What Can Your Social Worker Do For You?

She Can Lie About Your Violent Criminal History

What's a girl to do?

What's a Riverside County social worker to do when she suddenly finds herself in the company of a man who seems to have nothing, yet she feels strangely drawn to him?

In March, 2004, Jack Ray was an unemployed violent felon who lived with his disgraced mother, was estranged from his own father and was thousands of dollars behind in court-ordered child support payments.

It turns out, if you live in Riverside County, CA, simply crying about your self-inflicted misery on the shoulder of one of the County's dangerously stupid social workers can change your fortunes seemingly over night.  Well, crying, and lying extensively to blame your victim for your totally foreseeable consequences.  Hell, if the social worker is particularly gullible she can get you on your way to having the victim of your crimes pay child support to you!

This is when Riverside County social worker Teresa Solomon-Billings fell in love with her darling Jack.

After years of harassing his son's mother and refusing to provide child support or health coverage Jack decided to 'man up' and 'do what was in his son's best interests.'  He did what he does best:  He lied and blamed others:

Cover Sheet of  Teresa Solomon-Billing's taxpayer-subsidized Re-Writing of History for Jack Ray

Solomon-Billings' Report - Page 21
Re-Writing History

Line 8:  "...exceedingly diligent..."  
I'm not sure Jack or Teresa Solomon-Billings actually know the meaning of the word, 'Diligent.'
Refusing to provide financial support and health coverage for one's child isn't consistent with "diligent" as used in this context.
Choosing to allow one's driver's license to be suspended due to non-payment of court-ordered Child Support -- and consequently choosing to forego visitation with one's child due to the inability to drive legally -- is not consistent with "diligent" as used in this context.

And since Riverside County Social Services never made any discernible effort to independently verify Jack's outrageous claims blaming their victim for Jack and Sherry's hardships, I don't think anyone at DPSS is familiar with the term.

_______________


Beginning at Line 23 of Page 22 Jack Ray adds another outrageous element to his ridiculous story that a competent investigator could have exposed with little effort.  While again Jack was not accepting responsibility for his criminal history, he went a step further and found a way to blame the victim for his mother's admitted participation int the 1993 abduction while on duty with the Los Angeles Police Department.  In September, 1993, Jack's mother Sherry M. Ray (#23572) was a police officer employed by the LAPD.  After it was suspected that Sherry had assisted her son Jack with the commission of felony Child Abduction the Department initiated internal review of the conduct of their officer.   This process is called a 'Board of Rights Hearing.'  The cover of the transcripts for Volume II of disgraced officer Sherry Ray's Board of Rights Hearing looks like this (more on the LAPD Board of Rights Hearing later):

Jack really outdid himself with that final paragraph on Page 24 (lines 19 - 27).  It merits closer review for its brilliance.  

First, Solomon-Billings notes that was Jack "was tearful throughout our interview with him."

This 'tearfulness' turns out to be pretty important in the Riverside County social worker world.

As in this case, when a violent criminal is 'tearful' while he is lying about his violent, hateful history and how he is a victim of his own 'mistakes,' then that apparently indicates sincerity and eliminates the need for any subsequent fact-checking.

However, once the criminal establishes his ground as the County's preferred cryer, no one else can show emotion without being subjected to Social Worker Wrath and criticism for unresolved issues relating to their deceased parents (refer to Ben Slagter's April 8, 2004, report for an example of the derision social workers are willing to spew at those who have inconvenienced Jack Ray).

Second, and quite importantly, Jack pretends to show remorse for committing a hateful act of child abduction while simultaneously minimizing his culpability and suggesting it was just a "vacation."  Solomon-Billings is an astute "investigator."  So when Jack lies about a hateful series of crimes that included a violent assault she dutifully told the Court exactly what Jack wanted the Court to hear...  uncluttered by any unpleasantries like corroboration as the product of due diligence.  Read line 20 again:  Beating a woman up, violating a court order, abducting a child and fleeing the state to avoid arrest for the assault was obligingly reduced to merely a "mistake" and a "vacation" by the obedient Teresa Solomon-Billings.  One has to wonder...  Was Jack really "tearful," or was he laughing that Solomon-Billings was stupid enough to believe his outrageous lies?  It would've taken a competent investigator only a phone call to run a "rap sheet" and reveal the conviction for the assault.

Thirdly, Line 21:  "He said since that time, he has done everything right."

Jack forgot to tell his bestie Teresa that in 1994 he refused to submit to a Evidence Code Section 730 Psychological Evaluation that had been ordered by the Orange County Superior Court.  And then there's the relatively minor matter that Jack had refused to provide minimal court-ordered child support for his son (as well as not provided health or dental coverage).  Or the fact that he didn't exercise visitation from March, 2001, through September, 2002, apparently because his California Driver's License had been suspended for failure to pay child support.

