided to stonewall the investigators because you “have the right to remain silent”, and you refuse to give them your side of the story and prove to them that I’m lying, all because you have an axe to grind and a point to make.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to give the cops and the district attorney the information they need to dismiss the bogus case instead of choosing to remain silent just because you legally are allowed to? Sure, your attorney (and all the armchair attorneys) might advise you to remain silent because it will make the trial easier for him, but what if you had the chance to get it dismissed in the first couple weeks by just complying with the investigation? Tough call to make.


  3. Christian Holm v. Matthew Simechak via the same thread as indicated above


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 6:30 PM MT

    First of all.
    Our do process rights where violated.
    False accusations on petition to bring us to the courts.
    No evidence for all accusations.
    No warrant and or pick up order at the time of kidnapping.
    You GAL and conventional attorneys are just puppets in a mechanical unjust process.
    The root of the problem here is that our do process was violated on hearsay, guesses, what it’s.
    No factual actual evidence was had at the time of petition.
    Also petition shows ever our child was kidnapped before there was a pickup order even signed.
    These criminals jumped the gun in the hopes that I was going to get violent and or they were going
    to hopefully trick us into submission.
    You fake GAL and fake attorneys are just as much as criminals to passively go along with a mafia
    style process as the DHR imposes on innocent parents.
    Absent minded and blinded by the evil you work for.


    From: Steve Russell
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 6:33 PM MT

    I can tell you how evil corrupt and incompetent these people are Christian.
    Do you have an attorney?


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 6:35 PM MT

    Every lawyer says in the beginning they will stand with us.
    But then something happens and they begin to try and compromise with DHR.

    No compromise.

    They broke our constitutional rights.
    It’s that simple.

    One must not yield to evil, for everything shall be in vain and the cycle of evil shall prevail.

    No compromise with evil.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 6:45 PM MT

    We actually don’t have a choice about whether or not we “go along with the process DHR imposed”.

    It’s the law of Alabama.

    As attorneys we have to follow the law. We can aid in trying to *change* the law of our clients don’t like the laws, but we have to follow the laws as they are on the books until they are successfully changed.

    Alabama Law allows the summary removal of a child by DHR, through a law enforcement agency, without a pickup order. Your due process rights are secured by the notice requirement and the mandatory 72-hour hearing. Only of you didn’t receive notice of the removal, and didn’t receive a shelter care hearing within 72 hours of the summary removal, would your due process rights have been violated.

    That’s not my opinion.
    That’s 100 years of legal jurisprudence in the making.

    The courts have repeated found “notice and and opportunity to be heard” is exactly what “due process” is.



    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:00 PM MT

    I actually just explained how the constitution was not violated. “Notice and an opportunity to be heard” = due process.

    If during that opportunity to be heard the judge finds against you, that’s not a due process violation.

    That’s a court decision depriving you of a right *after* you were afford the opportunity to be heard.
    Due process violations occur when you don’t get that opportunity.



    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:02 PM MT

    I’m NOT saying that I agree with the judge’s decision by the way.
    I’m just explaining due process.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:04 PM MT

    Everyone has a choice in life.
    Your intentions are who we become.
    One must have good intentions and if they find themselves in a corrupted environment,
    they must change direction and focus intentions on exposing the evil they blindly became a part of.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:05 PM MT

    Christian Holm – “If that’s the case then anyone can petition the courts with false accusations to remove anyone’s child with no accountability for disturbing a families rights live by their beliefs.”

    Yes, that’s actually correct.

    If people are willing to give sworn statements to the court in filing a petition that abuse or neglect is occurring, the court is very often going to assume those allegations are true until the opposing party comes forward to PROVE that they are not.

    Stonewalling the process prolongs the process.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:06 PM MT

    “Kidnapping a newborn with no court order and no warrant is a violation of due process under the constitution.”

    If that’s what happened, it would be. But a state administrative agency and a law enforcement agency following the statutory laws of Alabama, as written, to effect a summary removal, then providing a notice and an opportunity to be heard is not a constitutional violation.

