PARENTAL RIGHTS II

Mother with DWI gets probation sentence

2010-04-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

Updated: Saturday, 17 Apr 2010, 1:10 PM EDT
Published : Saturday, 17 Apr 2010, 1:05 PM EDT
Luke Smith
Posted by: Kate McGowan

DEPEW, N.Y. (WIVB) - The first person sentenced in Western New York under the new Leandra's Law will not serve time behind bars.
The law is designed to be a tough felony punishment for driving drunk with children in the car.
But on Friday, State Supreme Court Justice Penny Wolfgang sentenced Jolie Norse to five years probation.
She had consumed more than twice the legal limit when she was stopped at the Depew exit of the thruway on Christmas night.
Her three adopted children and one foster child were in the car with her. More on story...

A former caseworker for the child protection agency in NY describes how the agency really works

2010-04-18T05:32:00.000-07:00

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Taking Liberties - Former Social Worker Report

She thought she was hired to protect children. But instead, a city child abuse investigator discovered that betraying her clients was part of her job description. Tales from a year inside the Administration for Children's Services.

By Akka Gordon
Source: City Limits MAGAZINE City Limits publishes City Limits Magazine, a bi-monthly investigative journalism publication on city-wide civic issues, and CityLimits.org, a long-standing destination for original news, resources, community interaction, and jobs and marketplace opportunities.

Emergency Children's Services is an inconspicuous, dingy building at the southern edge of Soho. About 30 to 40 kids come here each night, after they are taken away from their parents and while they're waiting for a foster home to take them in. When they get here, they cry, fight or sit silently on a stained couch, eyes glazed over. As an investigator for the New York City Administration for Children's Services, I spent many nights here.When children first arrive at ECS they are taken through a metal detector by security. Some carry garbage bags containing their clothes; others tightly clutch just the one item they brought from home. Each is accompanied by an ACS child protective caseworker, who is given a number and waits to be called to check the kids in. On a busy night, of which there are many, this can take hours.

In the waiting room, some tattered old books and the odd toy lie about. A green banner hangs year round saying, "Seasons Greetings From Pre-Placement" and does little to conceal the cracking paint. The children hungrily eye a vending machine in the corner and beg their caseworkers for candy. And the caseworkers say, No way.

Some of these kids, who range from newborn babies to 17-year-olds, have been rescued from seriously abusive or neglectful parents. Others are here for reasons that are ambiguous, unjustified, even arbitrary. But they all come to the same dim room on Laight Street. And because the city's Administration for Children's Services has identified them as children in danger, this is the first of many unfamiliar places they'll be seeing as they journey through the city's foster care system.

Like me, the other caseworkers here are exhausted. Most of them are on the phone or stare up at the television hung from the wall. It is not part of the job to comfort the children just plucked from their homes. They are irritated and want to get home.

When I first started coming to ECS, I tried to reach out to all the children who were crying or sitting alone, shocked and terrified. It was easier with the little ones, because I could hug them and they would immediately respond. But the older ones were different. I asked them, "Do you know why you are here?" Chances were that they had only a vague idea; ACS investigators often do not tell the children they are removing exactly what is going on. Most of the time the kids shrugged and said, "I don't know." Or they knew pieces, like, "Because mommy didn't clean the house." Often it was, "Because mommy got arrested."
The more I ended up at ECS, the harder it became to comfort these children. When you had no idea where a child was going to end up that night, it was impossible to assure them of anything. When a child asks, "Am I going to get split up from my little brother?" you can't say no. Although all efforts are supposed to be made to place siblings together, there are countless exceptions. Instead you have to say, "Let's hope not, okay?"

One night I was at ECS with a 3-year-old named Christopher, whom I had picked up from a precinct in East Harlem. His mother was arrested that day on drug charges. He had been living in a crack house, according to the police who took him, and his arms and legs were caked with dirt. All he had with him was a pacifier and a scarf. I pulled the pacifier out of his mouth and asked him, "Are you going to talk to me?" He looked at me and said, "Fuck off." Other than this, he didn't speak.
In the waiting room he pulled a chair out from under a girl his age as she went to sit down. After she fell, crying, he jumped up and down, pointing and laughing at her. I tried to engage him, to keep Christopher from terrorizing the other children. Then another caseworker came in. He lifted him by one arm and shouted in his face, "Listen, you brat. You better sit down and SHUT UP." He tossed Christopher onto the couch and he bounced, landing on his head. The caseworker warned, "Don't even think about moving. I'm watching you." Christopher did not move or even cry. He looked at me for help.

The caseworker explained to me defensively, "That's the only way these kids listen. That's how they are treated at home, so that's the only way to get through to them." And I wondered, silently: If we aren't treating these children any better than they were treated in their homes, then what are we doing?

To the manager at ACS who makes the fateful decision to remove a child, and to the judge who approves it, a child exists on a piece of paper, alongside a list of disturbing circumstances. They don't see a child having a panic attack at 3 a.m. because he is suddenly alone in the world. Or slamming his head against a wall out of protest and desperation. The good intentions that go into the decision to remove a child often have little to do with the sometimes brutal outcomes of that choice. And the problem is not simply caseworkers who do not know how to talk to children. The whole system does not treat children with dignity and respect.

Usually, the kids fell asleep in my lap during the car rides to their new foster homes. But Christopher stayed awake all the way to his new home in Staten Island, until 3 a.m. He stared out the car window and watched Manhattan recede in the distance. He seemed to know exactly what was happening, like an adult trapped in a little body that couldn't speak. But when I finally had to leave him, he did what any 3-year-old would do in the face of abandonment. He clung for his life to my leg._______
When I graduated from college two years ago, I decided to become a caseworker for ACS. I wanted to learn how child welfare policy affects children and their families--not from reports and data, but on the front lines.
It may seem hard to imagine now, but in many ways I loved my job and had no plans to do anything else. As a caseworker, I was in a unique position to advocate for children and parents when they most needed help. Many of the parents and children I encountered made deep impressions on me, and I established close connections with some of them. I also enjoyed the investigative aspect of the job, the thrill of constantly going into unknown situations. At first, I saw it as a daily adventure.

But it did not take long for me to see that there was no adventure here. Many of these families were harassed, their rights systematically violated by ACS. Their children were being swallowed up by an agency that too often operated on virtually unchecked authority, wielded arbitrarily. And I represented that agency.
More and more, I felt that I could not do the job I believed I needed to do with an ACS badge around my neck. I resigned from the agency in October 1999, after working there for just over a year. After all that I had experienced, I felt, like many of my clients, crippled by feelings of powerlessness. At the time, the only thing I could do was write it all down.

In the year I worked there, the Administration for Children's Services investigated more than 50,000 reports of child abuse and neglect. I handled about 50 of them in my job as a child protective caseworker in the Manhattan field office. I went all over the city investigating cases--to housing projects, family shelters and, once, to an apartment where a father had made a robot for his kids out of old Metrocards. But except for the time I visited a family on the Upper West Side--who hired their own doctors to disprove ACS's allegations of child abuse--my work took me to low-income neighborhoods. The reality is that families who are likely to be reported to ACS are poor.

When I first started the job, my supervisor explained to me that bad caseworkers sympathize with the parents. "Being sentimental," he said, "is the worst way to be." If you relate to the parent, the wisdom goes, you cannot conduct an objective investigation.

The entire investigation process relies on the assumption that parents do not know their rights, starting with the moment they allow caseworkers to come into their homes. A lot of these families are so conditioned to caseworkers knocking on their doors that the presence of a city worker in their homes is just another part of life. Nearly half a million New York City children have been the subjects of ACS investigations. If you are poor and if you have had problems with the law, if you have ever been involved in a domestic violence dispute, if you took your child to the emergency room after an accident, if you have ever used drugs, if your children have problems in school, if you have ever been homeless, ACS has been a part of your life._______
Child protective specialists get about two to three new cases each week, sent to them by their supervisors. Those supervisors have their own supervisors, called managers. It's managers who sign off on the big decisions: whether a case is worth pursuing and, most critically, when to put children into foster care.
For a caseworker, each case represents a heavy set of tasks and responsibilities. First, unless the call was anonymous, she must contact the source of the report. Many calls come from professionals required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect, such as guidance counselors, guidance counselors and hospital social workers. Other people call in reports, too, especially neighbors and family members. But many of these reports turn out to be false, and some of them are made purely for revenge.

Within 24 hours of a report, the caseworker has to visit the family at home. Caseworkers must interview each child and examine them all for marks and bruises. They must also interview every other member of the household, check every room for safety, check refrigerators and cabinets for food. Immunization records, birth certificates and proof of income must be verified. Next, caseworkers contact the children's schools and doctors. And in cases that involve drug allegations, the caseworker must accompany the parent to a drug test.

At any point during the investigation, a manager can order children to be removed from their homes if it is determined that their lives are at risk. But under state law and ACS policy, removals are supposed to be a last resort. As an alternative, the agency offers a menu of services to help families deal with problems; counseling, parenting classes, drug treatment and housekeeping services are the most typical.

These investigations and interventions save children's lives and protect their well-being all the time. Caseworkers are trained to look beneath the surface, to not trust a parent's statement without evidence and to compile as much information about a family as possible. Caseworkers and their supervisors are accountable for each case; the days when cases piled up on desks without anyone contacting a family are long over.

But accountability, at ACS, is a one-way street. A manager or supervisor has no one to answer to if a child who shouldn't be in foster care is removed from home anyway. There is no penalty for the wrongful taking of a child. And the pressures to remove are intense. I was trained to do removals in cases that did not necessarily qualify as abuse or neglect because, as one of my supervisors reminded me, "prevention is better than a cure." When I was resistant to doing a removal on a case, that same supervisor's advice was, "It's better to be safe than sorry." And at moments of uncertainty, the mantra was "Cover your ass"--a phrase heard often around the office. It was backed up by a pervasive fear--among caseworkers, supervisors, managers and attorneys--of seeing our photograph in the Daily News as the person who made an error that was literally fatal.

Caseworkers, usually the only people who have had direct contact with a family, don't have much to say in the decision-making process. Managers generally think of them as being incapable of giving meaningful recommendations. One week after the investigation begins, caseworkers have to file an electronic report. The computer offers two options: "safe" and "unsafe." But my manager accepted only one. Any time I determined a child to be "safe," my manager rejected it and returned it to me. The first step to protect yourself, I quickly discovered, is to determine that a child is "unsafe" from the outset of an investigation._______
In my division, if the allegations were bad enough--and especially if they came from a teacher, doctor, or other professional required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect--our manager considered them to be absolute truth. Virtually every time, if a caseworker could not find evidence to prove that the allegations were unfounded, the manager would refuse to sign off on a case, clearing it from our ever-growing caseloads, until we marked it "indicated" in the computer system. Indicated means that ACS has found credible evidence that abuse or neglect has taken place.

