When Billy “Will” Frazier IV filed his first federal RICO lawsuit, it wasn’t about water. It was about retaliation, housing games, and courts more focused on procedure than protection.
But during that fight, something bigger came to the surface — signs of long-term contamination that no one had warned his household about. As Will pushed forward, the city continued insisting the water was “safe,” even as his filings documented problems that couldn’t be ignored.
Then, almost unbelievably, Cedar Rapids was celebrated on TV for having “the best tasting tap water in Iowa,” courtesy of the Iowa Section of the national American Water Works Association (AWWA).
At the same time, Will was filing lead-exposure emergencies, identifying galvanized lead service lines, and uncovering chemical hazards inside the very homes tied to his housing case.
This is how a retaliation lawsuit became the foundation for Watch the Water in Cedar Rapids.
1. “Two hours to fill the tub”
In a phone call recorded for this story, Will starts at the beginning:
“I moved in in 2017, discovered that something’s wrong with the pipes because the water was taking so long to come out of the tub. It’d take two hours to fill enough water to bathe my baby. So I had to pre-plan every night to bathe my baby… for three years.”
From 2017 to 2020, he says he raised the issue repeatedly:
To the landlords
To housing authorities and Section 8
To the city
But “nobody did anything about it.”
Finally, he decided to fix it himself.
2. Cutting open the floor
“Eventually in 2020, I decided, let me figure out how to do plumbing… I cut the floor up and the drywall and replace a four-foot galvanized lead pipe that was so corroded you could tell why the water wouldn’t come through.”
The inside of the pipe, he says, had narrowed from roughly half an inch in diameter down to a fraction of that — choked by corrosion and buildup. Once he replaced it, the water pressure normalized.
No inspection. No follow-up. No curiosity from the people who were supposed to keep low-income families safe.
“Nobody did anything about it, didn’t care. My water was running good. I was happy. I didn’t say anything else.”
For a while, the story could have ended there.
It didn’t.
3. Street work, a broken washer, and metal in the valves
Two or three years later, Will says, the city came back—this time outside.
“The city decides to disguise and install sidewalks in front of my house so they could tear out their portion of galvanized pipe to cover up what was going on… They couldn’t fix it knowingly because I wasn’t supposed to be in the house on Section 8 if they weren’t providing clean drinking water.”
Shortly after that work wrapped up, he says, the main water line in the street burst right in front of the house.
“When that happens, the water inlet valves to my washer clog up. So it breaks my washer… I took out the water valves, where the water lines come into the back of the washer, and there’s all type of metal contaminants and sediment inside the valves from the city disturbing the galvanized lead pipes.”
According to Will, the landlords were never forced to replace their side of the galvanized lines. The disturbance sent whatever was sitting in those pipes straight into his appliances—and his family’s water.
4. From RICO to lis pendens — and then the lead letters
By 2025, the legal war had escalated.
Will had already filed a federal RICO case and a separate housing suit. In the housing case, he recorded retaliation, discrimination, and attempts to evict him while he was raising health and disability concerns for his family.
He then filed lis pendens (notices/liens) on the rental property and a neighboring property owned by the same landlords—putting buyers and banks on notice that the homes were tied up in litigation.
“After I do that, the city sends out mass notices of lead—possibly lead, GRR—to everybody’s residences that have lead in their pipes. Mine and my neighbor’s was one of them.”
Those notices are at the heart of his filings. In a supplemental federal notice, Will and co-plaintiff Jean Goodfellow tell the court their residence contains galvanized lead service lines, confirmed through public documentation, city notices, and media reports. They also state a disabled child with an IEP and an infant have been consuming this water for years.
To Will, the timing was no coincidence.
5. GRR vs “possibly lead”: alleged misclassification
Under federal rules, homes with galvanized lines that were ever downstream of lead can be classified as GRR – “galvanized replacement required.”
“The federal law says they’re supposed to label my house and Jean’s house as GRR, galvanized replacement required. They hid it and disguised it as ‘possibly lead unknown’ to try to throw me and her off, because we’re in a lawsuit we could just amend and change to a water lead-contamination lawsuit too.”
