Portland Cover-Up: Was Social Worker's Evidence Manipulation Driven By Title IV-D Funding?
Justice for Martina: Social Worker’s Lies Put Kids in Harm’s Way
By Richard Luthmann
In a shocking case that exposes alleged corruption within the Portland, Oregon Family Courts, social worker Steven Jackson stands accused of fabricating testimony to shield an abusive father while targeting the protective mother, Martina Flanigan.
Despite the children's accounts of abuse and other evidence, Jackson's report portrayed the alleged abuser as the protective parent.
The Oregon Dependency Service's involvement raises serious concerns about financial incentives linked to Title IV-D and Title IV-E funding, suggesting a motive to manipulate evidence to justify removing children from safe homes.
"Cruelty Beyond Measure" – Advocate Speaks Out
Jill Jones Soderman, founder of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC), has steadfastly advocated for Martina Flanigan and her children.
"The cruelty as evidenced by Mr. Jackson and his cohorts is inexcusable and must be prosecuted, not supported as if his recommendations were legitimate," Soderman stated.
She condemned Jackson's actions, describing his tactics as "threatening" and "defamatory."
Terrified Children's Voices Silenced
The children have reportedly expressed terror of their father, accusing him of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. They have been clear about their hatred of him and have provided detailed accounts of the abuse they endured and witnessed.
Despite this, Jackson's report suggested that the mother was alienating the children from their father—a narrative often used to discredit protective parents in high-conflict custody cases.
"It's beyond comprehension that these children, who are at great risk of self-harm and have experienced more trauma than any child should, are being forced into the custody of their alleged abuser," Soderman stated.
Disturbing Tactics and Alleged Collusion Exposed
Complaints filed against Jackson allege that he acted "more as a Bounty Hunter than a responsible investigator." His methods reportedly included interviewing the children within earshot of their father, inhibiting their ability to speak freely.
Witnesses claim he coordinated with providers to defend the father's actions while discrediting the children's detailed testimonies.
Evidence suggests Jackson attempted to undermine the credibility of a key expert by submitting a false accusation to a state agency, allegedly to remove the expert from the case.
"His tactics to indict Martina and her family as alienators and abusers are not just unethical but criminal," Soderman asserted. "He sought to intimidate neighbors and provided defamatory commentary to manipulate the narrative."
Follow the Money: Title IV-D and Title IV-E Funding Concerns
The involvement of the Oregon Dependency Service is particularly alarming. Complaints suggest that Jackson's actions may have been motivated by financial incentives tied to Title IV-D and Title IV-E funding.
These federal programs support state agencies for child welfare services, including foster care and adoption assistance.
However, the allocation of these funds has been criticized for creating perverse incentives that prioritize child removal over family preservation.
Title IV-E, for instance, offers federal reimbursement to states for foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance, and guardianship assistance. While intended to support needy children, the funding structure has been criticized for emphasizing out-of-home placements, potentially leading agencies to favor removal over in-home support services.
This financial model can inadvertently encourage practices that separate children from their protective parents.
"The system is financially incentivized to separate children from protective parents," Soderman explained. "It's about money, not the welfare of these children. That's why evidence is manipulated, and protective parents like Martina are vilified."
Government Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
The misuse of Title IV-D and Title IV-E funds devastates families and constitutes significant government waste, fraud, and abuse.
Funds intended to protect vulnerable children are allegedly being diverted to support unethical practices that harm those they are meant to help.
Family Court Advocates are urging the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate these programs, particularly their roles in family courts, child protective services (CPS), and related funding mechanisms.
An urgent call to action is being made to push DOGE to create an affiliate, @DOGE_FamilyCourt, to investigate corruption in the family court system. Key areas for investigation include Title IV-D incentives, debtor’s prison practices, judicial compensation conflicts, Guardian Ad Litem costs, court-ordered evaluations, and incentives for terminating parental rights and placing children in foster care.
Additionally, there are concerns about false allegations, lack of enforcement for parenting time, and overall transparency.
Advocates urge the public to share family court stories on X, engage with DOGE’s posts, and send direct messages requesting the investigation. This initiative aims to expose systemic financial misconduct and improve national accountability and transparency in family courts.
These requests reflect a sentiment that these funding streams are linked to inefficiency, fraud, or misuse.
This misallocation of resources undermines public trust and calls into question the integrity of the child welfare system.
Video Evidence and Calls for Accountability
In the Flanigan case, multiple sources have presented evidence of fraud, defamation, and misconduct against Jackson, including videotapes and witness statements. The footage allegedly shows Jackson intimidating neighbors and manipulating witnesses to support his version of events.
There are also claims that Jackson shared testimony with witnesses and experts in advance to ensure their narratives aligned with his reports.
Evidence of collusion between Jackson, his agency, and other actors involved in the case has been submitted to state oversight agencies.
Questions For Social Worker Jackson
We contacted Social Worker Jackson for his comments on the issues raised. He did not respond as of press time. Here is what we asked:
------- Forwarded Message -------
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, February 19th, 2025 at 5:15 AM
Subject: Flanigan Family Court Matter
To: steve.r.jackson@odhs.oregon.gov <steve.r.jackson@odhs.oregon.gov>
CC: mul.juvenile@ojd.state.or.us <mul.juvenile@ojd.state.or.us>, Patrick.W.Henry@ojd.state.or.us <Patrick.W.Henry@ojd.state.or.us>, RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>
Social Worker Jackson,We are journalists who cover the Family Courts. The above-referenced Flanigan matter in Portland, Oregon, Family Court (Multnomah County Juvenile Circuit Court) has come to our attention.