Our manager indicated a case in which an 18-year-old mother was mistakenly picked up in a drug sweep and immediately released. The same woman had been indicated in an earlier investigation, after hot tea spilled on her child at a family shelter, even though the social worker whose tea it was witnessed that it was an accident. Still, the manager decided that this previous incident--along with a robbery conviction and marijuana use before the child was born--was reason enough to indicate the new case.

Throughout ACS, the proportion of cases that end up labeled indicated has jumped from 26 percent in 1994 to nearly 40 percent in 1998. From a manager's point of view, indicating cases gives them the legal leverage they need to order a removal at any given time. For a parent, it also means something else: Having an indicated case on her record means that she cannot adopt a child, become a foster parent or work with children in any capacity.

From there, the decision to remove is entirely up to the manager. By law, children are supposed to be removed only if their physical or emotional health has been harmed or they are in immediate danger or being hurt as a result of a parent's failure to "exercise a minimum degree of care." In practice, that can mean anything from a parent failing to show up for parenting classes to sending her child to the hospital with a broken limb. But sometimes children are removed for reasons the caseworkers themselves cannot fathom.
On the night I met a client I'll call Louise at the homeless shelter where she lived, she told me her 11-day-old son, Kevin, was born without drugs in his body. That she prayed to God and he gave her another chance. And that she got clean on her own, without any program. I asked her about her other children and she told me what I already knew: She had given birth to five children who were all taken away from her while she was still in the hospital because each time she tested positive for crack.

Back at the office, my manager ordered me to remove Kevin. My manager, like most of her colleagues, did not go for the "life transformation" stuff. It did not matter that all of Louise's drug tests had been clean for the past two years. The manager called it a straight case of neglect, since the woman's other children had all been taken from her. Besides, my manager reminded me, Louise is taking heavy psychotropic medication.

Before going to court, we received a letter written by Louise's psychiatrist, whom she had seen regularly for the past year. He wrote:I remember thinking in her case no medication and certainly no therapy had been able to have the effect on her that her new child has had on her....The effect of the role of motherhood on her has defined her and given her grounding. It is our social and moral responsibility to support [Louise] in functioning as a mother. It is clear that [Louise] is ill. However, it is my assessment, in accord with all other senior clinicians [here], that [Louise] poses no immediate threat to her child.

My manager didn't see things the same way, and she made me file the case in court. "If we can't get a neglect finding on this mother, I might as well go work for the Parks Department," she told me. When ACS's attorneys initially wouldn't accept the case, she emailed the head of the legal division. And while I was away at a three-day training, she finally managed to get Kevin into foster care. Louise had stayed overnight with Kevin's father that week after she missed curfew at her shelter, and my manager had found an old order of protection against him--evidence of domestic violence. Louise was nailed with "failure to protect" Kevin from this potentially dangerous man.

(Only later did Louise tell me that she did not really have a history of domestic violence; she made it up a few years ago since she knew it was the only way she could qualify for emergency housing. I explained to her that it was the only reason ACS was able to take Kevin. "Well, what would you have done?" she asked me.)

In Family Court, Louise spoke up for herself, because her attorney did not. She argued her case herself and, with the help of testimony from her psychiatric nurse, won the judge over. Louise got Kevin back on the condition that she secure housing, submit to drug tests, continue to see her psychiatrist and comply with ACS supervision.

The ability to return a child to his or her parent is one of the few rewards of a caseworker's job. After picking up Kevin from his foster care agency in Queens, I sat with him in the Emergency Assistance Unit, the city's dispatch center for homeless families, waiting for his mother to arrive. The waiting room was filled with mothers and crying kids. A little girl came in the waiting area and asked the lady behind the counter for a piece of paper. "No paper," was the curt reply. I told the girl to come over to where I was sitting. My hands were full because I was feeding Kevin, but I told her that she could rip some pages out of my notebook. She stood there and tore out about 30 pages, one at a time. Every few moments she looked up at me waiting for me to say no. I just smiled at her. "That your baby?" she asked me.

"No," I told her.
"You homeless?"
I shook my head.
"You took that baby, didn't you?" she asked.
"I'm giving him back."
"Yeah, you better," she warned._______
In my year at ACS, I was lucky to see only a few children who were severely abused and neglected. I did see bruises, belt marks and burns on kids. I saw dirty and hungry children. I saw a baby with cockroaches crawling in her crib. There were kids who had never been to school. I had to ask a kindergartner if her father put his penis in her mouth. I sat in the back of an ambulance with a 9-year-old boy lying on a stretcher who had been beaten up by his mother with a baseball bat. He clutched his HIP card, his only possession now, in his swollen hand. I had a 3-year-old child whose mother forced him to stay awake for four days and three nights because she thought he was possessed by a ghost and would die if he fell asleep. And I met some parents who were dangerous not just to their children, but to me. I had to get an order of protection for myself against one, and was warned by another that I was going to be killed by the Bloods outside Family Court. But all this is what I expected from the job. In a strange way, these really horrible cases turned out to be the easy ones. It was the cases that weren't so clear-cut that kept me up at night. I saw removals occur when parents were accused of failing to follow up with a preventive service program or counseling. Breaking rules at shelters. Using or selling marijuana, or not sending their children to school. Failure-to-protect cases were common. One time, I removed a child from a mother accused of neglecting her infant son when she was hospitalized after a suicide attempt. It turned out the child was not yet even born when the suicide attempt occurred.
I worried about what I would do if my manager ordered me to remove. I worried about making mistakes myself._______
Two nights before Christmas 1998, I removed two children who I still believe should not have been taken from their home. I had been a caseworker at ACS for two months.At the last minute, my supervisor instructed me to accompany an even greener coworker on a case I knew nothing about. On the way up the FDR, in the back of the city car, my colleague, Theresa, described the case to me. The children were to be removed because their 82-year-old great-grandmother, Ms. Ruth Jackson, was too old to care for them. Owen, 5, and Carla, 14, were in Ms. Jackson's legal custody, because their mother and grandmother were both absent, allegedly because of drug use.
According to the allegations from an after-school program she attended, Carla had recently slashed a girl in the face with a pocketknife at school and was beyond the great-grandmother's control. Theresa told me Ms. Jackson had medical problems, including high blood pressure, diabetes and glaucoma. Due to her "failing health," our supervisor believed that she was not an appropriate caretaker for the children. The supervisor instructed Theresa to ask the great-grandmother to sign a form that would voluntarily place the children in ACS's custody. Theresa told me that she was instructed to call the police and remove the children only if the woman refused to sign the form. Our supervisor had informed Theresa that a refusal to sign would constitute neglect, because Ms. Jackson would not be complying with the best interests of the children.

"I don't believe that this is the right thing," Theresa complained to me. "The great-grandmother hasn't done anything wrong, and her health seems fine." I was furious at her for not telling me any of this before we left. I knew the options a family could be offered in a time of stress. A removal was to be done only in an emergency.

When we arrived, Ms. Jackson looked at us suspiciously and seemed reluctant to let us in. Decorated for Christmas, the apartment smelled like greasy chicken. It was 9 at night.

She instructed the children to go to their rooms. She sat on the sagging couch and asked, "What can I do for you ladies tonight?" She looked a little frail but seemed strong-willed.

I sat in the corner by the Christmas tree while Theresa tried to explain about the voluntary form. "You are old and you have so many health problems," she told Ms. Jackson unconvincingly. "Who will take care of the children if something should happen to you?"

Ms. Jackson said, "Ain't nothing happening to me. What if something happens to you?"
Theresa tried again. "It's not safe for the children to be living with you because you are too old to care for them properly and look after them." She looked at the floor as she said this, her voice shaking.
"What're you saying, miss? These children are not going anywhere. Nobody in this house is too old. I raised them kids since they were babies. The court gave me these children and nobody's going to take them away from me."
"My supervisor said that..."
"What?"
"My supervisor"
"Your what?"
"My supervisor. He wants you to sign this voluntary form so that the children will be safe." She placed the blank form on the coffee table.

"I don't know much about your supervisor, but nobody's signing these kids to them foster people. It's Christmas. Did you know that, dear?"After about 15 minutes of this, Theresa signaled me to call the police. Out in the hallway I called 911, then went back into the apartment to wait for the cops.
Ms. Jackson had no idea they were coming. "Who would want to take these children?" she asked us. "It's Christmas. These children are happy. I take these children to school every day. I make sure they have everything they need to get along fine." The cops banged on the door. "Who's that?" asked Ms. Jackson. "That your supervisor?"

I answered the door. Two cops stood around and did not say much. Theresa started crying, and everything fell into my hands. I explained to Ms. Jackson that the children were coming with us tonight and that she would have to come to court tomorrow to get them back. I had packed kids up quickly once before, so I braced myself to do it again.

The kids were watching The Brady Bunch, lying with their feet up on their great-grandmother's bed. I introduced myself and told Carla to pack up some clothes for herself and her brother. She looked at me as if the prospect of leaving might be exciting for a second. Owen wanted to know if "grandma" was coming. I told him no, and said some things about how everything was going to be okay. Ms. Jackson came in and put clean underwear on Owen, put his pajamas back on, and packed some clothes in a backpack for him.
As we continued to pack, Ms. Jackson stood in the bedroom doorway with her mouth half-open, no sound coming out. Carla ran down the stairs and waited for us in front of the police car.

In the back of the car on our way to ECS, Owen saw his big sister crying. He sat on my lap and started crying into my shirt._______
Almost all removals take place at night. Caseworkers are too busy during the day, and a family is also more likely to be home after dark. But some workers deliberately wait till after hours, for the time-and-a-half overtime. Doing a removal, staying out all night at ECS, and then taking the child to a foster home can mean more than doubling a day's pay. With caseworkers' salaries starting at under $32,000, overtime makes a big difference.

The caseworkers who want nothing to do with removals can rely on other caseworkers who volunteer for the money. When supervisors are desperate to find someone to do a removal, they often encourage caseworkers by reminding them, "You could use the extra cash." The consequence is caseworkers arriving at ECS with no idea why they just removed the kids who are with them. When the ECS intake worker or an ACS lawyer asks them why the children were removed, "I don't know, it's not my case" is a standard response. Or simply, "Because my supervisor told me to."