In other words, Will alleges the city:
Knew these homes should be tagged as requiring replacement
Instead used a softer “possibly lead / unknown” classification
All while he and his neighbor were active plaintiffs in housing litigation
In his filings, he frames this as concealment, misclassification, and failure to warn, contributing to what he calls a “life-threatening lead-exposure emergency” for disabled tenants and children.
6. The Media Split-Screen: What the Public Was Told vs. What Was Really Happening — And the Numbers No One Mentioned
While Will was living through years of low pressure, metal debris in appliances, corroded galvanized pipes, and documented lead hazards, the public was being shown a very different story about Cedar Rapids’ drinking water — one built on selective reporting, reassuring headlines, and an award from a national water association that did not account for safety at all.
To understand the disconnect, it helps to look at the numbers.
Across Iowa, a 2025 statewide survey found that only about 4% of known service lines were confirmed as lead. Nationally, the EPA estimates roughly 9.2 million lead service lines remain in use, with many utilities still uncertain about the full extent of their inventories.
But Cedar Rapids was not in the average range. A city analysis showed that up to 17% of Cedar Rapids water service lines could contain lead — more than four times the state average and significantly higher than typical national city-level estimates.
That alone should have resulted in aggressive transparency and immediate public notification. Instead, residents got something else entirely.
In November 2024, KCRG aired a statewide story saying thousands of Iowans were receiving lead notifications. The broadcast even displayed a graphic stating:
“In Cedar Rapids: approx. 7,800 homes received a letter.”
Yet Will never received one. His neighbor never received one. The families now documented in federal filings — with ADA-protected children consuming contaminated water — received nothing in 2024.
Which raises a simple question: If 7,800 homes received letters, why were the ones with the clearest hazards left out?
Months later, in June 2025, The Gazette reassured the public that Cedar Rapids’ water was “safe” during nitrate spikes in the Cedar River. This came at the same time Will was recording metal sediment in his washer valves, documenting corroded galvanized service lines, and filing federal emergency notices describing a “life-threatening lead exposure” hazard inside the home.
None of that made it into the Gazette’s reassurance narrative.
Then in October 2025, KCRG ran a polished feature celebrating Cedar Rapids for winning the “Best Tasting Tap Water in Iowa” award. The honor came from the Iowa Section of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) — which is the Iowa chapter of the national AWWA, the same organization currently suing the EPA to block mandatory nationwide lead-pipe replacement rules.
The public was never told that the “best tasting water” award had nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with lead, and nothing to do with nitrate contamination. AWWA’s taste tests are based on appearance, odor, aftertaste, and mouthfeel — not the presence of neurotoxic metals.
Meanwhile, Cedar Rapids had up to 17% lead-suspect service lines, and Will documented physical evidence of contamination in court.
And then, in November 2025, when KCRG did report on lead-pipe concerns again, it centered the story entirely on Iowa City, despite Cedar Rapids issuing its own belated lead notices only weeks earlier — and despite Cedar Rapids being the city where contamination was part of an active courtroom record.
The message presented to the public was simple and reassuring. The message residents like Will received was silence.
This selective coverage, contradictory messaging, and award-driven optics created the split-screen that defined Cedar Rapids’ water narrative. It’s why Will said during the recorded call:
“It’s just optics. Fraud to trick the public.”
And he wasn’t wrong. Cedar Rapids’ lead burden was significantly higher than the state average. The city celebrated a taste award the same month residents were filing emergency lead-exposure notices. And media coverage consistently directed attention away from where the crisis was actually unfolding.
This gap between lived reality and public narrative is what transformed Will’s housing retaliation case into something much larger — the seed that grew into Watch the Water in Cedar Rapids.
7. Fighting eviction while escalating to federal courts
While all of this was unfolding, Will says, the landlords pushed a forcible entry and detainer (eviction) case, even as his housing suit contained pending restraining orders, injunctions, and protective orders related to disability status and environmental hazards.
On the call, he describes a mix of legal maneuvering and survival:
Filing emergency supplements describing lead-exposure as a federal life-threatening emergency
Documenting alleged retaliation, yellow-tagged meter access, and city entry
Tracking broken appliances and corrosion as physical evidence
Watching landlords change lawyers mid-case and “jump ship”
Catching procedural defects and deadlines in the eviction attempt
In late November 2025, he escalated the evidence to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, tying the water issues into his broader RICO narrative.