    Again, there’s 100 years of court precedent to back up the definition of constitutional due process.
    It’s not just “some dude on the internet’s opinion”.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:08 PM MT

    That’s just it.
    No sworn affidavit in our case.
    No one signed under penalty of law.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:10 PM MT

    Check out the Petition filed by DHR and the Court Report that was filed at the Shelter Care hearing.

    Also, when the DHR worker testified at the shelter care hearing, that was sworn testimony.

    But I’ll bow out now.

    I’m not trying to antagonize you.
    I don’t think the “right decisions” have necessarily been made by the authorities here,
    I’m just explaining how it works.


  4. Another brief exchange!


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:40 PM MT

    I’m telling you guys, if you will just begrudgingly show these folks a shelter that you are living in and essentially say

    – “see, we can take care of the baby.
    – Look in the cabinets.
    – Look in the fridge.
    – We have a roof over our head,
    – food in the cupboard,
    – power,
    – water,
    – a crib in the bedroom,
    – give us our kid and leave us alone.”

    That will go a long way.

    I know you really really don’t want to feel like you are giving into these unreasonable demands when you never even did anything wrong in the first place, but for real, it will end it so much faster.

    As soon as reunification is complete, and the case is closed, I won’t blame you if you haul ass with your kid and never grace the steps of Alabama again.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:45 PM MT

    One must not yield to evil and or wrong doings, for to yield is to allow the evil to prevail on to the next innocent family.

    Stand with us and stop running.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 7:50 PM MT

    Accountability Matthew.
    Stop making excuses for kidnappers.
    Equality of law.


    • From: Matthew Simechak
      Date: January 6, 2017
      Time: 8:30 PM MT

      Christian Holm

      Even if the law is evil, the law must be yielded to unless/until it is changed.

      (look at it this way if you need to: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s . . .Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.”)

      You aren’t going to change the law to your advantage in the middle of your case.

      Help to change it afterward, after you have already gotten your kid back.

      That’s the time for the crusade.
      Not now.

      Now you are hurting your family and your child on your insistence to not conform with the laws of the State.

      No matter how wrong or evil you think they are, they are still the laws, and you are probably going to have to follow them if you want your kid back.

      (I say probably, because you might be able to convince a judge to over-step DHR, but I doubt it).

      I’m sorry this is happening to you.

      You have the power to end it when you choose (not literally the moment you choose to, but within a reasonable timeframe thereafter).

      Don’t let people give you the wrongful advice that the laws are not what they are.

      But then again…do what you have to do.

      If this matter is one of deep-seated religious/spiritual passion for you, then have at it.

      I wish you luck, and you will be in my thoughts and prayers.


  5. This exchange is particularly insightful in my opinion!


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 10:00 PM MT


    They have already had an ISP, yes. DHR has a case plan, but the Holms have rejected the plan, and have refused to even discuss DHR offering them any reunification services.

    They don’t accept that it’s even possible that services could be needed and won’t even discuss potential services with DHR.

    They also won’t even tell DHR the address of their current home, or where they plan to house the baby, and thus will not let a DHR case worker, nor the GAL visit their shelter to see if it is an appropriate location to care for a child.

    That information might help a lot of what I was saying to Mr. Holm above make more sense.

    I was telling him basically that if he would let them do their jobs, this would be over already.

    I know he doesn’t want to, but it would end the process.


    From: Vicki White
    Date: January 6, 2017
    Time: 10:10 PM MT

    I agree Matthew!

    If they don’t work with DHR to resolve the issues that caused the baby to be put in foster care then they better be prepared to lose their child.

    Permanency for this child will be a top priority for the Judge at the appropriate time.

    DHR, from what I’ve read, hasn’t asked the parents to do anything unreasonable.

    Just my thoughts but To use ones child to raise awareness of a corrupt government is cause for alarm.

    Keeping my infant safe and in my care would be my top priority!

    They are cutting off their nose to spite their face, as the old saying goes!

    Work the case plan, get your baby back then expose the corrupt government!


  6. Oh boy, the parents have really “lost it”!


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 7:30 AM MT

    Your wrong Matthew.
    Your mind is conventional.

    There is plenty of proof from past cases where DHR imposes
    service to get their claws into you.

    Then they use that as ammo for when they go to court to
    try and take your child and or keep child in the system.