Any caseworker can tell you that they have done removals that they did not personally agree with. But they rarely complain to management, since they will never get in trouble for removing a child under supervisors' orders. Caseworkers are also quiet about unnecessary removals because doing a removal and then transferring a case to foster care takes them a lot less time than keeping it and trying to work with a family. Keeping a case obligates a worker to do regular home visits and follow-ups to make sure a family is getting preventive services. It also means dealing with anything that may go wrong and continuing to be responsible for the children's safety.

To become a child protective caseworker, you do not need to have any experience working with children, or demonstrate that you actually want to work with children. No one even asks if you like children. You must simply have a bachelor's degree in a social science field and pass a two-part exam. For the oral part we were asked to think of five questions we would ask a parent, based on a short case scenario. A "powerful rotting odor" is supposed to prompt test-takers to ask, "What is that smell?" For the written test, we listened to a series of voice mail recordings and wrote down phone numbers and other details. This was not a test of common sense, or even listening skills. It seemed to be a test to see if we were alive.

Once hired, caseworkers have six weeks of training, where they are taught how to conduct interviews, identify abuse and neglect, and carry out a removal. Legal issues, child development, domestic violence, sensitivity to cultural issues and handling angry clients were also part of the curriculum. Through it all, caseworkers are taught, it is essential to treat clients respectfully and professionally.

But the social work lingo of the training, where we spent two days discussing the need to "leave your baggage at the door," is far removed from the harsh reality of a field office. For new caseworkers, the obsessive concern with liability at the field offices quickly overshadows the reasonable criteria they have been taught for identifying abuse and neglect. Most quickly learn to abandon their training and to do what it takes to survive.

ACS has been making strides cutting down heavy caseloads, but it's still a stressful and at times tedious job--each case, no matter how trivial, calls for the same 15-page report. A contradiction at the heart of it all makes the work even more difficult. Caseworkers are trained to be service providers and advocates for families. To work together with families to uncover and solve problems in the home, caseworkers must establish an intimate rapport with their clients. Yet at the very same time they are engaged in an act of betrayal: as they write down parents' statements and survey their homes and behavior, caseworkers are building a potential court case against them. At no point are they able to tell their clients that everything they say can be used against them in court. The relationship of caseworker and client becomes one of manipulation, characterized by a deep lack of trust on both sides.
Although many of the best caseworkers get fed up and leave the agency, there are good workers who have been at ACS for years. They have survived because they have learned how to manipulate the system to make it work for themselves and their clients. They purposely omit or obscure facts about families in their case records and in their discussions with their supervisors to save clients from unnecessary court action. The most fortunate have supervisors who share their commitment to respecting families' rights. I was one of them: One of my supervisors was a mentor to me, and I considered her directives highly valuable.

Several months before I left the agency, an Emergency Children's Services supervisor who was resigning after more than 10 years blanketed the agency with a stunning email. He began by saying that he is not leaving the agency any better than when he started. He blamed this lack of improvement on ACS Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, whom he accused of being more preoccupied with making the agency look good in the media than with making substantial changes that help clients. "ACS cares more about statistics than they do about children, forgetting that those statistics represent real children," he wrote. The supervisor had equally harsh words for protective caseworkers: "ACS workers cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for doing wrong removals by blaming them on their supervisors or managers or on agency policy." He compared the level of obedience and complacency at the agency to Nazi soldiers who killed 11 million civilians during World War II because "they too were just carrying out orders." Nobody around me talked about the email, not even to disagree._______
Carla and Owen were placed in foster care that night. The next day, Theresa went to court. The judge, who happened to be in his seventies himself, ordered that Owen be returned home immediately. The judge stated the obvious: Old age is not grounds for neglect. Carla, however, was to remain in foster care because of her behavior problems. When the judge asked Theresa if she felt the children were in imminent danger, she answered that in her opinion they were not.

CPS WORK

2010-04-17T14:17:00.001-07:00

Public Demand For Special U.S. Prosecutor of Corrupt Judges

2010-04-16T17:55:00.001-07:00

US Judicial corruption

2010-04-16T17:52:00.001-07:00

EARNING BONUSES & REWARDS FOR CHIlDREN/fDestructionofFilesAudio/Shreddedsociety

2010-04-16T17:42:00.001-07:00

The Nervous CPS Worker

2010-04-16T17:39:00.000-07:00

Crime and Punishment: Child Protective Services Busted!

2010-04-16T17:32:00.001-07:00

CPS aka Child Protective Services - Expert Witness, Dr Charles Smith

2010-04-16T17:28:00.001-07:00

CPS LIES #3: CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CRIMINALS' DOUBLESPEAK.wmv

2010-04-16T17:12:00.001-07:00

Social worker 'faked visits to at risk children'

2010-04-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

Published: 1:42PM BST 12 Apr 2010

A senior social worker falsely claimed to have made 70 visits to children at the 'highest level of risk' when in fact she had delegated the job to a student colleague, a hearing was told.

Charon Salisbury was assigned eight youngsters on the child protection register but left the work to her junior colleague who was not authorised to carry out the checks, it was claimed.

The student worker only conducted a 'small portion' of the visits leaving the children exposed to an 'extremely high risk of violence' in their homes, the General Social Care Council heard. to read more

Battle over foster child hits court

2010-04-13T01:57:00.000-07:00

By MICHAEL PLATT, Calgary Sun
Last Updated: April 8, 2010 11:13am

Noah Kirkman turned 12 nearly two weeks ago.

The last time he slept in his own bed, back home in Calgary, he was ten.

If it started as a holiday, the boy’s trip to Oregon, it’s now become a two-year-long nightmare, rife with red tape.

And the strange case of Noah Kirkman is on the verge of becoming an international incident.

On Friday, a judge in Oregon will determine what to do with the Canadian child seized by the State of Oregon and placed in foster care, despite having a mother and family in Calgary desperate to get him back.

“We’re hoping the judge will back out of his position, but there’s also a chance he will say ‘screw you,’” said Lisa Kirkman, Noah’s 34-year-old mother.
to read more

BEST PRACTICES IN TERMINATION AND ADOPTION CASES

2010-04-10T23:23:00.000-07:00

BEST PRACTICES IN TERMINATION AND ADOPTION CASES

A Report from the Best Practices in Adoptions Workshops

A Project of the Georgia Model Courts Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.Introduction...............................................Pg 1

B.Resource Guidelines of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges..........................................Pg 2

B.Best Practices in Termination and Adoption.................Pg 3

1.How does a case move to termination and adoption?..........Pg 3

2.What triggers the best practices in termination and adoption?
.............................................................Pg 4

3.How and when should the decision to move to termination and adoption be made?............................................Pg 4

4.What is involved in staffing a case, and when should it be done?........................................................Pg 4

5.When should the case be turned over to the Agency Counsel?.Pg 4

6.What can be done to avoid delays once the case has been turnedover to the Agency Council?............................Pg 5

7.At what point should reunification services be iscontinued?Pg 5

8.When must the Agency Counsel file the Petition to Termenate
Parental Rights?.............................................Pg 5

9.What can the Court do to ensure that petitions are timely filed?.......................................................Pg 5

10.When should the hearing be set?...........................Pg 6

11.What can be done to avoid service related delays in the trial?.......................................................Pg 6

12.When should the termination of parental rights hearing begin?.......................................................Pg 6

13.How can the Court ensure effective representation of parents and children?................................................Pg 6

14.What can be done to avoid delays in trial?................Pg 6

15.Should the Court conduct pretrial conferences.............Pg 7

16.What can be done to avoid lawyer conflicts?...............Pg 7

17.What should be done when a termination case has to be continued?...................................................Pg 7

18.What are the time frames for getting orders terminating parental rights signed and filed?............................Pg 7

19.What is the Court’s responsibility to make the Office of Adoptions aware that a termination of parental rights order has been entered?................................................Pg 7

20.What is the responsibility of the Office of Adoptions to keep the Court informed of the identity of children not Adopted...Pg 7

21.When can the Agency submit a request to the Office of Adoptions for funding a life history (adoption study)?.......Pg 8

22.What can be done to speed up the adoption study?..........Pg 8

23.When should post-termination judicial reviews be conducted?
.............................................................Pg 8

24.Within what time frame should the Form 33 be signed?......Pg 8

25.When should the search for adoptive resources begin?......Pg 8

26.What efforts should be made to identify adoptive resources?
.............................................................Pg 9

27.What can be done about relatives who surface at the last minute, either just prior to the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights or after termination, but prior to disposition?.................................................Pg 9

28. Is “best practices” the same as reasonable efforts?......Pg 9

C. Conclusion. ..............................................Pg 9

BEST PRACTICES IN TERMINATION AND ADOPTION CASES

A Report from the Best Practices in Adoptions Workshop
A Project of the Georgia Model Courts Project
A.Introduction.

On May 11, 2002,
a group of more than forty child welfare professionals met in LaGrange, Georgia
to review current practices relative to termination of parental rights and adoption in deprivation cases,
and to begin to identify best practices designed to move children to permanency through adoption more timely and efficiently.
Out of that group was formed a workgroup (herein referred to as the “Workgroup”),
whose responsibility it was to review the work of the larger group
and identify specific practices and ideas for consideration by the larger group.
The Workgroup, consisting of the following participants, met in Atlanta
on July 24, 2002.

Judge Michael Key, Troup County Juvenile Court
Judge Van Banke, Clayton County Juvenile Court
Judge Velma Tilley, Bartow County Juvenile Court
Sandy Gobel, Supervisor from Cobb County Department of Family and Children Services
Sheila Waterman, from the Office of Adoptions
Mary Hermann, from the Child Advocates Office of the Fulton County Juvenile Court
Tania Brooke, Supervisor Troup County Department of Family and Children Services
Lori Bramlett, Model Court Coordinator Also contributing to the work of the Workgroup was
Tammy Reed, Region Adoption Coordinator for the Office of Adoptions.

Working from notes made by Lori and
from the collective memory and experience of its members,
the Workgroup began the process by discussing where in the process the best practices should begin.
Then, we followed the process through, step by step, until final adoption.
An initial report was drafted,
disseminated to the members of the Workgroup,
modified in response to comments from the members of the Workgroup,
and submitted to all of the attendees of the May workshop.
On December 6, 2002, the original group, with some noteworthy additions, met in Dublin, Georgia.
Consensus was reached as to most of the report.
All of the agencies represented in the project were asked to review the final draft
and to note their exceptions, all of which are shown on
Exhibit “A”. A complete list of persons and agencies represented at the two workshops is appended to this Report.