Fourth, Line Line 22 and Line 23:  "...and since 1997 and has worked as a handyman to support his son the best he can."

Records from Orange County Child Support Services would dispel this myth quickly, if only Solomon-Billings or any of the subsequent "investigators" from Riverside County DPSS had actually been interested in the child's "best interests" and protecting him from an unemployed violent felon.  Clearly, they were not interested in finding the truth.  Instead, they just had a narrative and looked for ways to embellish and support their preferred conclusions.

Page 24 concludes with this masterpiece:  "Mr. Ray said that whenever professionals get involved, such as Family Law Court, school personnel, law enforcement, or CPS, they appear to be very sympathetic to his cause until they talk to the stepfather.  So with this statement Jack informs Solomon-Billings that there are years' worth of prior investigations from several independent different agencies.  He then tells her that they actually engaged in responsible investigation and the outcome was not to Jack's liking.  Solomon-Billings knows a good conspiracy when a criminal describes one, so as outlandish as Jack's claim was he had a gullible audience in Teresa Solomon-Billings.  Anything is possible -- even this apparent conspiracy -- because, after all, Jack was crying when he said it.

The image above is Page 447 of Volume II of the transcripts from the Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights Hearing investigating Sherry Ray's involvement in her son Jack Ray's 1993 commission of felony Child Abduction.

At Page 447, Line 9, the Department is summarizing their case against Sherry.  It reads:

"As to Count 4, the documentation provided via RID supports Sherry Ray's plea of guilty to the charge of improperly accessing the Department computer system for personal use."  Physical evidence in the form of documentation, as well as Sherry's plea of Guilty.

To refresh your memory:  In Teresa Solomon-Billings' report, Page 22, Line 26, through Page 23, Line 6, Jack blamed his child's mother for the unfortunate financial problems Sherry Ray experienced following her involvement in the 1993 Child Abduction.  It was the victim who supposedly implicated paternal grandmother Sherry Ray as an accomplice.  It was exclusively the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray was arrested.  It was exclusive the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray was placed on an extended unpaid administrative leave.  It was exclusively the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray could not pay her bills and went bankrupt.

I wonder if Teresa Solomon-Billings cares that disgraced LAPD officer Sherry Ray actually pled guilty to one of the four charges of misconduct that resulted in her 44-day unpaid administrative leave.  And was found guilty of two others?  Would that change her lofty opinion of Jack?

That paints a different picture of both Sherry and Jack, and a competent investigator would've quickly realized neither of them had any credibility.

Teresa Solomon-Billings' report, Page 23, Line 9:  "...vindictive..."

Jack told "investigator" Solomon-Billings that the victim and her husband were "vindictive."

Jack beat up a woman, violated a Court Order, abducted her child, refused to support the child, and harassed the woman's family incessantly for years in retaliation for being arrested and prosecuted.  His documented pattern of behavior from 1992 until 2004 is extraordinarily inconsistent with what a reasonable person would expect from someone claiming to be a concerned parent.

Does Teresa Solomon-Billings even know the meaning of the word vindictive?

One more significant element from Teresa Solomon-Billings' gushing celebration of the great parenting of which Jack Ray is the personification:

The child in question was 13 months old at the time of the September, 1993, abduction.  Therefore it stands to reason the child would have no independent recollection of the events over 10 years later.  But that didn't stop Solomon-Billings from obtaining a statement to corroborate Jack's revisionist history from the child Jack hadn't supported for years:

Solomon-Billings' report, Page 20, Line 17 through Line 24:

"(Child) said that his father was charged with kidnapping a long time ago, and that his mother always brings that up in Court.  I asked (child) if it was true that his father had kidnapped him, and he said that it was.  He said that his father thought his mother was a bad mother and took him away from her for three months  He said that his father was planning to return to California and turn himself in when he learned that he was wanted  by the police, but he got caught before he had a chance to do so.  He said that his father was pulled over for a routine traffic ticket, and they found out that he was wanted for kidnapping and he was arrested.

Start with Line 17:  "..his mother always brings that up..."

Since the child -- by law -- was never present in the court room when Jack was repeatedly harassing the child's mother, how could he know something like that?  He had to have been taught or coached to say something like that so demeaning to his mother.  Is it reasonable to assume the mother taught him this?  Or is it far more likely the child's father discussed the proceedings and presented the issues in such a self-serving vein?

Line 19:  "...his father thought his mother was a bad mother..."

This is prima facie evidence of Parental Alienation:

"What are they? They are parents that seek to damage, destroy, deconstruct or even completely end their child’s relationship with their (former) spouse. In a nutshell, PAS is a syndrome caused by a specific type of abuse whereby one parent seeks revenge upon another, and will stop at nothing, to get that revenge. They will manipulate and abuse their children and exploit and lie to their children, family members, police, lawyers and the court system to effect that revenge."

Not that Solomon-Billings was listening.