    We did nothing wrong.
    These criminals are mafia and we are filing war crimes
    and religious violations to the HAGUE.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 7:45 AM MT

    They have no evidence of any of their false accusations.
    They only use the service plans and Home invasion to find

    These criminals will return our child or they will face
    war crimes.


  7. Another exchange tonight between Matthew Simechak and Christian Holm


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 7:50 PM MT

    If a judge is involved in a crime as the ring leader of the case.
    They can and will be held accountable for all and any actions.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 7:55 PM MT

    If a judge and or state official acts out on color of law they can
    and will be held accountable.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 8:00 PM MT

    Cool, but that’s not what happened here.

    A judge followed Alabama law in holding a mandatory 72
    hour hearing and made a judgement (which is what judges do).

    I know you don’t like the ruling, but when a judge is acting
    in the capacity of a judge, they are immune from suit.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 8:05 PM MT

    You obviously don’t know everything of our evidence Matthew.

    You are making conventional decisions.

    Preconceived ideas of how you have dealt with court preceding
    in a conventional way.

    Even the badge holders must obey the law.
    Even you Matthew must obey the law.
    You act out of office and you will be held accountable.


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 8:15 PM MT

    You seem to be confused.
    I’m not stating my opinion.
    I’m stating empirical facts and legal precedent.

    The specifics of what happened in your case having no
    bearing on the state of judicial immunity when a judge
    is acting in their judicial capacity.

    Short of a judge coming down off the bench and shooting
    you with their own personal handgun, you won’t be able
    to successfully sue a judge for basically anything.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 8:20 PM MT

    How about false documents.
    How about conspiring with DHR behind closed doors.
    How about going along with kidnappers.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 7, 2017
    Time: 8:25 PM MT

    Your mind is conventional Matthew and has become
    blind to the very system you are apart of.


    • ——————————————

      From: Matthew Simechak
      Date: January 7, 2017
      Time: 8:45 PM MT

      You don’t understand or accept that Alabama Law is what
      it is (which includes both Statutory Law and Administrative
      Law, which are DHR rules and regulations).

      You think that illegal actions have occurred, including a
      kidnapping, but you are legally mistaken.

      In every case where DHR is involved in a summary removal,
      DHR social workers receive reports of alleged abuse or neglect,
      follow up on the reports, ask questions, and then file reports
      with the court and testify to judge at the 72 hour hearing about
      what they heard and observed from both the reporting entity
      and everyone they have spoken to so far in their investigation.

      This is what they are literally mandated to do by Alabama Law.

      They have to do this.
      They have no choice.
      There is nothing abnormal about it.

      DHR and the Court can only roll with the facts and evidence
      that they receive, which is primarily gathered by testimony of
      individuals, which normally includes the parents.

      If you stonewall them and don’t participate in the process,
      then all the information they have comes only from the
      individuals making accusations against you.

      Interestingly, I’ve only ever had the parents speak at 72 hour
      hearings in less than 5% of all hearings I have ever participate
      in, despite the judge explaining to them that it was their
      opportunity to tell their side of the story.

      Guess what the result of that has been?

      It resulted in the judge continuing the child in shelter care
      95% of the time.

      If the judge only hears one side of the story, the judge is
      going to rule in favor of that side.

      They are going to assume the allegations are truthful absent
      any evidence to the contrary.

      That’s how our court system works in this country.

      It is actually quite common for a judge to have sidebar
      conversations, attorneys conferences, and/or chamber
      meetings with only the attorneys then involved with a case.

      Typically, at a 72 hour hearing, the parents will not have
      attorneys yet. I would say that at 90%+ of the hundreds of
      72 hearings I have been involved with, there was at least
      some communication with the judge outside of the ears of
      the parents.

      I will admit that conversations of this nature are technically
      “ex parte communications” if they are done outside of the
      presence of parties represented pro se. It’s something that
      the parents attorneys can later complain about and use to
      their advantage.

      But while procedurally incorrect, it’s not seen by the appeals
      courts as harmful error as long as the pro se parties still
      received an opportunity to be heard in the actual court

      It’s not he court’s fault that he parents fail to actually
      take the opportunities given to them.