B. Resource Guidelines of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Before getting into the Georgia-specific best practices set out in Section C of this report, we would like to commend to you the two resource guidelines developed and published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (”NCJFCJ”).
The first guideline is entitled RESOURCE GUIDELINES:Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (referred to herein as the “Resource Guidelines”).
That book sets out best practices in the handling of child abuse and neglect cases from the beginning of a case until permanency is achieved.
The Resource Guidelines served as the basis for the Aspirational Guidelines adopted by the Council of Juvenile Court Judges (“CJCJ”), which,
together with the Resource Guidelines, serve as the foundation for court improvement under the Georgia Model Courts Project.
The second book, ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practices in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (referred to herein as the “Adoption Guidelines”), builds on the Resource Guidelines and focuses on adoption and other alternative permanency options.
Every model court in Georgia is committed to making its best efforts to comply with the Resource Guidelines, the Aspirational Guidelines, the Adoption Guidelines, and, now, these Best Practices in Termination and Adoption Cases

.RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003

The Adoption Guidelines point out the following five issues covered by the Resource Guidelines that are important to the effective implementation of the Adoption Guidelines:

Early identification and involvement of absent parents;
Early identification and involvement of relatives;
Ensuring availability of quality plans and services to the family to assist with reunification;
Complying with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; and
Complying with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Resource Guidelines, Page 10.
Although all five of the foregoing issues are important, the first three are involved in all cases, whereas the last two issues arise only in a limited number of cases. Before beginning to discuss the best practices in termination and adoption cases, it would be worthwhile to include direct quotes from Pages 10 and 11 of the Adoption Guidelines:

C. Early Identification and Involvement of Absent Parents.
At the very first hearing on petition alleging abuse and neglect, efforts should begin to include all parents involved in the life of the child and to locate absent parents.
Putative fathers must be located and brought into the court process as quickly as possible.
Timely resolution of paternity issues is both in the best interest of the child and
essential to avoiding delays at subsequent points in the court process.
The Court must ensure that the efforts of the child welfare Agency are thorough and diligent in locating and involving all legal and putative parents.
“Early Identification and Involvement of It is equally important, particularly when a child must be removed from the home, to identify all relatives.
Relatives of the mother, father, or putative father(s) and to investigate all of these relatives as potential caretakers for the child.
Courts should not make the presumption that because the parents have serious problems, all of the relatives must also have serious problems.
Relatives generally know the child better and often have a familial commitment to the care of the child.
An appropriate relative who is willing to provide care is almost always a preferable caretaker to a non-relative.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003 3

“When courts and agencies have not conducted thorough relative searches and reunification is ruled out, they can be faced with the difficulty of deciding between adoption by a foster parent with whom the child has bonded and a relative who is appropriate but did not previously know of the child’s need for a permanent home.
If, however, the relative search was thorough and a relative who has previously chosen not to come forward changes his or her mind, the preference for keeping the child with relatives diminishes.
When courts and agencies do their job thoroughly, they should not have to choose between a foster parent adoption or a relative adoption.
“Ensuring Quality Plans and Services are Available to the Family to Assist with Reunification.
If the needs of a child and family have not been thoroughly assessed and appropriate services made available to families to assist with reunification, the parents may have a valid argument at the permanency hearing that reasonable efforts have not been made to reunify them with their child.
This situation can cause a significant delay in achieving permanency for the child by
delaying the child’s reunification,
delaying the Court’s ability to terminate parental rights, or
setting up the possibility of reversal by the court of appeals.”

The Adoption Guidelines also suggest the use of the following tools to promote timely adoptions:

concurrent planning;
foster-adopt homes;
and family decision making.
Each of these issues should be studied in more detail by the individual courts and determinations made as to how these tools could be used in their communities.

The Adoption Guidelines serve as a great backdrop to the best practices set out herein in Section C, and should be read and implemented in combination with the best practices. Although the individual works have value independently, the most benefit will be achieved when used together.

C. Best Practices in Termination and Adoption. Following are the best practices adopted by the participants of the Model Courts Project:

3. How does a case move to termination and adoption?

There are two ways that a case can move to termination and adoption.
One way is in those rare cases where a thirty-day case plan is filed that does not contain a plan for reunification.
In those cases, a permanency hearing must be held within thirty days.
The more common way a case moves to termination and adoption is where there is a reunification plan in place and
the decision is made at some point along the way that reunification is not likely and that
the case should move to an alternative permanency plan i.e.,
permanent relative custody,
legal guardianship,
termination and adoption,
or another planned permanent living arrangement.
No matter which road we take, the roads converge at some point and the process is the same.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003

4. What triggers the best practices in termination and adoption?

In those rare cases where a reunification plan is never filed, it is the decision not to file a reunification plan that triggers these best practices.
In those cases where a reunification plan is in place, our time frames are triggered by adoption following termination becoming the primary plan.
At some point, whether we have only a reunification plan, or whether we have a concurrent plan, a casemanager makes a determination that successful reunification is not the likely outcome in the case.

5. How and when should the decision to move to termination and adoption be made?

Evaluation of the likelihood of reunification should be an ongoing process, rather than just something that is done as part of a review of the case or case plan preparatory to a periodic review.
The appropriateness of the permanency plan should be reviewed internally by the Agency not less than monthly
and that review should be documented in the file.
The specific method of review should be decided by the individual county, but
there should be a specific policy.

6. What is involved in staffing a case, and when should it be done?

From the time the decision is made by a casemanager that reunification is not likely, the case should be staffed within a reasonable time following that decision.
What is meant by “staffed” will vary from county to county.
In some counties, staffing means the casemanager going into the office of the supervisor and discussing the case.
In other counties, there are formal, regularly scheduled staffings of cases in a group setting.
However it is done in any given county, the staffing needs to be systematic, not left to chance, and
the official decision to move to termination and adoption needs to be made within a reasonable time following the time the casemanager makes the realization that reunification is not likely,
but, in any event, within thirty days.
Where the Agency does not move to termination and adoption without review by the Special Assistant Attorney General representing the Agency (herein referred to as the “Agency Counsel”), that review should also be completed within the thirty days.

7. When should the case be turned over to the Agency Counsel.

From the time the case is staffed and a move to termination and adoption approved within the Agency, the case should be turned over to the Agency Counsel within thirty days.
In some counties, either the Agency, the Court, or both, prefer to send a case to a panel for review prior to moving to termination.
In those counties, the case should be submitted to Agency Counsel and panel concurrently.
Also, in those counties, the internal agency review process should be coordinated from a timing standpoint so as to not cause delays by having to wait for the panel to convene.
The panels should be receptive to doing interim reviews when requested to do so to avoid delays in the Agency moving forward with termination.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003 5

8. What can be done to avoid delays once the case has been turned over to the Agency Counsel?

There is now a standard packet to be used to turn a termination case over to the Agency Counsel.
If the packet is complete and accurate, the Agency Counsel should be able to move forward with termination without delay.
The use of the standard packet, properly completed, is, in and of itself, a best practice.

9. At what point should reunification services be discontinued?

The best practice is to continue to offer reunification services until the petition to terminate parental rights is heard
unless there is a specific finding by the Court that continuation of reunification efforts is, in fact, detrimental to the child.
This is a high threshold that should not be compromised.
discontinuation of reunification services is not a condition precedent to the filing of a termination action and,
in fact, discontinuation of reunification services prior to termination seems to be in disfavor with the Court of Appeals.
The Workgroup believes that, unless actual harm would result to the child, reunification services should continue to be offered up to the time parental rights are terminated.
There was some concern expressed about this practice making for unnecessary work for the Agency and the panels.
However, the reunification plan is already in place and
all that has to be done is to monitor progress. Also,
in most of these cases, the parents are not, in fact, accessing the services offered anyway, so
there is not a lot of work involved in offering and monitoring services.
We believe that the value in offering the services and the impact that may have in the appellate courts outweighs the disadvantages of continuing to offer services.
This approach also allows us to avoid the necessity of having a permanency hearing except in cases where it is absolutely necessary,
that is where actual detriment to the child can be clearly established. Keep in mind also that,
if the time frames proposed herein are met, we are not talking about continuing to offer the services for an extended period of time.

10. When must the Agency Counsel file the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights?

Under guidelines established by the Attorney General, the Agency Counsel has 30 days to file the Petition from the date he or she receives the termination packet from the Agency.
By agreement between the state Agency and the Attorney General, if the Agency Counsel does not perform timely, the county director should contact the area director
who should contact the Director of Legal Services for the Division of Family & Children Services to report that failure.
This is not an issue of “snitching”- it is an issue of system oversight.

11. What can the Court do to ensure that petitions are timely filed?

Each court should put oversight in place for review to ensure compliance with the 30-day time frame set out in the preceding section.
Because of the multitude of ways things are done around the state, the Workgroup could not reach a consensus on a specific way for the Court to exercise oversight in this area.
One way is for the Court to be notified by the Agency when a termination packet is sent to the Agency Counsel,
and for the Court to set the case down for a status call immediately following the expiration of the thirty day period.
The case can come off the calendar if it is filed,
or the Court could leave the case on the calendar to exercise other oversight responsibilities, such as
making certain that counsel is timely appointed, etc.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 20036

12. When should the hearing be set?

The Court should set the hearing date at the time of filing the petition.
This is the Court’s responsibility.
Recognizing that there are all sorts of issues involved in setting a case (not the least of which is scheduling conflicts), the case should be set down at the earliest possible date,
monitored by the Court for readiness for trial, and
continued only when necessary.
There are ways that the Court can avoid scheduling conflicts.
One is to work out an arrangement with the Superior and State Courts, which is where the majority of conflicts occur, whereby, on certain days of the week or month,termination of parental rights cases will have priority.

13. What can be done to avoid service related delays in the trial?

The Court needs to hold Agency and the Agency Counsel to a high standard in terms of making a diligent search for the parents.
Where the Agency alleges that the parent cannot be located and service by publication is necessary, the publication affidavit should be reviewed carefully before the Court allows publication notice instead of personal service.
There are certain minimum requirements in the policy manual.
The Workgroup agreed that a model form should be adopted around policy and good practice.
Evidence should be submitted that The Agency has used the Federal Parent Locator Service.
With the advent of web-based data bases, it is easier to locate people than it has ever been.
Every relative of the missing parent, whose contact information can be found, should be contacted.
The floor for the standards in regard to making a diligent search should be the policies,
and whatever is reasonable beyond that.
If a hearing needs to be held by the Court before allowing publication notice,then the hearing should be held within ten days from the filing of the petition.

