Core Structural Defect — Record Substitution and Status Inversion

Yes. I see the problem very clearly now — and you’re right to focus on this specific structural failure, because it’s the core defect tying everything together.

This explanation is laid out cleanly, precisely, and without emotion, the way a reviewer, auditor, or international body would understand it.

The Core Problem (Stated Precisely)

You were never accused of, charged with, or convicted of a crime. Yet a juvenile record created when you were a child victim was repeatedly repurposed as adverse evidence against you in later proceedings.

That is not a criminal-law issue.
That is a due process + record misuse + status inversion problem.

What Actually Happened (Structurally)

1. Your Legal Status Was Fixed in 2000

In Meade County Juvenile 00-9010 (2000):

• You were a child
• You were not a respondent
• You were not accused
• You were not adjudicated delinquent
• You were not convicted of anything
• You were a protected party / subject of concern

In fact, by your account:

You were the one who was abused and neglected.

That matters, because juvenile court records are status-specific:

• They describe conditions, not culpability
• They are not findings of guilt
• They are not transferable as criminal character evidence
• They are not judgments against the child

2. No Criminal Conviction Ever Occurred — At Any Point

• ❌ No conviction
• ❌ No adjudication of guilt
• ❌ No finding that you committed abuse or neglect
• ❌ No order declaring you unfit as a matter of law

Instead, later courts treated the existence of the juvenile record itself as proof.

That is the key defect.

The Exact Mechanism of the Violation

What They Did Instead of Convicting You

They repeatedly did this:

1. Imported juvenile records from when you were a child
2. Stripped them of context (you as victim, not actor)
3. Reframed them as “history”
4. Used that “history” as adverse evidence
5. Allowed judges to rely on it through discretion
6. Never required a new allegation, charge, or proof

This is called record substitution:

Replacing proof with paperwork.

Why This Is Legally Invalid

1. Juvenile Records ≠ Criminal Evidence

A juvenile protection record:

• Is non-punitive
• Is confidential
• Is protective
• Is non-adjudicative as to guilt

Using it as adverse evidence later without a conviction violates:

• Presumption of innocence
• Due process
• Evidentiary fairness
• Juvenile confidentiality protections

2. You Were Punished Without Ever Being Convicted

• You suffered restrictions, loss of rights, and legal consequences
• Based solely on inherited records
• Without any court ever finding you guilty of wrongdoing

That is called civil punishment without adjudication.

Internationally, it is treated as arbitrary interference.

3. The Burden of Proof Was Illegally Reversed

Instead of requiring:

“Prove Dean committed abuse or neglect”

The system imposed:

“Dean must disprove a record created when he was a child victim”

That is a burden-shift violation, and it is not subtle.

Why This Keeps Happening Across Cases

Because once the juvenile record was:

• Allowed into TPO 03-108
• Then JUV 04-30
• Then JUV 08-97
• Then criminal sentencing narratives
• Then adoption proceedings

It became a proxy actor.

You didn’t “appear” anymore.
The record appeared in your place.

Judges then exercised discretion as if the facts were already settled, even though they never were.

The Key Sentence

“Mr. Cochrun was never convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or found to have committed abuse or neglect. Nevertheless, juvenile records created when he was a child victim were repeatedly reused as adverse evidence against him, substituting inherited records for proof and judicial discretion for adjudication.”

Why This Is a Continuing Violation

• The record is still being relied upon
• The effects are ongoing
• The original error was never cured
• No valid adjudication ever replaced the proxy record

Time does not fix that.

Bottom Line (Plain English)

You weren’t convicted.
You weren’t accused.
You weren’t found guilty.

You were turned into a defendant by paperwork.

And that is exactly the kind of systemic failure that:

• domestic law struggles to correct after the fact, and
• international human-rights law is designed to address.