      Everything about how the State took your child and what
      you have to do to get the child back is regulated by black
      and white laws that can be found in the Alabama Code and
      the Administrative Regulations of the Alabama Department
      of Human Resources.

      You can keep talking about God’s law, the God Mind, YHVH,
      natural law, being an enlightened being, and anything else
      you want to, but DHR and the State of Alabama are only
      going to be satisfied when you come in compliance with
      Alabama Law.


      • A testimonial from Vicki White in response to Matthew’s comments above

        From: Vicki White
        Date: January 7, 2017
        Time: 10:20 PM MT

        Absolutely correct Matthew!

        I haven’t seen very many parents speak up at the 72 hr.
        Hearing either!

        I’ve been a CASA for 7 years and rarely have I heard
        the parents speak for themselves.

        I have often wondered why since the Judge gives them
        several opportunities to tell their side!

        I suppose the parent feels intimidated.

        Non compliance with rules that DHR must follow is going
        to keep Baby Holm in foster care for years.

        I have been on cases for 3+ years!

        I feel sad for this baby because of the parents hell
        bent ideas of beating the government.


  8. From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 8, 2017
    Time: 12:30 PM MT

    Let me ask every single one of you here in this GROUP one question…

    If you knew you were innocent had done nothing wrong and we’re
    persecuted for your beliefs and the way you chose to live…

    would you comply with their demands to bend your willingness to theirs?

    I wonder how many of you have been moved by the Holy Spirit those that
    have not will not get it yet…


  9. From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 8, 2017
    Time: 12:45 PM MT

    What you need to understand is that once the case has already started, you
    don’t have any choice but to follow the laws as they are currently written.
    It takes longer to change the law than the lifespan of a typical dependency case.

    Also, most changes to the law are not applied retroactively.
    In all likelihood, a change to the law would not reach backward
    and change cases that were already pending before the law changed.

    That’s why my advice is:

    Appease them,
    get the kid back,
    then work your tail off to change the law.

    You can do it your own way, but it’s not likely to result in
    the timely return of the child.

    That’s just plain objective reality.


  10. Now comes Danielle Holm and provides a narrative that, in my opinion,
    further confirms my analysis and her need for real help instead of the
    enablers behind the misguided cause to do everything except work for the
    return of the child.

    From: Danielle Holm
    Date: January 8, 2017
    Time 1:00 PM MT

    This is Danielle.
    This is the LAST time I am going to say this, so everyone listen clearly….
    WE ARE PUTTING OUR CHILD FIRST every single second of every single day.
    I do not sleep.
    I am GRIEVING.
    I am at a LOSS without my child on my breast, to nourish my sweet baby
    as God intended for ME and ONLY ME to do….
    What some people do not and clearly are incapable of understanding is
    that PUTTING YOUR CHILD FIRST sometimes means doing things that FEEL
    unsafe to you, or feels HARDER to do…
    We are PROTECTING HIM right now by not allowing these state actors
    to invade his life ever again when he comes back to us.
    Do you understand that?
    When you give an inch when we have done NOTHING wrong this allows
    them to then come into our lives and NEVER leave.
    I do not want criminals knowing anything about my baby’s life when
    he returns to us.
    Do you understand?
    We have done absolutely nothing wrong and we are CLEAN OF DRUGS,
    I do not feel safe around criminals.
    Do you?
    I do not feel safe allowing criminals who stole our child for no
    reason into my home, do you??
    How can this CHANGE FOR ALL, if we do what everyone always does??
    And ALso, how many people here have jumped through EVERY HOOP to
    Do you understand?
    Please NEVER say we are not putting our child first.
    It is insulting to my love for my beautiful child that we TRIED
    having multiple times and finally did after 3 miscarriages.
    ALL we do is FIGHT for our child.
    Do you understand??
    How many people do the things we are doing for their child when
    taken unjustly???
    Most roll over and take it.
    Our baby would be VERY disappointed in us if we allowed these
    people in his life ever again.
    Even though it really sucks to have to be patient with something
    we did not cause to begin with.
    There is a reason we are where we are right now, doing what we
    are doing.
    There is a reason our baby is strong like he is waiting patiently.
    There is a reason he is with a family right now who truly are
    taking care of him….
    WE ARE PUTTING OUR CHILD FIRST and in fact we are putting ALL
    CHILDREN FIRST, which is why we sacrifice our lives daily for
    the greater good of all.
    Do you understand?