“My 8th Circuit Court of Appeals paperwork has been delivered. It’s in the mailroom… Because my filings hit the court today, I’m now protected under 18 U.S. Code 1512 and 1513. Any retaliation, court manipulation from anybody legally becomes federal witness retaliation. I am a federal whistleblower that’s protected now.”
Whether a court will ultimately agree with every legal interpretation remains to be seen. But the paper trail is undeniable: federal filings, emergency notices, ADA enforcement references, and documented exhibits placing Cedar Rapids’ water issues directly into the judicial record.
8. “I’m 18–24 months ahead”
“No pro se litigant in any of the lead litigation history has ever filed this fast, has ever cross-connected this many cases, ADA notices, sworn affidavits, and federal escalations before eviction even reaches a hearing. We’re 18 to 24 months ahead of the typical timeline.”
Whether that timeline comparison proves accurate or not, it captures where Will stands:
Not just a tenant
Not just a housing defendant
But a documented whistleblower who connected housing retaliation, disability protection, and water contamination in the same record—before the public narrative caught up.
9. Why this matters beyond one family
In the notice titled “Notice of Federal Intervention & Supplemental Evidence,” Will and Jean frame their case as more than a local dispute. They identify:
Public-health danger – lead/metal contamination affecting children and tenants
Infrastructure failure – galvanized line breaks, corrosion, city notices
Conflicting public statements – “safe water” and “best tasting tap water” vs. physical evidence
Retaliation and intimidation – eviction attempts and procedural interference while these issues are under review
They explicitly ask the court to take judicial notice of media exhibits (The Gazette and KCRG water stories) and to recognize a pattern of misrepresentation, concealment, and negligence.
Separate filings classify the situation as a “life-threatening lead-exposure emergency” affecting ADA-protected individuals and minors, invoking the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act and HUD lead-safe housing rules.
Whether judges move quickly or slowly, whether special masters are eventually brought in or not, one thing is already true:
Cedar Rapids’ water issues are now permanently embedded in multiple court records.
A Timeline of Eviction, Federal Escalation, and Municipal Activity
Pre-Eviction Litigation Context (December 2025)
By late 2025, plaintiff Billy Dwayne Frazier IV was already engaged in active litigation against landlords and the City of Cedar Rapids, alleging housing retaliation, discrimination, and habitability violations. Court filings from December 2025 reflect an adversarial posture, including a rebuttal challenging the City’s characterization of its actions as routine and disputing federal regulatory classifications related to water infrastructure.
“Once litigation is pending, best practices — and basic fairness — require written communication, coordination through counsel, and avoidance of unannounced physical presence at a litigant’s home.” — Court filing, December 2025
The December filing establishes that the City was already on notice that the plaintiffs were active litigants asserting retaliation and discrimination claims, and that the City itself was a named defendant. This context predates all events that followed.
Eviction and Immediate Federal Escalation (January 2, 2026)
Less than three weeks later, on January 2, 2026, the plaintiffs were evicted from the Oakland Road NE properties at issue. The eviction occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. That same day, a Notice of Subsequent Material Events was filed with the court, documenting the displacement and advising that federal agencies had already become involved.
“I was evicted at 11:00 a.m. I was gone before they came. Forty-five minutes later, HUD called me.” — Will Frazier
According to the filing, within roughly 45 minutes of the eviction, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contacted the plaintiff, acknowledged prior non-response to complaints, and confirmed that the matter had been escalated through the HUD Office of Inspector General before being referred for fair-housing review. The notice was submitted for record-preservation purposes and did not seek immediate relief.
“They apologized for not returning my calls — months of calls — and told me my file had already gone through HUD OIG in Washington.” — Will Frazier
Post-Eviction Municipal Excavation
In the weeks that followed, municipal excavation and construction activity occurred at and around the same Oakland Road properties. Photographic exhibits filed with the court depict trenching, ground disturbance, and utility-related work directly adjacent to the residences.
“They started excavating the street in front of the properties named in the lawsuit.” — Will Frazier
A supporting affidavit explains that the documentation was submitted after observing the activity without prior notice, out of concern that physical evidence relevant to the litigation — such as service lines or soil conditions — could be altered or rendered unavailable.
