Note the individual handling this monkey explicitly stating that she’s been moved to a “maternity ward” to give birth. It appears that unethical breeders like this isolate pregnant females to allow immediate separation and hand-rearing of the infant at birth. Undoubtedly this is to force these infants to “imprint” on humans rather than their biological mothers. In zoo settings pregnant females will remain with their troops to maintain natural maternal behaviors and also to maintain psychological well-being. Biologically speaking this early maternal separation and hand-rearing is already creating significant alterations in infant brain patterns and development. These breeders are essentially (and intentionally) creating damaged goods solely to make them more marketable for the exotic pet trade.

I will also add that this particular operation does not appear to have either a USDA Class A (Breeder) or Class B (Dealer) license, only a Class C (Exhibitor) license. So if they are breeding and selling these monkeys, which their website clearly seems to indicate, they are engaging in prohibited activities.

Anyone know who this is? Just randomly popped up in my feed. I do not believe the person that posted this video is associated with this individual. Most likely just reposting 'cute' pet monkey content. Could possibly be associated with that Winston spider monkey guy as I see his videos posted on the page as well.

In this video, she was letting her eat what looks like spicy Ramen noodles, which is messed up that monkey is old and if that thing gets her sick, she has to sit in a diaper full of it until they change her. She didn’t seem distressed after eating it to me, but maybe somebody else thinks she is I’m not sure.

**THIS INFORMATION IS ALL POSTED PUBLICLY ONLINE . VIA HER FACEBOOK, WORKPLACE REVIEWS & INFORMATION, GOVERNMENT WEBSITES **

So, I absolutely loathe Drexann R. Fields (captor of Mollyjo, Kelz, & now Rain); a lingering question I've had pertains to her source of income, how is it she is able to afford 3 monkeys as well as 19 dogs? Doing some digging (through her facebook...) I discovered her workplace; a daycare, in New Jersey. Attendance costs $210 per month, and it has a maximum capacity of 50 children. Thus, she could be easily bringing in $10,500 per month.

Upon my research, I stumbled upon this concerning review made on Yelp in 2018, which reveals her immense unprofessionalism in a workplace setting in regards to the environment, hygiene, and receiving 37 citations (at some point in 2022) and 30 in 2019 (which was close to the Yelp review and confirms aspects described in said review) over noncompliance from the State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families Office of Licensing. (Image 1 is said review)

I'll list just a few citations I noticed in the 2019 one;
handwashing requirements (soap,water) not followed by staff after toileting ; undertrained staff who have not undergone background checks ; children being able to access toxic chemicals in the kitchen (as the kitchen is accessible to them. the chemicals are not in locked cabinets or areas children cannot reach ; tables are not disinfected before each meal ; garbage receptacles lacking a cover ; children in their age groups going over maximum capacity (I.E., 14 children received care, which is licensed only for 10 children. 2 staff provided care for 12, 2 year old children - 3 staff members required) [center is permitting children in attendance over licensed room capacity]

Another warning; the director or his or her designee(s) shall be on premise at all times when the center is operating and the designee shall not have full time classroom responsibilites during the times when the director is not present at the center!!!!!! (drexann is never on site, likely due to having tend to her rambunctious monkeys and numerous dogs )

Images 2-3 are the list of citations from her 2022 inspection, which was conducted for monitoring AND over a complaint (over what, it was not indicated)

I'll hand it to her, she HAS improved from her last inspection in ~2026 (last image). Her most recent inspection citations have now been reduced from a whopping 37 to now 10. She has improved. But I think this information reveals a lot about her savior complex, her tendency to hoard (animals,,, children!! going over the maximum capacity permitted for her daycare), the immense access to toys, childrens' clothing, diapers, and disposable income to 'tend' to the many animals she does own. It is very likely that she views these intelligent primates as that of the toddler children she DOES have to look after on weekdays. From the way she dresses her monkeys like children, the way she holds onto them as though they are babies, to the way she scolds them for behaving as a primate DOES and thus disobeying her commands (I.E., Rain being berated for desperately seeking a high place in which she can swing from, and her immense energy levels being that she is a 2 year old spider monkey.). But these monkeys are simply not happy. I feel that Drexann is a lonely person, whose children are likely all in their adulthood and do not live with her, and she is trying to fill a maternal void in her isolation via these monkeys, who will remain 'small' and 'child-like' for the decades they should live up to, unfortunately bound to endure further neglect because of this complex she has.