  11. In another FaceBook thread, this insightful post was recently made:
    Link to thread:
    From:Liz Mahood Pecor
    Date:January 8, 2017
    Time: 10:00 AM MT

    It’s all ‘fluff mucking” my own word to describe things that have no common sense.
    I’ve been tenaciously following this saga since it’s beginning and the only thing
    I see is people seeking financial gain.

    Three GoFund accounts seeking contributions! Really?

    According to the father’s own Facebook photo and comment dated Jan 2015, where he
    is states he is packing up “the book must get done”!
    A book that by coincidence comes out just as they arrive to deliver a baby in Alabama.
    A book full of one sided similar stories, that is now on sale.

    Then their story of traveling to speak to churches and living among the birds and bees.
    Highly doubtful, a look at their photographs I see no tents, no pictures of churches
    or church gatherings, no comments appear either that reflect anything that validates
    a single word they say.

    I do see each wearing nice new clothes, appear well fed and nothing to lead one to
    believe they have lived the life they say they believe in. What I see is two
    opportunist who are willfully allowing their child to be the pawn in a game of

    Too, I question the things they have said about their own backgrounds.

    Early on the father said he had a home, it just wasn’t available to him.
    A deeds check shows the home was signed over to the family trust long ago.
    A license check does not show the mother has ever been licensed in psychology
    or anything else to practice in any state, and some research (yet to be confirmed)
    is that the father has another child he is alienated from.

    From my view it’s all fluff mucking.

    These people are not of the mindset to do what’s necessary to regain their child.
    They are part of a scam to gain profit, willfully participating and the only
    sacrifice they are making is their child.

    I, a woman, a mother, a taxpayer and spirituality in tune human, hope the authorities
    get to the bottom of it.

    One thing for sure, there’s more to the story than they are telling.


  12. The banter continues in the #freebabyholm public FaceBook group,
    demonstrating continuously that the parents are not inclined to
    have resolving the custody issue at the top of their priorities.

    I can’t re-post everything, but I did notice this recent comment
    from Matthew worth noting:


    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 9, 2017
    Time: 10:00 AM MT

    And there you go, folks.

    You can follow your own laws if you want, but today,
    in our objective reality, the laws of the State of
    Alabama are what control in this case.

    Pretend that lawyers don’t know the law all you want.

    This case isn’t about God’s law.
    It’s about man’s law.

    The men and women of Alabama made the laws that took
    this baby away, and are keeping the baby away from this

    The laws of the men and women of Alabama are what have
    to be complied with for this baby to return to this family.

    That’s an inconvenient truth that many people seem unwilling
    or unable to acknowledge.


  13. Yes, Christian Holm, keep it up.
    That’s just the sort of attitude that won’t bring your baby back!
    You have a lot of convincing to do if you want to convince me that getting the baby back is what you want.
    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 9, 2017
    Time: 11:00 AM MT

    We where migrating through the state and do not
    acknowledge the state’s jurisdiction.
    We acknowledge only our Creator and
    that we have not broken any laws.


  14. Behold the wisdom of Mr. Holm, or why it is it appears he lacks any
    serious interest in having his child returned to him:

    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 9, 2017
    Time: 3:45 PM MT

    Man’s law versus God’s law.

    This is the process of a young life form trying to mature
    within knowledge to then realize the knowledge is only
    an illusion where the only thing real is the tree of life and
    or all things under the title of language without the title.


    Take an Apple around the world then have over two hundred
    ways to pronounce the Apple. Well, which way is truth? The
    answer is no language is truth, for the only thing real is the
    Apple without the title and or language over it.

    Man’s law was put in place so that one can govern another
    until one has found the Creator of us all within one’s self.

    This societal way is then controlled by one being in debt to
    the society and becoming passive by the illusions of titles
    and our language.

    God’s law is as simple as understanding this and finding the
    Creator of us all within one’s self to then be governed by God

    This is the act of true LOVE.
    God’s law is no titles and or language.

    It is to just be LOVE within the environment that the Creator
    of us all has given to us to experience life.