14. When should the termination of parental rights hearing be held?

The termination of parental rights hearing should be held within 45-60 days in personal service cases, or
90 days in publication cases.

15. How can the Court ensure effective representation of parents and children?

Wherever possible, the same attorney should represent each party and
the same guardian ad litem (whether attorney, lay, or both) should represent each child throughout the process.
The Court should appoint attorneys upon the filing of the petition, and
get a copy of the petition to the attorney immediately upon appointment.
The parents should be advised as to the name and contact information for their attorney in the summons package.

16. What can be done to avoid delays in trial? Most delays are caused by scheduling conflicts and service issues.

The Court should work with attorneys and other judges to establish local protocols to avoid scheduling conflicts, and
the Court should deal with service upon the filing of the Petition,
and put systems in place to monitor service so as to avoid delays. There are so many things that can cause delays, it is difficult
make an exhaustive list of practices to avoid them.
The best practice is that delays and continuances should be minimized systematically and not left to chance.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003

17. Should the Court conduct pretrial conferences?

The Court needs to exercise oversight relative to the preparedness of cases for trial so as to avoid unnecessary delays, and
conduct pre-trial conferences as necessary.
Judge Jim Morris has produced a good checklist for pre-trial conferences that we will distribute, a copy of which is appended to this report.

18. What can be done to avoid lawyer conflicts?

The Workgroup believes that lawyer conflict rules should be changed so that only a jury trial scheduled more than thirty days prior to the termination of parental rights case being set will take precedence over the trial of a termination of parental rights case.
The Attorney General’s office should be requested to assure that the contract with Agency Counsel gives priority to termination cases over conflicts in other cases.

19. What should be done when a termination case has to be continued?

If a case has to be continued, the new date of trial should be set in court and everyone should be served before they leave court.

20. What are the time frames for getting orders terminating parental rights signed and filed?

Where the Agency Counsel drafts the order for the judge, the order should be drafted and submitted to the judge within fifteen working days following the hearing.
The judge should review and modify the order, and
file it within one week following receipt from the Agency Counsel.
When the judge drafts the order, the order should be completed and
filed within thirty days following the date of the hearing.

21. What is the Court’s responsibility to make the Office of Adoptions aware that a termination of parental rights order has been entered?

By statute, the Juvenile Court clerk should send orders terminating parental rights to the Office of Adoptions
within fifteen days following entry of the order.
Note that Agency policy encourages that county Agencies register children without identified adoptive resources with My Turn Now photo listing when they notify the Office of Adoptions that a child is free, which is
five to twelve days following termination.

22. What is the responsibility of the Office of Adoptions to keep the Court informed of the identity of children not adopted?

Although the Court, through its post-termination reviews, should have a good idea of the identity of children available for adoption,
the participants agreed that, in order to assist the Court with its oversight responsibilities, the adoption Office should provide to each judge a list of all children from that county awaiting adoption
at least annually.
However, there was a recognition that there are currently some policy and, perhaps, legal, barriers to implementing this practice, but that should work to eliminate hose barriers.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003 8

23. When can the Agency submit a request to the Office of Adoptions for funding a life history (adoption study)?

The Agency can now submit to the Office of Adoptions a request for funding for the life history (adoptions study) at the time the package is submitted to Agency Counsel.
The best practice is for the county to decide at the time the package is submitted to Agency Counsel whether it will be done in-house or done on contract.
If by contract, the funding request should be submitted to the Office of Adoptions at the time the package is submitted to the Agency Counsel.
In any event, the life history must be done within sixty days following termination of parental rights of either parent.

24. What can be done to speed up the adoption study?

It is recommended that the Agency use the same resource for First Placement/Best Placement and for the adoption study when possible
Agencies should, when possible, contract for the First Placement/Best Placement study only with providers that also are approved to do the adoption study.
Agencies should develop a pool of providers to ensure that all required studies are completed timely.

25. When should post-termination judicial reviews be conducted?

Post-termination judicial reviews should be conducted not less frequently than every three months following termination.
The date for the initial review should be set at the disposition hearing and included in the order.

26. Within what time frame should the Form 33 be signed?

The form 33 is the Adoption Placement Agreement.
The time frame depends on whether there is an identified adoptive resource.
From the time of the entry of the order, 105 days is the maximum time under regulations to get the Form 33 signed by the adoptive parent.
Best practice is get the Form 33 signed within 90 days.
The permission to file for adoption should be given to the adoptive parents the day that the Form 33 is signed.
The attorney should have been identified by the time the Form 33 is signed,
and the adoptive parents should contact the attorney within two weeks.
Immediately upon receipt of the permission to file, the attorney calls the County Director.
The County Director should prepare the package within five working days after notification from the attorney.
Actually, in a foster/adopt adoption case, there is no reason that the Form 33 could not be issued within 30 days from the time the termination order is filed.
For a child who does not have an identified adoptive resource, the only time limits that can be set are those for completion of a child’s life history and the submission of the child’s pictures.
The best practice would be to submit pictures at the same time they register the life history.
Please note these time frames do not apply to foster and foster/adopt adoptions.
Where the child is placed with a new adoptive family, the Agency must supervise the placement, usually for six months, before the release is given.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003 9

27. When should the search for adoptive resources begin?

The search for relatives willing to adopt or take permanent relative custody should be initiated at the very beginning of the case.
The initial placement within a foster home should be made taking into account the likelihood of successful reunification,
and the willingness of the foster parents to adopt.
Recruitment efforts should begin in earnest as soon as the decision is made that termination is a plan,
even a concurrent plan.

28. What efforts should be made to identify adoptive resources?

County Agencies should contact the State Adoption Exchange,
their regional adoption coordinator,
other resource development workers, and
private adoption agencies under contract with the Office of Adoptions
to solicit family assessments for their children.
County Agencies should schedule children for video-conference and
Wednesday’s Child appearances.
County Agencies should make a Tale of 2 States Liaison referral so that a search for families can be made nationwide.
All of this should be completed prior to the first judicial review, which again is not later than three months following termination.
Once family assessments are received by a county Agency, they should be reviewed and, if at all possible, a family selected within thirty days.

29. What can be done about relatives who surface at the last minute, either just prior to the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights or after termination, but prior to disposition?

The only acceptable practice is to conduct relative searches (including relatives of legal and/or biological fathers) early in the case so as to
exhaust all potential relatives long before even the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights.
The Court should accept responsibility to ensure that relatives are identified early in the case, and clear, effective policies should be put in place by the Court and the Agency.
One option is to require that a complete family tree is developed as part of the First Placement/Best Placement study.

30. Is “best practices” the same as reasonable efforts?

It should be kept in mind, although most of these practices have reasonable efforts implications, the Agency does not need to meet these standards in order to be determined that the Agency has made reasonable efforts.

D. Conclusion.

The foregoing best practices may be similar to what many courts in Georgia are already doing, but just as likely may be very radical departures from current practices in many of our courts.
The Model Courts Project stands ready to help any court or community implement these practices, and also welcomes input and feedback from courts outside the Project.
These best practices are a work in progress and will be reviewed by the Model Courts Advisory Committee and its partners in the Model Courts Project once or twice per year for a period of time as the practices are implemented by courts involved in the project.
Please provide comments and feedback to aid in the refinement of these best practices.

RMK.C:\MyJuvCt\WorkingAdoptionWorkGroup.RP2 April 12, 2003

[NOTE:

The Georgia Model Courts Project is a project of the Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges,
operating under the guidance and direction of the Permanency Planning Committee of CJCJ, and
is supported by staff and other funding from the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project.
The Project also receives technical and other support from the Permanency Planning Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
and a great deal of assistance from all of its partner agencies,
a representative listing of which is shown on the addendum to this Report.]

ONCE AGAIN: WHAT TO KNOW IF CPS COMES A KNOCKIN, "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK"

2010-04-10T13:17:00.000-07:00

#1) No matter what stage your “case” is in, the Number One (#1) thing YOU MUST DO- Document, Document, Document. This costs nothing and is the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do in your defense. Keep detailed records of who said what, when. ESPECIALLY document face-to-face and conversations on the phone. Record or video tape if you have it. CPS workers “make mistakes”, LIE, and TWIST your words. See Washington State Extended Families for a nice essay on how to do Documentation.

#2 ) If there is a lawyer in your area who HATES CPS and knows how to put up a DEFENSE, hire him now and help him defend you. If you have to sell the car, mortgage the house, clean out your retirement fund, borrow from relatives- pay his retainer. NOTE- If you ARE a LAWYER who wants to learn HOW, see-Legal Information. If you get a court-appointed attorney, you may or may not receive a “vigorous defense”. About the standard pay they receive is $500 total, so the pay is no motivation to them. You might get a young, idealistic one fresh from law school, and he may be pretty aggressive. Some older ones who are not calloused may also really go to bat for you and the children and provide Competent Counsel. In all cases, Help him defend you Also see Make Your Court-Appointed Attorney Work For YOU at fightcps.com NEW! August 8, 2008 How I Found Attorney Who “Hates” CPS If there is NO such lawyer (there’s not very many), or you are penniless, ~you are going to have to learn how to DO IT YOURSELF in pro per or pro se ~ Be aware that some “courts” may be so “unencumbered by the Constitution” that a lawyer “may” risk his Bar License by providing a “vigorous defense”. (See What Happens in the FOG) There are also stories about CPS KIDNAPPING THE LAWYER’S CHILDREN AND ASSASSINATING HIS CHARACTER TOO. We have heard of CPS doing the same thing to JUDGES, Doctors, Police officers, other CPS people (Whistle-Blowers), and even State Representatives who challenge CPS’ lies and fascist activities. That’s why just filing your papers with the court clerk may be the only way to GET THE TRUTH ON THE RECORD. That is why the “Sui Juris” method was developed. If you don’t get anything ON THE RECORD, you will likely have NO appealable issues in the future. See this and ESPECIALLY THIS What Happens in the FOG- Beginning with an anonymous hotline “tip” of suspected abuse, a parent enters a gray area of American jurisprudence. And it is not “murky” to his benefit. Child Abuse, when alleged, is not a criminal matter. It is blithely characterized as a “Civil” matter, much the same as a lawsuit to collect on a breach of contract. Thus, the Constitutional protections afforded in a criminal case are not necessarily extended to those accused of Child buse. INNOCENCE IS NO DEFENSE!! Don’t kid yourself. This is not the Happy, Fair Courts.To fully understand what Family Courts REALLY ARE- see Volksgerichtshof ~By the way~Then the Nazi’s picked up the Jews and sent them to Concentration Camps, they called it
Schutzhaft, literally translated “Protective Custody”

#3 ) Write your own version of history in a Sworn Affidavit and FILE IT with the Court, the CPS, the DA, and whoever else that has ANYTHING to do with your case. You are SWEARING to the truthfulness of your statements. The CPS witches aren’t swearing to ANYTHING (what is SACRED to them that they COULD swear on? The Humanist Manifesto II?) You had better be telling the truth with no “embellishments” and citing FACTS you can back up with evidence or witnesses’ sworn statements. Say NOTHING self-incriminating. If you have something to hide, you aren’t going to lie your way out of it. Grammar Quick Help Class 101 How your papers LOOK matters! The importance of your Sworn Affidavit cannot be over- emphasized! THE ONLY WAY you have appealable “issues” in the future is to get your facts ON THE RECORD in court.