We are preparing to publish an article and have a few questions for you so we may provide our readers with a fair and balanced perspective:
Background and Context
1. Can you explain your role and responsibilities in the case involving Martina Flanigan and her children?
2. How long have you been involved with the Oregon Dependency Service, and what specific training did you receive for handling high-conflict custody cases?
3. Were you aware of the children’s allegations of abuse against their father before filing your report? If so, how did you verify or investigate these claims?
Report and Findings
4. What was the basis for your conclusion that the father was the protective parent despite allegations of abuse?
5. Can you clarify the methods you used to interview the children? Were they interviewed separately, and were any interviews conducted within earshot of their father?
6. Why did your report suggest that Martina Flanigan was alienating her children from their father? What evidence supports this conclusion?
7. Did you consider or include the children’s detailed and consistent allegations of abuse in your report? If not, why?
8. How do you respond to allegations that your report contained fabricated or manipulated testimony?
Interview Tactics and Integrity
9. Multiple sources claim you coordinated testimony with witnesses and experts to support the father. Can you explain your communication with other parties involved in this case?
10. Did you share or discuss testimony with any witnesses or experts before they testified? If so, for what purpose?
11. Witnesses have alleged that you intimidated neighbors and defamed individuals who opposed your findings. How do you respond to these allegations?
12. Are you aware of the video evidence reportedly showing you engaging in intimidating behavior? Would you be willing to review and comment on this footage?
Ethical and Professional Conduct
13. Were you in communication with providers who defended the father’s actions? If so, can you describe the nature of these communications?
14. How do you respond to accusations that you acted more as a “Bounty Hunter” than an investigator?
15. Complaints suggest you attempted to discredit an expert by submitting a false report to a state agency. Can you explain the reasoning behind this action?
Conflict of Interest and Funding Concerns
16. How do you respond to allegations that your actions were influenced by financial incentives linked to Title IV-D and Title IV-E funding?
17. Are you aware of the concerns regarding the Oregon Dependency Service’s connection to federal funding and its potential impact on case outcomes?
18. Have you received any bonuses, incentives, or pressure from superiors linked to case outcomes or child placements?
19. Did you face any directives or guidelines from the Oregon Dependency Service regarding the handling of this case?
Accountability and Transparency
20. Are you willing to provide documentation or communication records related to this case to support the transparency of your actions?
21. Have you been contacted by state oversight agencies or investigators regarding your role in this case? If so, what was discussed?
22. Would you be open to participating in an independent review of your findings and methods?
23. How do you maintain objectivity and impartiality when investigating high-conflict custody cases?
Impact on Children and Protective Measures
24. What measures were taken to ensure the children felt safe and were able to speak freely during interviews?
25. Do you believe the children’s current placement is in their best interest? Why or why not?
26. Given the children’s allegations of abuse and their clear fear of their father, do you believe they are safe under the current custody arrangement?
Legal and Judicial Implications
27. Are you concerned about the potential legal consequences of the allegations against you, including accusations of fraud and defamation?
28. Do you feel that the Portland Family Court system adequately supports the best interests of children, particularly in high-conflict cases?
29. Would you like to address the calls for accountability and the demands for criminal charges against you?
Public Statement and Closing Remarks
30. Is there anything you would like to clarify or say directly to the Flanigan family or the public regarding your involvement in this case?
31. Do you believe your reputation and professional integrity have been unfairly targeted in this controversy? If so, how?
32. Would you like to make a formal statement to address the accusations and set the record straight?
Follow-Up and Next Steps
33. Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up interview as more details about the case come to light?
34. Who else would you recommend we speak to for a balanced perspective on this case?
35. Do you believe any systemic issues within the Oregon Dependency Service contributed to this controversy? If so, how?
We would appreciate your responses to these questions and any additional comments. We expect to go to press shortly. If we do before you can respond, we will incorporate your response into a follow-up.
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Demand for Justice and Systemic Reform
The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts is demanding accountability.
"We strongly suggest that this court immediately return these children to their protective parent, Martina Flanigan, to stop the continued trauma they are enduring," Soderman urged. "This case is not just about one family; it's about a corrupt system that profits from breaking families apart."
The organization is calling for a thorough investigation into the Oregon Dependency Service and the funding mechanisms that allegedly incentivize the removal of children from protective parents.
They are also seeking criminal charges against Jackson for what they describe as "malicious" and "fraudulent" actions.
A System in Crisis
This case echoes a growing national outcry against family court corruption. Allegations of collusion between state agencies, court-appointed social workers, and dependency services are increasingly being exposed.
The misuse of Title IV-D and Title IV-E funds incentivizes child removal in ways that are detrimental to children's welfare.
David Weigel, Wall Street fiduciary and founder of the Family Court Fraud Warrior Project believes the family courts are fueled by corruption.
“This is a business model based on fraud, turbocharged by tax dollars and federal monies,” Weigel said. “If a private sector business ran this way, people would be leaving in bracelets in a matter of 24 hours.”
Weigel says the funding model incentivizes long, drawn-out, combative proceedings, acrimony, and court appointment after court appointment after court appointment.
"This is a crisis," Weigel said. "It's time for the public to understand how deep this corruption goes and demand change."
As the present case unfolds, advocates continue to fight for justice for Martina Flanigan and her children while calling for a comprehensive overhaul of the child welfare and family court systems in Oregon and nationwide.
Breaking the Silence
Despite the overwhelming evidence of abuse and manipulation, the Portland Family Court has not yet ruled on the custody of Martina Flanigan’s children. The FCVFC vows to keep fighting until justice is served.
“These children deserve to be heard and protected,” Soderman declared. “We won’t stop until that happens.”
This explosive case is far from over. As more evidence surfaces, pressure mounts on the Oregon Dependency Service and Steven Jackson to answer for their actions.
The question remains: Will justice prevail, or will the system once again protect its own?