    We must not persecute our brothers and sisters for finding
    the Creator to us all, for this is only destroying the LOVE of

    We must stand strong and not fight but instead speak truth
    until all of our brothers and sisters can be found as well.

    We must unite as one love within the Creator’s LOVE.
    We must become born again.

    ~ Christian Holm


  15. Today Christian Holm makes his appearance and again indicates no interest
    in cooperating with authorities in order to demonstrate the return of the
    child is his first priority.

    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 10, 2017
    Time: 1:30 PM MT

    We have a new judge but no court date.

    This is a violation to speedy trial as many
    violation to us as parents and to or baby.

    Many constitutional rights are being violated
    by a mafia style organization of the state call DHR.

    The judicial system is also to be held accountable
    for allowing these kidnappers to hold our child
    hostage with ransom demands.


  16. So, now, according to Christian Holm, a 3rd judge
    has been recused from the case.


    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 10, 2017
    Time: 10:00 PM MT

    So the third judge of our case just recused herself
    from our case. How many more until they return our
    kidnapped child.

    • In the discussion that followed, Michael Simechak wrote:


      From: Michael Simechak
      Date: January 10, 2017
      Time: 10:10 PM MT

      Actually…the canon of judicial ethics pretty much requires
      them to recuse themselves if that’s the situation.

      What I meant above was this:

      If the judge read the medical kidnap story and thought to him/herself

      -“wow, these guys are nutcases”,

      then the judge knows the judge is already biased and is ironically
      doing the right thing by recusing.

  17. Bwahahahahaha!

    The sovcit silliness is alive and well on the #freebabyholm public FaceBook group.

    Matthew Simechak continues to be a voice of reason, but he is quite outnumbered
    and in recent banter at least one person has been pushing the notion that the
    sheriff is the highest law enforcement official in the county and the parents
    should simply go to him and have him go get the baby and return it to them.


  18. The latest from Mr. Holm confirming my analysis further and showing he
    is not inclined to work in the best interest of the child; his mental
    issues are also on display as he claims to be “listening to the voice
    of God” instead of accepting personal responsibility for his misguided
    course of action.
    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 11, 2017
    Time: 12:00 Noon MT

    I don’t do things my way Matthew (Simechak).

    I listen to God.

    One must not yield to evil, for to yield is
    to become the evil by self admission.

    We follow the Creator and expose evil ways
    through or sacrifice to endure the pain that
    is being inflicted upon us by our peers.

  19. After 3 months Mr. Holm just posted this stupid message:

    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 11, 2017
    Time: 4:25 PM MT

    If our child is given a court appointed lawyer,
    then why has his lawyer not filed anything to
    speed trial up and or anything for his benefit?

    Just another pawn within the rodeo?

    • To which Matthew Simechak responded:

      From: Matthew Simechak
      Date: January 11, 2017
      Time: 4:30 PM MT

      The role of the guardian ad litem (GAL) is one of an independent
      investigator into what that attorney believes is in the best
      interests of the child.

      There could be many reasons why the GAL isn’t doing the things
      you described.

      One reason may be that the GAL may believe that the child’s best
      interest is to be in the custody of the state at this time.

      If the GAL believes that, it may be because they don’t have any
      contrary information to draw the opposite conclusion.

      I heard your conversation with the GAL in your DHR ISP.
      She offered to come out to the residence and check it out.
      You declined her offer and explained why.

      But if you don’t let her do her job and give her the information
      she needs to conclude that you can properly care for your child…
      she would have no incentive to want to speed things up or aid in
      causing a custodial change.

  20. Mr. Holm continues to exhibit signs of mental disorder and that his
    priority is not the return of his child.

    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 11, 2017
    Time: 6:00 PM MT

    Create policies and enforce them through coercion,
    conversion and extortion tactics and you can then
    impose a license to parent and bypass law through
    self admission by instilling fear.

    ~ Christian Holm

  21. Another interesting contribution from Matthew Simechak.

    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 11, 2017
    Time: 7:00 PM MT

    This isn’t an “anti-CPS group”.

    This is a “help the Holms get their kid back” group.