“I had not received prior notice that excavation or replacement work would be conducted, nor that potentially relevant physical evidence would be altered.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
City of Cedar Rapids Public Advisory and Response
Shortly thereafter, the City of Cedar Rapids issued a public Precautionary Boil Advisory affecting the same block of Oakland Road NE, citing a ruptured water main and loss of pressure that created potential for contamination. Screenshots of the City’s official statements and public responses were preserved and filed in the court record.
“A rupture in a water main caused a loss of pressure, creating potential for bacterial contamination.” — City of Cedar Rapids public advisory
A sworn affidavit authenticated the advisory as a true and accurate copy of the City’s public notice, expressly stating that it was submitted for documentation purposes only and without asserting causation or liability.
“This exhibit is submitted for the limited purpose of documenting the City’s public advisory, including timing and scope, without asserting fault or intent.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
Historical Water Incidents and Habitability Context
Court filings also include earlier documentation of water-related incidents in the area.
Supplemental materials filed prior to the eviction document pre-existing water infrastructure concerns and recurring conditions affecting the neighborhood.
Video exhibits filed in November 2025 show street-level water intrusion near residential properties, providing visual confirmation of those conditions.
“This didn’t start in January. The water issues were already there.” — Will Frazier
These materials predate the eviction and are included as contextual evidence rather than causal proof.
Why the Timeline Matters
Taken together, the filings establish a clear chronology: active litigation and regulatory disputes preceded the eviction; the eviction was followed almost immediately by federal agency escalation; and municipal infrastructure activity and public advisories occurred soon after, prompting multiple evidence-preservation submissions.
“I’m not using the courts as a microphone. I’m using them to preserve the record.” — Will Frazier
Each filing was entered with limited-purpose language, emphasizing documentation, notice, and preservation rather than conclusions. This record now forms the factual basis for ongoing housing, water, and civil-rights proceedings under review in both state and federal forums.
The latest filing in Frazier v. Jones does not arise from speculation or hindsight. It arises from a federally mandated change that took effect at the end of 2024.
Under updated EPA Lead and Copper Rule requirements, municipalities were required to complete and publicly maintain more accurate service line inventories, including how “unknown” lines are classified for replacement planning. Once those standards were applied, Cedar Rapids’ long-standing public representations about its water system began to shift — quickly and materially.
“This isn’t speculation. Almost all of the evidence I’m using comes straight from their own documents — the City, housing authorities, state agencies, and federal law. I’m not creating it. I’m producing it.” — Will Frazier
How the RICO Claim Reached the Water Issue
Civil RICO is not meant to capture isolated errors. It addresses patterns of conduct, particularly where institutions respond defensively once compliance obligations tighten.
In recent federal filings, Frazier notified the court that newly discovered evidence related to water infrastructure and public safety — evidence required to exist under updated federal rules — had been transmitted prior to judgment but not considered. He further alleges that retaliatory actions escalated after he began requesting records tied to that required data.
RICO does not require proof of intent at the outset. It requires showing repeated conduct, notice, contradiction, and harm tied to coordinated behavior. That is why water infrastructure data became relevant to the case — not as a separate environmental lawsuit, but as context for how systems respond when compliance becomes unavoidable.
“This isn’t about one mistake. It’s about how institutions respond once compliance becomes unavoidable.” — Will Frazier
Why the “17 Percent” Figure Changed
Cedar Rapids Water Service Line Map (Current)
For years, Cedar Rapids publicly referenced an estimate of roughly 17 percent lead-related service lines. That figure existed in a regulatory environment where “unknown” classifications were common and not always treated as presumptive lead for planning purposes.
That changed.
Under EPA Lead and Copper Rule revisions finalized and enforced by late 2024, municipalities are now required to treat unknown service lines far more conservatively — effectively as presumptive lead until proven otherwise. This affects planning, disclosure, and replacement prioritization.
Once those standards are applied:
Large “unknown” areas no longer remain neutral
Many lines shift into galvanized requiring replacement or presumptive lead
Exposure appears more concentrated in older housing stock
“Seventeen percent was never the ceiling. Once the EPA required cities to apply the law correctly, the numbers changed.” — Will Frazier
This is not a retroactive accusation. It is the consequence of updated federal compliance requirements.