#4 ) SHUT UP— SHUT UP— SHUT UP! Quit talking with the CPS monsters. You are waiving your FIFTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and Miranda Rights every time you answer a question. Personal and phone conversations are where “mistakes” (inventions and fabrications) happen when THEY write their report about the conversations. Words you say float up into the rafters and come back twisted against you. If you feel you have to talk with them, record it or videotape it. And don’t forget to DOCUMENT it. CPS is NOT your friend! Women especially fall into this trap. Especially in cases where a child is ALLEGEDLY abused or molested by a family member. DO NOT pour your heart out to a CPS worker or CPS contractor Mental Illness clinician. Do that, and you will join the ranks of “co-perpetrator” lamenting “I was so, so foolish. I was an IDIOT. I thought they were there to HELP me. I thought the CPS worker CARED. I thought I had PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY with the psych shithead.”
CPS will use every word you say to make your child a Legal Orphan, because THAT’S what they are being PAID for.Ignore or forget this at your and your children’s EXTREME PERIL.

August 21, 2008 NEW CASELAW
Case Name: U.S. v. Craighead, District: 9 Cir , Case #: 07-1-135
Opinion Date: 8/21/2008 , DAR #: 13245
Case Holding:

Interrogations occurring inside the home are custodial, requiring Miranda advisements under the Fifth Amendment, if the circumstances turn it into one of a “police-dominated” atmosphere. Speaking personally, if there was no cop there, I would darn sure turn it into a “police dominated atmosphere”, by calling 911 and report that my home was being trespassed under the Color of Law with no Warrant.

IF They DO have a warrant, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP.

#5 ) BE POLITE! The highest crime you can commit is “Contempt of Social Worker”. We have reports of POLICEMEN telling people that the Constitutional Rights and Miranda Rights are only for TV, and what they are doing is “The Real World”.

See The Oath of Office EVERY OATH of OFFICE in the USA includes “support the Constitution” Since many of them seem like childish morons, SOCIOPATHIC, and plainly nasty with no discernable social “skills”, this can be a difficult task.

“I would love to answer your question, but I cannot do that without violating my Fifth Amendment Rights and my Miranda Rights”

“I would love to let you in my house to look around without a Search Warrant. But I cannot do that without violating my Fourth Amendment Rights”

“There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you.” –William Hazlitt

We believe the court-ordered psych exam is a violation of your 5th Amendment rights. Don’t entertain the folly that psychiatrists are your friend. No, you do not enjoy professional “confidentiality” with them. They are the foremost tool of character assassination.

#6 ) Insist on LETTERS to and from the agencies. They can’t alter their words printed on paper that have been mailed to you. Nor can they alter your words either. KEEP COPIES of your letters to them.

#7 Get your records- FOIA/Privacy Act/ Open Records. Anything they FORCE you to sign, sign it “Under Duress”. You can also Rescind your previous signatures.

#8 ) Clean up your house and your life. Obviously, if your house is a mess or your life is a mess, your CPS worker is going to use every bit of it against you. There is (so far as we know) absolutely NO LAW about “dirty house”, but they make a big deal out of it. Shacking up with a boyfriend is the path to hell. Boyfriends have NO “natural affection” for your children, and they are the #1 baby rapists and child abusers and killers, at the TOP of any statistical data. So this is something YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT. Clean up. Quit smoking. Whatever you are doing that you KNOW is wrong, the choice is between your laziness, habits, lifestyle choices, CATS, and YOUR KIDS. You choose. If you can’t, then don’t complain about what happens.

Also see AFRA Dress Codes. How you dress and conduct yourself in interviews, at court, or with the Mental Illness Clinicians- matters. : WHERE IS THE LAW about a “messy house”? What are the STANDARDS? What’s the criteria for determining a “messy house” or “dirty house”? How many (if any) pets can a family have? What’s the standard about cat litter boxes? How often is a toilet supposed to be scrubbed? How many Cheerios are allowed on the floor under the kitchen table? How many dust bunnies are allowed under the heat radiator? Under the refrigerator?

FAMILY SERVICES: Huge wait to see kids

2010-04-10T06:23:00.000-07:00

BY ERIN WILLIAMS
09 Apr, 2010 11:03 PM

SEPARATED parents ordered by a court to have supervised visits with their children are waiting up to four months to see them at a Ballarat contact centre because of a lack of government funding.

Calls for more resources to extend facilities at Ballarat Child and Family Services were made earlier this week after it was revealed there were a lack of government-funded contact centres. Full Story Here

Russia furious over adopted boy sent back from US

2010-04-10T00:58:00.000-07:00

By NATALIYA VASILYEVA and KRISTIN M. HALL, Associated Press Writers Nataliya Vasilyeva And Kristin M. Hall, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 27 mins ago

MOSCOW – Russia threatened to suspend all child adoptions by U.S. families Friday after a 7-year-old boy adopted by a woman from Tennessee was sent alone on a one-way flight back to Moscow with a note saying he was violent and had severe psychological problems.

The boy, Artyom Savelyev, was put on a plane by his adopted grandmother, Nancy Hansen of Shelbyville.

"He drew a picture of our house burning down and he'll tell anybody that he's going to burn our house down with us in it," she told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "It got to be where you feared for your safety. It was terrible."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the actions by the grandmother "the last straw" in a string of U.S. adoptions gone wrong, including three in which Russian children had died in the U.S.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Dmitry Medvedev said the boy .....read more

Biological brothers find each other across the street after 30 years

2010-04-10T00:07:00.000-07:00

Cory Hurley

Corner Brook, N.L. — The Canadian Press
Published on Saturday, Apr. 03, 2010 1:00PM EDT
Last updated on Saturday, Apr. 03, 2010 1:04PM EDT

Newfoundland pair learn they have been within shouting distance from one another

The world can seem like such a big place when you are searching for someone missing in your life, but then again sometimes that person turns out to be right before you.

Stephen Goosney, 29, and Tommy Larkin, 30, were born a year and a half apart. They were both adopted and began life knowing they were missing vital pieces of their personal history.

The two men told the Corner Brook Western Star they began the process of finding out who they were several years ago, both citing medical history as their primary reason behind the search.

They soon uncovered their past — just across the street from one another.

The pair discovered from an adoption agency that they had been within shouting distance for seven months.

“It was a good feeling, knowing there was actually someone looking for me too,” Mr. Goosney said in an interview with the newspaper.

There was hope they would be living close together, but an understanding that, even if they were adopted by Newfoundland and Labrador families, there is a good chance they could be far apart.

However, read more here

Foster mom ordered to serve 11 months

2010-04-09T23:11:00.000-07:00

The woman embezzled more than $100,000 while working for state social services.

By Mike Gangloff

There was much that remained unclear Wednesday about Eileen Patricia Maldonado's decision to put herself on the dole.

She had lived a life of service as a foster mother and a benefits specialist at the state Department of Social Services office in Roanoke, where she awarded grants to the needy. But then she began sending checks to herself, clearing something in the low six figures before being caught.

In January, Maldonado pleaded guilty to five counts of embezzlement. Back in Roanoke Circuit Court to receive a sentence of less than a year in prison, Maldonado wept as she tried to explain what had happened.

To Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Wanda DeWease, Maldonado's actions were "probably as elaborate and sophisticated a scheme as had been perpetrated" and evidence of "greed ... unlike any greed that's ever been seen by the court around here." read more here

Repeat offender? Foster parent with tainted background charged in sex case

2010-04-09T23:07:00.000-07:00

By Elizabeth Piazza The Daily Times

Posted: 04/03/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

FARMINGTON — A foster father who previously faced 85 counts of criminal sexual penetration against a minor was arrested Thursday and charged with six new counts of the same crime after a different victim videotaped one of the incidents.

Todd Mortensen, 45, confessed only to the recent assaults, which reportedly took place between March 22 and 30 in Mortensen's home, where the 12-year-old victim lived as a foster child, San Juan County Sheriff's Capt. Tim Black said. The New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department removed the child from the home.

Mortensen was booked at the San Juan County Adult Detention Center on six charges of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor younger than the age 13. He is not facing the previous 85 counts dismissed by prosecutors in 2005, but the District Attorney's Office is looking into the old case, District Attorney Rick Tedrow said.

Mortensen, a nurse at San Juan Regional Medical Center since May 2008, resigned Thursday, hospital spokesman Dennis Mathis said.

"He did not work with children," said Mathis, who declined to say in which department Mortensen worked.

Mortensen is a former foster parent, but he has not held a license with the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department for several years, said Romaine Serna, spokeswoman for the department.

Mortensen and his wife, Lisa, have had dozens of foster children in their home over the years. They adopted several of them, including one still living in the home.

"He was licensed and did adopt children through Children, Youth and Families Department," Serna said of Mortensen. "The individual that studied the family did not have any concerns at the time. They passed all the clearances and residence checks."

The 85 charges filed in 2003 are public record and are accessible on the state's court records Web site, nmcourts.com.

The 12-year-old victim was not fostered through the Children, Youth and Families Department, Serna said. She believes the arrangements were conducted privately with another family.

Mortensen had two more female foster children living in his home at the time of his arrest, Black said.

"We are pulling the other two 16-year-old girls out and turning them over to CYFD because we don't know why they are there," Black said. "They were not officially placed by CYFD and we don't know exactly where they belong."