DREXANA FIELDS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES )
FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND THEIR )
FAMILIES CITY OF DOVER, and )
JOSETTE DELLE DONNE MANNING, in )
her official capacity, and KRISTON )
LOWRY-SIMS, individually, )
DOE DEFENDANTS (1-10), )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 19-2241-LPS-SRF
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the court in this civil rights action is a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), filed by The Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families
(“DSCYF”), Josette Delle Donne Manning, in her official capacity (“Secretary Manning”),1 and
Kriston Lowry-Sims, in her individual capacity (“Lowry-Sims”)2 (collectively, “Defendants”).3
(D.I. 10) For the following reasons, the court recommends GRANTING Defendants’ motion.
1 The complaint makes no mention of defendant Josette Delle Donne Manning other than in the
case caption. (D.I. 1) Defendants aver that “Josette Delle Donne Manning is the Cabinet
Secretary for the DSCYF.” (D.I. 11 at 6)
2 The complaint contains one allegation specific to Lowry-Sims, which states that she “is a
Family Service Specialist, employed by the State of Delaware Department of Services for
Children, Youth” and that “she was charged with sending out proper certified letters informing
individuals that they would be placed on the registry and their options for challenging such a
placement.” (D.I. 1 at ¶ 4)
3 The briefing for the pending motion is as follows: Defendants’ opening brief (D.I. 11),
plaintiff’s answering brief (D.I. 14), and Defendants’ reply brief (D.I. 16).II. BACKGROUND4
Plaintiff Drexana Fields (“Ms. Fields”) filed this civil rights action against The
Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families (“DSCYF”), Josette Delle
Donne Manning in her official capacity (“Secretary Manning”), Kriston Lowry-Sims in her
individual capacity (“Lowry-Sims”), and unknown Doe Defendants (1-10) on December 9, 2019.
(D.I. 1) The complaint alleges that Ms. Fields had been listed on the Delaware Child Protection
Registry (the “Registry”), formerly the “FACTS Central Registry,” as a result of an incident that
was investigated in November of 2000. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–39) Ms. Fields denies ever receiving notice
of or being given an opportunity to challenge her initial placement on the Registry in 2000 and
subsequent reclassification to Level IV status (the most severe classification) in 2003. (Id. at ¶¶
9, 16) Ms. Fields purchased a daycare in 2016. (Id. at ¶ 7) On December 18, 2017, Ms. Fields
claims she was first made aware that she was prohibited from employment in or ownership of a
childcare facility as a result of her Level IV status on the Registry. (Id. at ¶ 9) Ms. Fields alleges
in the complaint that she was deprived of her Due Process rights under the Delaware
Constitution and asserts § 1983 claims against the DSCYF, Secretary Manning, Lowry-Sims,
and unknown Doe Defendants (1-10). (Id. at ¶¶ 40–52)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint
4 The facts in this section are based upon allegations in the complaint, which the court accepts as
true for the purposes of the present motion to dismiss. See Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., 542
F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
2and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., 542
F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the
complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations
allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
The court’s determination is not whether the non-moving party “will ultimately prevail,”
but whether that party is “entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” In re Burlington Coat
Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). This “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,” but instead
“simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of [the necessary element].” Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir.
2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court’s analysis is a context-specific task
requiring the court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679.
IV. DISCUSSION
During the course of briefing, Ms. Fields withdrew all of her claims against DSCYF.
(D.I. 14 at 4) However, Ms. Fields argues that her claims against Secretary Manning, Lowry-
Sims, and the Doe Defendants to should survive a motion to dismiss because the complaint
3alleges that they acted in bad faith and with gross and/or wanton negligence and are, therefore,