Cedar Rapids Map (Applying EPA Guidelines for Unknown Pipes)
What Happened After the Records Request
After formally requesting records explaining how Cedar Rapids was classifying service lines under the updated federal standards, Frazier did not receive documents.
Instead, the City placed a yellow door tag — not on his door, but on his neighbor’s.
The notice stated that the Water Department needed to repair or inspect the water meter. According to Frazier, the City later acknowledged the visit was connected to his records request.
“I asked for paperwork. I didn’t ask them to show up at someone’s house. And I didn’t ask them to inspect a water meter — because a water meter isn’t a service line.” — Will Frazier
A water meter is municipal equipment used for billing and readings. It is not a lead pipe and not a galvanized service line. Frazier argues that labeling the visit as a meter repair contradicts the stated purpose of verifying line classifications.
More significantly, the notice was left only on the door of a non-litigant neighbor, not the litigant who made the request. In active litigation — particularly where retaliation has already been alleged — selective contact with a vulnerable third party raises serious concerns.
“You don’t contact the weaker party next door and pretend it’s routine. That’s intimidation — and the paper trail proves it.” — Will Frazier
At this stage, Frazier is not required to prove motive. He is required to show notice, contradiction, and pattern — which he argues the documentation now reflects.
Why the Water Issue Fits the RICO Pattern
The door-tag incident does not stand alone. Frazier points to a consistent pattern that emerges once federal compliance tightened:
Risk classifications change only after scrutiny
Requests for records trigger physical actions instead of disclosures
Administrative framing is used to minimize urgency
Corrections occur under pressure, not proactively
In civil RICO analysis, pattern matters more than any single act. The same institutional behavior alleged in housing enforcement and court proceedings appears again in the City’s response to newly required water data.
What Is at Stake Now
Because the updated inventory requirements only took effect recently, the stakes are forward-looking.
Until service lines are accurately classified and replaced under current federal standards, entire categories of projects remain exposed:
• Downtown and riverfront redevelopment • Public-private construction initiatives • Casino-adjacent and infrastructure-heavy developments • Federal and state funding tied to environmental compliance
EPA funding, environmental justice reviews, and financing disclosures all rely on accurate, current inventories — not outdated classifications.
What Comes Next
Frazier has now formally notified federal courts and agencies that his RICO case has expanded to include newly required water infrastructure data, supported by municipal records and updated federal law.
The question is no longer whether Cedar Rapids has lead or galvanized service lines — that is a known issue nationwide. The question is how institutions responded once federal rules required greater accuracy, and whether actions taken after that point crossed into retaliation or obstruction.
On My Disassociation from the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and the Launch of Stone Soup for Justice
After an extensive period of prayer, reflection, and careful consideration, I must make a difficult and deeply serious announcement.
With a heavy heart, I am formally and fully ending my association—of any capacity—with the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and its founder, Francesca Amato.
I do not make this decision lightly. I have worked too hard, for too long, to elevate the voices of my family, Iowa families, and families across this country; to build constructive relationships with lawmakers; and to earn trust through careful, honest advocacy. I cannot allow my name, reputation, or work to be tied to conduct and representations that I believe are dishonest, exploitative, and fundamentally misaligned with the kind of reform our children deserve.
Ethical and Policy Concerns
My decision is rooted in both policy and ethics.
I have personally witnessed parents paying thousands of dollars for “services” that delivered little meaningful support or tangible outcomes. I have also observed what I consider to be cult-like dynamics within the organization—expectations of unquestioning loyalty to leadership, pressure to accept narratives that conflicted with facts, and hostility toward legitimate professional accountability.
In my view, this environment harms vulnerable families who are seeking help, not control.
Misrepresentation to Lawmakers
I am especially troubled by a pattern of mistruths and overstatements directed at legislators and the public.
I was informed that Senator Chuck Grassley’s office and other U.S. Senate offices “100% stand behind” the FJAA bill. I know firsthand that this is not accurate. I have worked directly with Senator Grassley’s staff and other congressional offices and have earned their respect by being precise, honest, and careful in what I represent.
While Senator Grassley stands firmly for accountability and transparency—and remains fully supportive of his constituents—his office does not support the FJAA bill. He has expressed concern that it blurs state and federal authority and creates confusion rather than clarity.