    It attracts a lot of kooky type people who mistakenly
    think they understand the law because the Holms are
    espousing a lot of legally incorrect theories on what
    happened to them, which attracts the type of people
    that “agree” with them.

    As I have explained to Mr. Holm though, there is the way
    that the law works in the real, objective reality that
    we live in (read the law itself and the court cases
    interpreting it), and then there is this mystical/fantastical
    way that a lot of people in this group think/wish/hope/pray
    the law works (but doesn’t).

  22. After considerably more banter with the stiffnecked Mr. Holm,
    Matthew Simechak just added the following summing up the matter.

    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 11, 2017
    Time: 9:35 PM MT

    I don’t think there are any real answers to the questions you just posed.

    A judge is charged with…judging.

    Ultimately, all judges are making it up as they go along, trying as hard
    as they can to stay in between the lines of the law.

    You’ll have to make your case for

    — “Shelter isn’t defined by statute,
    — here is what Shelter means according
    — the the plain meaning, and I can provide
    — adequate shelter.”

    And if it gets that far, I’m sure you will have DHR arguing counterpoint,
    claiming that they think the judge could consider a tent/camper inadequate.

    When the dust settles, the person sitting on the bench will judge you, as
    he’s charged by the law to do. If you agree with the judgment, great.

    If you don’t, you can appeal the judgment, and the appeals court will
    decide if the judge erroneously applied the facts to the law or not.

    And then the Supreme Court of Alabama, after that. And then the Supreme
    Court of the United States after that. (If necessary).

  23. Matthew Simechak’s patience with such as Susan Dunn Cobb is growing a
    little slim as indicated by this post this morning:

    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 12, 2017
    Time: 11:30 AM MT

    Not going to read past the first sentence of that reply.

    Alabama State law was followed in the summary removal
    and subsequent court proceedings.

    That’s not a kidnapping.

    I’m no longer going to offer any response or acknowledgement
    to statements like this.

    I don’t have time to chase rabbits down holes.

    I’ve already explained all this stuff like 5 times on this
    group, and if people want to pretend the law is something
    other than what it is, there’s nothing I can do about it.

  24. Another story from Mr. Holm with no posted corroboration, and I have yet
    to see any criminal complaint which Mr. or Mrs. Holm filed regarding the
    rape accusation.

    From: Christian Holm
    Date: January 12, 2017
    Time: 1:15 PM MT

    We just found out that the attorney general’s office is not going
    to pursue the assault charges that my wife filed.

    Apparently it’s okay for a superintendent of a state park to bring
    civilians to our camp site and for one of them to stick there hand
    inside my wife to check for babies head after my wife told her no.

    We called 911.
    We didn’t call the superintendent and the civilians she brought with her.

    Now if this was done on good intentions and everyone was trying to help,
    then that’s acceptable but when your told “NO” to sticking your hand
    inside someone then that is assault and or rape.

    These people have the God mind syndrome where they think they can impose
    their will and or say they are helping you and when they step out of line
    doing so they want to deny and cover it up.

  25. Mr. Simechak’s account of things tonight.

    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 12, 2017
    Time: 9:25 PM MT

    It’s more apt to ask “what ARE they complying with?”

    I have no information more current then the last DHR ISP,
    and I don’t even know the exact date of that off the top
    of my head, but Mr. Holm can be heard in that recording
    emphatically refusing to do anything at all (and justifying
    that stance by talking about kidnapping, God’s law, the god
    mind, etc).

    He can also be overheard bragging to someone afterward about
    how “they missed a good show” while congratulating himself
    for the zingers (one-liners) that he delivered to the DHR workers.

    If they have changed their position since then, I am not aware
    of it. From my conversations with Mr. holm, 99% of which have
    all been public in these comment sections, They seem to be
    doubling down on their insistence to not comply.

    I hope I am factually incorrect about that.

    And Kathryn – “…considering that their child was never at risk?”
    In the opinion of whom? Obviously the Holms think their child was
    never at risk. But obviously the hospital and DHR think the child
    was at risk. The hospital found it compelling to follow the law
    with respect to the fact that it is mandatory for them to report
    to the authorities any child they believe to be at risk. Then DHR
    came out, did their initial investigation and found the hospital’s
    information to be both credible and compelling enough to effectuate
    a summary removal of a child from its parents.