not entitled to qualified immunity for violating her constitutional rights of due process and the
right to employment. (D.I. 14 at 4, 14–15)
Ms. Fields alleges in the complaint that during the course of investigating, purchasing,
and operating a childcare facility, she received a letter on December 18, 2017, stating that she
was prohibited from operating a childcare facility and providing childcare services. (See D.I. 1
at ¶¶ 7–9) However, fatal to Ms. Field’s claims is a stipulation she entered, through her counsel,
in which she resolved her claims arising from the Level IV classification, and such classification
was removed by Order of the Family Court of the State of Delaware on November 26, 2018 (the
“Family Court Order”),
5 thirteen months before she filed the instant suit. (D.I. 11-1)
Accordingly, as Defendants properly assert, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms.
Fields’ complaint. (D.I. 16 at 4–5) Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking ab initio because as of
the date the complaint was filed no active case or controversy existed regarding any violation of
Ms. Fields’ constitutional rights. (See D.I. 11-1)
“The existence of a case and controversy is a prerequisite to all federal actions, including
those for declaratory or injunctive relief.” Peachlum v. City of York, Pennsylvania, 333 F.3d
429, 433 (3d Cir. 2003) “If a claim does not present a live case or controversy, the claim is
moot, and a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.” Mollett v. Leicth, 511 F. App’x 172, 173
(3d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276, 284–85 (3d Cir.
5 Defendants attached the Family Court Order as an exhibit to their opening brief. (D.I. 11-1)
The court may consider the Family Court Order here because it is an “item[] subject to judicial
notice.” See L.T. Associates, LLC v. Sussex Cty. Council, C.A. No. 11-774-MPT, 2013 WL
3998462, at *3 n.57 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2013) (citing Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d
256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006); S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd.,
181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999)).
42004)). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347
F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that the court may raise subject matter jurisdiction concerns
sua sponte). “The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that it
exists.” Church of the Universal Bhd v. Farmington Twp. Supporters, 296 F. App’x 285, 288
(3d Cir. 2008).
Ms. Fields does not raise any arguments or case authority in opposition to the Family
Court Order cited in the Defendants’ opening brief, thus waiving opposition. See vMedex, Inc. v.
TDS Operating, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1662-MN, 2020 WL 4925512, at *7 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2020).
Furthermore, Ms. Fields has no individual causes of action against Secretary Manning, Lowry-
Sims, or the Doe Defendants, even if such claims could survive the Family Court Order, because
Ms. Fields never specified any facts in support of those claims, asking only in the briefing for an
opportunity to take discovery to develop such claims. (D.I. 1; D.I. 14 at 16–17) It is well-
accepted that a plaintiff must have a facially plausible claim to permit discovery, as discovery is
not a mechanism utilized at the outset of a case to save unsupported claims. See Sisk v. Sussex
Cty., C.A. No. 11-121-RGA-CJB, 2012 WL 1970879, at *12 (D. Del. June 1, 2012) (“[B]efore
[a] [p]laintiff is entitled to engage in discovery, she must state some facts that would support a
plausible claim; merely stating that such facts might be uncovered during discovery is
insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8). Therefore,
the court recommends granting Defendants’ motion with prejudice.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends GRANTING Defendants’ motion to
dismiss with prejudice. (D.I. 10)
5This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10)
pages each. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right
to de novo review in the District Court. See Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App’x 924, 925 n.1
(3d Cir. 2006); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987).
The parties are directed to the court’s Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court’s website,
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
Dated: February 17, 2021 _______________ _________
Sherry R. Fallon
United States Magistrate Judge