I cannot and will not attach my name to claims of congressional support that I know are untrue, nor to a 94-page bill that, in my judgment, overreaches, confuses jurisdictional boundaries, and risks undermining broader reform efforts.
Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct
I have observed a troubling pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior from Francesca Amato that I find incompatible with serious policy work.
This has included:
Speaking negatively about advocates behind their backs while presenting warmth to their faces
Creating unnecessary conflict between advocacy groups
Encouraging supporters to attack other advocates in her defense
Demanding public gratitude or deference
Responding to substantive policy concerns with personal attacks
When I raised legitimate concerns about state–federal boundaries and Title IV-E compliance, the response was not honest policy discussion but attacks on my character.
Most concerning, my private medical information and lawful medical treatment were weaponized in an attempt to discredit me. Given that Francesca Amato presents herself as an ADA advocate, I view this as a serious violation of medical privacy and disability rights.
I have also observed a broader lack of personal responsibility in routine matters, which further eroded my trust. These are not the hallmarks of accountable leadership.
Implausible Claims and False Hope
I was repeatedly presented with grandiose and implausible claims, including assertions of imminent executive orders, high-level meetings, promises to personally take me to meet President Trump because he was “about to sign” the FJAA, and statements that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reviewing the bill.
When such claims are made without evidence—and used to build loyalty, financial commitment, or hope from traumatized families—that crosses a line.
Survivors of system harm deserve transparency, realism, and integrity. Not fantasies.
For all of these reasons, I am formally and completely disassociating myself from:
The Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA)
Its current bill
Any claim that I support or endorse Francesca Amato’s strategies, representations, or leadership
Moving Forward: Stone Soup for Justice
I remain deeply committed to child welfare reform, sibling preservation, and enforcement of federal law—particularly Title IV-E—in a way that is honest, targeted, and workable.
Going forward, I will be focusing my efforts on Stone Soup for Justice, a new collaborative team and legislative vehicle grounded in truth, accountability, and cooperation. Stone Soup for Justice reflects our belief that real reform is built collectively—through transparency, shared responsibility, and rigorous policy work—not through control or misinformation.
I am honored to move forward with the advisement and support of Kathleen Arthur, a long-respected and credible voice in Congress on child welfare and federal funding. Together with Stone Soup for Justice, we are developing legislation tightly focused on Title IV-E requirements and enforcement.
Our work will center on:
Misuse of Title IV-E funds
Federal compliance standards states must meet to receive and retain funding
Wrongful removals and wrongful terminations of parental rights
Removals and terminations that resulted in injury or death
Family-court-forced separations
Failures to prioritize kinship placement and sibling preservation
Violations of reasonable-efforts requirements
Systemic practices that bypass federally mandated protections for parents and children
At the end of the day, my goal is to deliver the results and meaningful change families deserve—especially those who placed their trust elsewhere—through honest advocacy, precise lawmaking, and steadfast accountability.
My loyalty is, and always will be, to the children and families of Iowa and to families across this country seeking real, sustainable change.
I will not compromise that mission to remain aligned with conduct I cannot defend.
— Kristin Mitchell
Supporting Statements
Kathleen Arthur (Left)
“Children must come first. I have been working on fixing the Families First Act since it was passed. It simply did not have enough protections or oversight. It did not solve the funding problems. Change is slow; however, we are on the edge of making major change in child welfare. This team has clicked with members of Congress better than any I have ever seen. Congress is ready. The ground is fertile. The time to plant the seeds is now.”
Tasha Ulshafer (Left)
“I’m excited to start this new journey with the amazing new group I’m with. Moving forward with people who stand for truth and real action feels empowering. I was misled before by Francesca Amato, but that chapter is closed.”
Melissa Owens (Left)
“I am withdrawing my support and any association with the Family Justice and Accountability Act 2025 and its organizer after discovering serious constitutional issues with the bill and witnessing harmful, cult-like organizational behavior. My commitment to families navigating the family court and CPS systems remains unchanged. I will now be working with a new group, including Kristin Mitchell, Kathleen Arthur, and others at Stone Soup for Justice, to develop federal legislation that truly protects children and keeps them in loving homes. While this change may come as a surprise to many people I deeply care about, this new path reflects my dedication to finding real, ethical, and effective solutions for those who are suffering and seeking true resolution.”