    You probably wouldn’t know it by reading posts in a group like this,
    but summary removal is the rarest action that the department takes.
    The amount of paperwork and court preparation, testimony, hearings,
    etc that they know they will have to undergo as a result of that
    decision, just isn’t worth it unless the worker genuinely believes
    it to be necessary.

    Despite what this group would have you believe, DHR loathes taking
    babies away summarily, if for no other reason then how much of a
    royal pain in the ass it is.

  26. Perhaps to close out today’s consideration, Matthew sums things up
    pretty well with this analysis. Due to privacy and secrecy issues,
    any such analysis involves a considerable amount of speculation.

    From: Matthew Simechak
    Date: January 12, 2017
    Time: 10:25 PM MT

    I can’t answer that with any confidence that I am giving you a
    comprehensively correct answer, but all of the following have
    been mentioned in this forum a number of times.

    Note: I’m going to state all of these factors, and I concede
    that most of them are not illegal, even under Alabama law, but
    add them all together, and mix them in with a dash of shelter
    concerns, and you have a disastrous cocktail:

    1. Refused all vaccinations and medications for child.
    2. Refused birth certificate related stuff.
    3. Refused social security stuff.
    4. Asked to speak to hospital social worker in an effort
    to make sure that departure from hospital would be smooth,
    and that they would receive no hassle for their nomadic
    lifestyle (if this interaction actually occurred, this was
    probably the biggest mistake).
    5. Hospital staff supposedly googled their names, erroneously
    concluded that they were fugitives/felons from another state
    with similar, but different names, and included this info in
    initial report to DHR. (Which DHR quickly debunked)
    6. Presumably told responding DHR caseworker about shelter
    plans for baby (or lack thereof).

    Regardless of which of the foregoing factors were truly involved
    in the report to DHR or not, the idea of continuing a truly
    nomadic lifestyle, alone, with a newborn baby was probably the
    the biggest factor. The fact that Alabama neglect law require
    a reasonable shelter (whatever that means is up for debate),
    and that DHR may have heard, regardless of what was actually
    said, “we have no plan to provide any particular type of shelter
    for our child”, might have alone led to them seeking summary

    But add in all the above stuff to pile on to the one semi-legit
    thing, and I can see how it gets way blown out of proportion,
    really fast.

    Then couple all that with kooky sounding conspiracy theory and
    sovereign-citizen style talk, on top of overt expressions of
    non-compliance, and you have a Petri dish of child removal brewing.

    That’s my best interpretation, having never read a single document
    associate with this case.

    • And the child’s father just posted this which, I opine, is another
      fine demonstration that the parents are not primarily interested
      in the return of the child.

      From: Christian Holm
      Date: January 12, 2017
      Time: 10:35 PM MT

      Are we allowed to go look at their houses?
      Equality of law Matthew.

      How many more rights need to be violated in this process just
      to have our family back together when we have done nothing wrong?

      Rights have been violated since we were in labor, and now rights
      continue to be violated every single day, not just on us but on
      our son.

      No one from the state chooses to recognize they are violating our
      sons basic inalienable rights to happiness and freedom daily.

      They ignore this.

      And they want to violate our rights even more by invading our
      lives even more when we have done no wrong and no probable
      cause exists?

      This is not about fear of not having “good enough shelter” in
      the opinions of ungodly people while living in a camper.

      Our shelter we had before giving birth was good enough for God
      2000 years ago, therefore still good enough now.

      The point here is that whether we live in a camper, an apartment,
      a house share, a mansion, a castle, a yacht, all of it is
      irrelevant because by these state actors coming to our place of
      residence, once again our rights would be violated…

      and when does it end?

      It’s not as simple as them coming out and handing the baby over
      today. If it were it would’ve happened already. It would never end.

      All too many people are victims of these invasions only to never
      see their children again.

      When does it end?

      When will it ever end? Once you open that door, your rights as
      Americans and as parents are terminated because you have allowed

      How would you like to have your entire life analyzed, speculated
      on, watched with the threat of having your child taken all for what???

      Because of camping?

      That’s not how law works and that’s surely not how the constitution works.

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>