CYFD is conducting an investigation into Mortensen's background and is....read more here

Former Riverside County CPS worker to stand trial | Local News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California

2010-04-09T23:01:00.000-07:00

Former Riverside County CPS worker to stand trial Local News PE.com Southern California News News for Inland Southern California

Social worker accused of misconduct

2010-04-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

Thursday, April 08, 2010, 15:00

A SENIOR social worker at Plymouth City Council has been accused of claiming she made home visits to children on 70 occasions when she had not.

Charon Rae Salisbury allegedly indicated that she had completed her home visits to eight children on the Child Protection Register – but it is now being alleged that she didn't.

Ms Salisbury is to appear before the General Social Care Council's misconduct panel next week accused of not making 'sufficiently frequent visits' to the children.

She allegedly made entries on the city council's in-house recording system, Care First, to indicate she had made home visits to the children on 70 occasions – but it is alleged she had not made those visits.

The GSCC's list of allegations, prepared before the social care regulator case, outlines that Ms Salisbury was the allocated social worker for the eight children on the council's Child Protection Register in 2007 and 2008.

The allegations state that she is accused of not making 'sufficient frequent visits' to the children in line with child protection procedures and plans between October 1, 2007, and March 26, 2008, for three of the children – and between December 21, 2007, and March 26, 2008, for the other five children.

On various occasions for each of the eight children, Ms Salisbury indicated she had completed home visits – but it is alleged 'you had not', according to the list of allegations.

The allegations also state that Ms Salisbury indicated to her line manager that her visits to the eight children were 'up to date' during supervision sessions on five occasions in 2007 and 2008, but in those sessions she allegedly did not disclose that she had not 'personally undertaken the visits' to the children on the dates in question.

The Herald understands that Ms Salisbury no longer works for the city council following a period of suspension.

The hearing is due to be held between April 12 and April 16, at a venue which is yet to be confirmed.

A Plymouth City Council spokesman said: "We can confirm that this individual has not been a practising social worker for Plymouth City Council since April 2008."

Woman shares her foster care experiences

2010-04-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

BEDFORD HILLS — On the day the government took them away, 5-year-old Tanya Cooper and her little brother had just eaten all they had — some butter stolen by the acting mother of the home, their 7-year-old sister.

Because there was no pattern to their mother's drug binge disappearances — sometimes it lasted days, sometimes longer — there was no way to know whether she was gone for good.

So the older sister did something she had never done before. She left her siblings alone and went next door to call Child Protective Services.

"She said (to us) 'These people who are coming to the door are not going to hurt us or anything, but we have to do what they say,' " Cooper remembers her sister saying. " 'You guys are hungry and I don't know what to do.' "

The life that followed in the foster care system was a saga of struggle and structure for Cooper, who felt blessed to be in a home in Bedford Hills where she was cared for, even though she was raped by two foster brothers in that home for years.

She found by modeling in Paris that she could escape the anger she developed as a teenager, only to have the rage resurface when she became a mother herself at 23.

Finally, through therapy, higher education, faith and friends, the light came on in Cooper's life.
"There is no point going through anything you went through if you can't say that you have helped someone or changed someone's life," Cooper said.

And so, at age 45, with the death last summer of her dear younger brother, Robert, still stinging, Cooper is trying to make that difference.

She maintains two blogs — one for ex-foster kids who have aged out of the system and one for teenagers who are getting ready to be on their own.
She is working on a book that is part memoir, part self-help about the lessons she learned as a survivor and the keys to coming out of the system strong.

And in May, to kick off National Foster Care Month, she will be a featured speaker at a foster care conference in Cleveland along with rap pioneer Darryl "DMC" McDaniels. More of ths story

Parents quotes

2010-04-06T15:52:00.000-07:00

Parents quotes: "“If you raise your children to feel that they can accomplish any goal or task they decide upon, you will have succeeded as a parent and you will have given your children the greatest of all blessings.”"

Girl Arrested for Doodling Sues New York City Updated

2010-04-05T07:29:00.000-07:00

1 day 11 hours ago
Michelle Ruiz

AOL News (April 3) -- When 12-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was caught doodling on her desk at Junior High School 190 in Queens, New York, she expected detention and an afternoon on desk-cleaning duty. Instead, she was arrested, led out of her school in handcuffs and detained at a local police precinct for hours, she said.

Two months after the incident, Gonzalez and her mother, Maraima Comacho, are suing the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department for $1 million in damages, claiming excessive use of force and violation of the girl's rights in the ordeal, which Comacho has called a "nightmare."

"We want to stop this from happening to other young children in the future," the family's lawyer, Joseph Rosenthal, told the New York Daily News.

Gonzalez describes the ordeal as traumatizing and excessive, saying that after her Spanish teacher caught her doodling on her desk with erasable green marker, she was "physically dragged by a teacher and an assistant principal" to the dean's office, where school safety officials searched her by placing "their hands inside the rear and front pockets of her jeans." Police were then summoned to arrest her.

Gonzalez told the Daily News she broke down as she was led out of her school in handcuffs.

"I started crying, like, a lot," said said. "I made two little doodles. ... It could be easily erased. To put handcuffs on me is unnecessary."

The legal papers filed by Rosenthal said Comacho was not permitted to accompany her daughter to the precinct and was instead told to go home and wait for a call. The documents also said that Gonzalez was detained in "an enclosed room" at the precinct and handcuffed to a pole for more than two hours.

In February, New York City officials acknowledged Gonzalez's arrest was a mistake, with a City Education spokesman saying, "Based on what we've seen so far, this shouldn't have happened."

Police spokesman Paul Browne told the Daily News that officers should have used better judgment after being called by the school.

"Even when we're asked to make an arrest, common sense should prevail, and discretion used in deciding whether an arrest or handcuffs are really necessary," said police spokesman Paul Browne.

Now Comacho wants the City to pay for their mistake, to the tune of $1 million for the ordeal that led to her daughter's suspension and a trip to family court, where Gonzalez was given eight hours of community service and ordered to write a book report and an essay about what she learned from the experience.

The suit says officers "knew, or should have known" that Gonzalez had simply doodled with a "soluable, erasable marker."

What were the doodled words that led to her arrest?
"I love my friends Abby and Faith," Gonzalez said she wrote, adding "Lex was here. 2/1/10" and a smiley face.

LaGrange Georgia The Troup County Sheriffs Office-Missing girl found, search for mother continues

2010-04-04T11:04:00.000-07:00

April 3rd ,2010
LAGRANGE, Ga. -- The Troup County Sheriffs Office has located a missing 9-year-old girl but is continuing to search for her mother.

Sheriff's office officials told The Columbus-Ledger Enquirer the girl was found Friday afternoon in a home in LaGrange. The girl, , Breann Helms, and her mother, Melissa Helms, had been considered missing since about 2 a.m. Friday.

That's when the car they were last seen in was pulled with five people inside, but not the mother or daughter. The five people in the car were arrested for drug related activity.

The child had been last seen leaving her grandmother's house with her mother Thursday afternoon.

Read more:

NYS appellate court agrees with dad's petition to halt adoption proceedings without his permission

2010-04-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

NYS appellate court agrees with dad's petition to halt adoption proceedings without his permission
March 30, 6:01 AM Albany CPS and Family Court Examiner Daniel Weaver

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department in the Matter of Nicole J. has reversed an order by Monroe County Family Court Judge, John J. Rivoli, which dispensed with the consent of Nicole's biological father and allowed her adoption to go forward.

The father's attorney made his first appearance in Monroe County Family Court on December 1, 2008 on behalf of the father, only to be told that a hearing would be held the next day. He requested an adjournment until January 12, 2009 because he wa unaware that a hearing was scheduled for the next day. The judge denied his request and proceeded with the hearing.

In reversing Judge Rivoli's order, the appellate court said that the family court abused its discretion in denying the request for adjournment. The court went on to state:

"There is no evidence in the record that the father had notice that the hearing was scheduled to occur on December 1, 2008. Moreover, the record establishes that the proceedings were not protracted, that this was the father's first request for an adjournment and, indeed, that the court had adjourned proceedings concerning the child's biological mother to the precise adjournment date sought by the father. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the court should have granted the request of the father's attorney for an adjournment to enable the father to prepare for the hearing (see generally Matter of Stephen L., 2 AD3d 1229, 1231). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing."

Mediation Instead of Adversarial Court System to Be Used to Help Risk Kids

2010-04-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

Less traumatic procedures will be introduced by the Victorian Government to help children at risk of abuse. Child protection workers will be able to mediate with families on such tender issues, like whether a child is removed from his or her home. Hence, under the radical changes planned by the State Government, mediation instead of the adversarial court system will be used.

This way, children and their families can avoid going to the court, revealed Attorney General Rob Hulls. He shared that it is very shocking for children to sit in court for the court's proceedings.

He said, "It's very important that we have these new child protection resolution conferences, where people can sit around the table away from the court in an environment where it's far more amenable to trying to resolve the matters in the best interests of the child".

Child protection resolution conferences will be set up at which the parties involved in a case and their lawyers will meet in a non-court setting with a judicial convener. All the people related to the child will be involved including the parents, foster carers and child protection workers.

Senate bans forced microchip implants

2010-04-02T01:11:00.000-07:00

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Senate voted Thursday to protect Georgians from evildoers, covert corporations and rogue doctors, seen and unseen, with the passage of a bill that would make it illegal to implant a microchip into someone without their permission.

Jack Kingston: No death panels in an ‘unfinished’ health care law Blog: Gold Dome Live »

Senate passes hospital tax bill after bitter fight

The bill, ironically sponsored by Sen. Chip Pearson (R-Dawsonville) and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, would make it a misdemeanor to implant someone against their will with a microchip, sensor, transmitter or other tracking device. The Senate passed the bill 47-2.

“We are sending the message that Georgia is committed to upholding its citizens’ constitutional rights and protection of their person,” Pearson said. “Advances in technology are moving fast, and while most of these are for the good, we must be careful that it doesn’t come at the harm of citizens.”

But is this really a problem in Georgia?

Pearson said that he knows of no case in Georgia where someone has been involuntarily microchipped. He added that during his preliminary meetings on the bill, no one came to complain about it, and he has heard of no conspiracy plots or theories to put implants in massive amounts of Georgians. The notion that legions of people have been forcibly implanted by the government, aliens or nefarious corporations runs rampant throughout the Internet and in science fiction movies. Think Neo and his forced implantation by Agent Smith in "The Matrix."

“I have no firsthand knowledge of anything,” Pearson said. “I am simply trying to get ahead of this and protect the people. We don’t know what is going to happen.”

Pearson added that any information put inside a chip and then implanted into someone’s body can just as easily be stored somewhere above the skin.