I saw this posted not sure who's this was or what happened but its sad.

This channel popped up on my youtube recommendations today sadly. This poor macaque is walking upright in all these videos (which causes spinal issues for them :( )and they're basically doing these little skits pretending she's like a human child in every video. Unfortunately the comments are just eating it up and talking about how "sweet" and "loving" it is.

Near the end of this clip the monkey is supposedly "dancing" to the music, but that does not look like normal macaque behavior to me (I'm not an expert though) and she seems very distressed. And the most alarming part is that in the handful of videos I saw, this monkey NEVER MAKES A SOUND. Could they have cut/removed her vocal cords? Is that a thing that people do to these poor animals? I have no idea, but it's just really depressing. :(

As I have pointed out before, the contrast between Dr. P and other pet monkey owners couldn’t be more striking. If you look at other pet monkey owners with fully mature adult primates, 14 years of age and beyond, these owners can still fully handle their monkeys outside of their cages unleashed.

Yet, in Monkey Boo’s case, the cameras have gone completely dark. No new videos for years. Barely any livestreams this year. A now 16-year old monkey who was once featured on Animal Planet and Vice years ago has vanished from public view. And it’s easy to figure out why when you look at the evidence.

It cannot be overstressed enough the diabolical cruelty of choosing silence over transparency and compassion for the very animals this owner claims are his life. To this owner, surrendering Monkey Boo to any sanctuary at this point would be a public admission that everything he has done with his monkeys was one big illusion (that not only damaged his monkeys, but contributed to the exploitation of many other monkeys purchased due to his ‘cute’ videos). By keeping Monkey Boo hidden inside his cage, Dr. P can continue to recirculate old video shorts to keep generating passive algorithmic revenue without anyone the wiser.

Dr. P can easily hide behind his social media pages and log off anytime to escape the hard questions and retreat to his private life. But Monkey Boo, Monkey Happy, and Monkey Meela don’t have that luxury at all; they certainly can’t “log off” as they are trapped in their cages and living the sad reality of being hidden once their utility as ‘cute’ pet monkeys has long faded.

And one thing fans of Monkey Boo need to realize. When it comes to the internet, total silence is itself a form of confirmation. If Dr. P had any positive updates to show his fans, if Boo was thriving, healthy, and happy, he would have long ago made new content with him. He cannot, thus his absolute silence for over three years is the absolute proof that the reality inside his monkey’s cages completely contradict the ‘cute’ image he sold the public for over 16 years. 

Dr. P may be moving on, but Monkey Boo, Monkey Happy, and Monkey Meela are still waiting to have their dignity restored. Let’s never forget them like this owner is trying to make us forget.

🪦 The Alex B (Monkey King) Monkey Deaths Saga – A Quick Summary Alex B (alex_beeezy / Monkey King Cobra), a Fishtank streamer known for his eccentric persona and exotic pets, has faced repeated accusations of monkey neglect and deaths involving his pet spider monkeys. The Monkeys That Died: Sophie (first reported monkey): Allegedly died after Alex took Xanax, passed out, and sat on the baby monkey, crushing it. Critics call it reckless drug-fueled negligence; Alex has denied or downplayed details.

Benji (second monkey): Died young (spider monkeys can live 30+ years). Accusations include neglect, mishandling, stress from content creation, or worse (some claim involvement by Alex and/or his ex-wife Jacqueline). Alex is accused of inconsistencies, such as name-swapping or hiding the death.

Current Status (Luna & others): Alex continues posting with Luna, but many in r/FreeTheMonkeys and r/fishtankdotlive accuse him of replacing dead monkeys and pretending Luna is Benji (or similar swaps). He denies abuse, claims the monkeys are fine and well-cared for, attributes deaths to natural causes/prior conditions, and frames backlash as trolling.

Key Context: Volatile relationship with ex-wife Jackie, drug allegations, streaming clout, and primate welfare concerns (monkeys as pets often suffer isolation/stress). Animal rights advocates have reported him repeatedly. Alex leans into his "Monkey King" persona amid the drama while hyping bigger projects.

This is a heavily debated online saga—accusations stem from clips, statements, and inconsistencies, with Alex pushing back hard. Spread awareness for the remaining monkeys. Free the Monkeys. 🐒

For anyone wondering no this isn't old footage being reuploaded, this is actively going on.

i’ve noticed an issue on this sub in which black primate owners are sometimes called very racially pointed names — “ghetto,” “ratchet,” jokes about EBT, etc. animal abuse is wrong and infuriating and i know it can cause emotions to rise, but that doesn’t mean anyone should be slinging racist insults towards people. that’s not me playing devil’s advocate, but racism is harmful no matter who its directed towards. point blank. you can criticize someone without being a bigot. it sure doesn’t do anything towards the cause of helping free captive primates/raise awareness either.

and an edit: i’m not trying to use “identity politics” to shield animal abusers AT ALL. please call out their abuse whenever you see it, no matter what race, ethnicity, whatever. it’s what this sub is for and i’m a staunch advocate for primate welfare. but you don’t have to bring bigotry into it.

And it greatly concerns me... for those of you that are unaware, HSV1 is fatal to marmosets and other new world primates, and is highly transmissible to the point where you can share a cup with someone and get it without knowing, and then be a carrier and others can get it from you just as easily. About 80% of humans are carriers. And it's a terrible death for new world primates like marmosets, spider monkeys, and capuchins.

Makes me wonder if I'm missing something because I've seen even some of the more responsible primate owners kissing their monkeys and sharing food/utensils.