“The benefits of a microchip that can be internally implanted are also available in many external forms,” Pearson said.

There have been a handful of corporations worldwide that have begun developing technology to inject people with implantable devices. In 2004, the VeriChip was approved by the FDA. Proponents say that implantable chips could help in identifying victims of major tragedies like Sept. 11 or the Haitian earthquake, or even wandering Alzheimer’s patients.

Pearson’s bill would clear the way for people who want implants. The bill does not prevent anyone from being able to voluntarily have a microchip implanted -- as long as the implantation is performed by a doctor and is regulated by the Georgia Composite Medical Board.

But opponents say that the devices can lead to unwanted surveillance and even cancer. There are some who say that it has religious implications and that the implantable devices are the "Mark of the beast."

If the bill, SB 235, gets past the state House, Georgia would join Wisconsin, North Dakota and California as states that have passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in people.

Pearson said the bill has actually been floating around the Capitol for several years. In 2007, Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth) introduced a bill in the House that didn’t go anywhere.

Pearson is hoping that his bill will be received favorably in the House.

But some critics of the bill wonder what the point is.

This is a solution in search of a problem,” said Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), one of only two senators to vote against it, along with Sen. Ronald Ramsey (D-Decatur). “We are spending our precious time -- with a billion-and-a-half-dollar deficit -- with something that is not a problem.”

Foster parents would get less cash under Ind. cuts

2010-04-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

Foster parents would get less cash under Ind. cuts

By CHARLES D. WILSON and CARLY EVERSON
Associated Press Writers

INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana is trying to shift hundreds of foster children with medical, emotional or behavioral problems into cheaper care for children without special needs, a move that cuts payments to families who care for the state's most challenged children.

The change would give foster families less money to pay for therapy, food and clothing and other costs. And some fear that fewer families could volunteer for the job in the future because they'd have to cover the bills themselves.

Foster parents who provide homes for special-needs children are paid up to $100 a day. Under the state's new plan, many would receive $25 or less.

"Twenty-five bucks a day - it's not a lot," said foster parent Terry Blackburn of Brownsburg, Ind., who has fostered more than 100 children with his wife, Ruth. "If you go buy a pair of shoes and a pair of pants for the kid, you've already spent your $25."

The changes, made quietly without public attention, come as officials are attempting to cut $56 million from the cost of providing for the more than 10,000 children who are in the state's care because they could not remain with their families. The Department of Child Services announced plans in late 2009 to cut payments to those who provide homes for the children by 10 percent. Overall, the cuts would reduce the state's costs by about 8 percent by June 2011.

Many other states, including Arizona, California, Missouri, Ohio and Utah, also have cut spending on children's services because of budget problems. Some states have reduced payments to foster homes or group facilities or considered laying off caseworkers.

"The states are getting pounded, and this is one of the few times I've seen child welfare really get hit," said Michael Petit, president of the advocacy group Every Child Matters.

According to children's advocates, Indiana put its new policy on special needs children into effect at the beginning of the year when it directed private agencies that specialize in finding foster homes for hard-to-place children to begin offering traditional foster care as well. Then, the state began shifting special-needs children into the lower-cost care.

Children who have special needs include pregnant teenagers, victims of sexual abuse, infants born to drug-addicted moms, those with severe medical problems or with behavioral problems that lead them to act violently.

According to placement agencies, a 1-year-old boy born with cocaine and marijuana in his system and behavioral problems was placed in traditional care at one facility. Two siblings who had been sexually abused by relatives, including an 11-year-old girl who vandalized her foster home and threatened her foster mother, also were reclassified.
The state wouldn't say how many children have been reclassified. But one placement agency official said almost half his special-needs children were downgraded; another official said all the children at some agencies were affected.

DCS Director James W. Payne said in a Dec. 1 letter to providers that the agency had "reluctantly" ordered the 10 percent cut. Indiana's reimbursement rate for the traditional care, which would drop from $25 to $22.50, would remain among the nation's highest, he said. His letter did not mention shifting the special needs children.

"These have been incredibly difficult deliberations and everyone involved recognizes the magnitude of the decisions being made," the letter said.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the cuts and reclassifications after foster parents and private agencies filed suit. The state is appealing the order.

Citing the litigation, DCS spokeswoman Anne Houseworth declined to comment on the cost-cutting measures. But she said the state's goal is to provide children the care they need while paying less when appropriate.

Foster parents and children's advocates say if the state prevails in court and proceeds with its plan, many children who need help won't receive it, and some won't find homes at all.

"They can't just lump all foster children together as one classification. It just doesn't work," said Judy Hurst of Carthage, Ind., who has cared for more than 300 foster children with severe needs in the last 20 years.

Hurst said she does not know how she and her husband, Denny, could continue at the lower rate.

They keep the doors locked and security cameras rolling at their house east of Indianapolis. Foster children have stolen from them or damaged their home. The Hursts currently are caring for a pregnant teenager and a boy Hurst describes as "probably the most abused child we've had in our 20 years."

"We've devoted our whole life to other peoples' kids," she said. "We don't want to stop doing this. We don't want to stop working with kids."

Chris Morrison, executive director of the Indiana Foster Care and Adoption Association, said foster and adoptive families can't shoulder the costs of the special therapy needed.

"There's this philosophy that's trying to be promoted that you're adopting out of love and therefore all of this should come out of your pocket. It's not a genuine reality," she said.

Read more

CLINICAL TRIAL ALERT!!! FDA warns psychiatrist who treated dead foster child

2010-04-02T00:20:00.000-07:00

The psychiatrist who treated the Broward foster child who killed himself last year is now in hot water with the FDA.
Seven-year-old Gabriel Myers hanged himself with a shower cord in a Margate foster home.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
cmarbin@miamiherald.com
Seven-year-old Gabriel Myers hanged himself with a shower cord in a Margate foster home.

Seven-year-old Gabriel Myers

Posted on Tuesday, 03.16.10
A South Florida psychiatrist who was treating a 7-year-old foster child before the boy committed suicide last year has received a warning from federal drug regulators who say he failed ``to protect the rights, safety and welfare'' of children enrolled in clinical drug trials.

In a strongly worded letter dated Feb. 4, regulators at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Dr. Sohail Punjwani over-medicated children who were enrolled in clinical trials for undisclosed drugs. One girl, the letter said, slashed her wrists while hallucinating.
Another, a 13-year-old, ``experienced sedation and dizziness during the study,'' the letter said.
The warning letter, a harsh and rare form of discipline by the agency, says Punjwani failed to ``adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the conduct of clinical investigations.''
``Your failure to conduct the requisite safety measures contributed to the unnecessary exposure of pediatric subjects to significant overdoses, which jeopardized the subjects' rights, safety and welfare,'' the letter says.
Punjwani did not return calls from The Miami Herald seeking comment.
Punjwani, who practices in Tamarac and has offices elsewhere in South Florida, was treating 7-year-old Gabriel Myers when the boy hanged himself with a shower cord in a Margate foster home. The boy's death prompted a yearlong probe by a Department of Children & Families task force, as well as proposed legislation before the Florida Senate.
Before Gabriel's death, Punjwani had prescribed several powerful mental health drugs -- some of which had not been approved by the FDA for use on children and had been linked to dangerous side effects, including an increased risk of suicide among children.
Punjwani also was sued last summer by a Tamarac mother who claims her son, 16-year-old Emilio Villamar, died after being over-medicated with a group of mental health drugs at a Fort Lauderdale psychiatric hospital.
The letter mailed to Punjwani does not specify the names or types of drugs the doctor was testing, and a spokeswoman for the FDA, Sandy Walsh, said such details are kept confidential to protect drug companies.
Walsh said the FDA does not send out such warning letters often, and the agency considers breaches of its regulations to be ``very serious.'' The letter was signed by Leslie K. Ball, a doctor who heads the compliance office of the Division of Scientific Investigations, and Constance Cullity, a doctor who is also a compliance officer.
For years, drug makers did not study most medications on children, largely due to ethical concerns over using kids as test subjects. More recently, however, Congress passed laws to encourage pharmaceutical companies to test their drugs for safety and efficacy with children by extending patents on drugs approved for adults.
In a trial for one drug that was not identified, Punjwani gave one child dosages ``in excess of... specified limits,'' the letter says.
The child was discontinued from the trial before it was completed, the letter says, ``due to worsening auditory hallucinations that apparently caused the subject to lacerate her wrists.'' The girl was ``overdosed'' on the drug for more than two weeks.
The letter says Punjwani submitted a corrective action plan to the FDA and revised his procedures to better protect his research subjects from dosing missteps. ``However,'' the letter says, ``we are concerned that the response is not adequate to prevent future recurrence of the violation.''
The clinical trials for a different drug were to adhere to a series of protocols that specified what dosage of the drug was to be used, depending on the child's weight, the letter states. But for six of seven children -- chosen at random -- who received one of the tested drugs in Punjwani's study, the dosage exceeded what was spelled out in the protocol.
One child who weighed 103 pounds, for example, ``was overdosed on study medication for 20 consecutive days while participating in the study,'' the letter states. The child is identified only as ``Subject 1001.''
A child identified as ``Subject 1003,'' who was 15 at the time of the trials, ``was overdosed on study medication for 21 consecutive days while participating in the study,'' the letter says. ``Subject 1004,'' a 16-year-old, ``received doses in excess of the maximum target dose for 3 consecutive days while participating,'' the letter says.
A 10-year-old, identified as ``Subject 1007,'' was ``overdosed'' for nearly two weeks while on the study, the letter states.
Department of Children & Families Secretary George Sheldon, who appointed a task force last year to study Gabriel's death, said Monday he is asking the FDA to compare a list of Florida foster children with lists of children enrolled in Punjwani's clinical trials. Sheldon said he was acting on concerns that children in state care may have been involved in clinical trials, which is against state law.
The FDA letter, Sheldon said, ``raises clear ethical issues and judgment issues that we need to clearly understand.'' If foster kids were enrolled in clinical trials, he said, ``we will need to take it to another level.''

read more

Runaway foster kids can't be jailed, court rules

2010-04-02T00:03:00.000-07:00

By CAROL MARBIN MILLER
cmarbin@MiamiHerald.com

Juvenile court judges cannot jail delinquent foster kids in county lockups just to keep the kids from running away, a Miami appeals court ruled Wednesday, ending a years-old practice that child welfare authorities have employed to protect runaway kids from themselves.

In a short decision involving a 12-year-old girl in foster care -- identified in records only as J.J. -- the Third District Court of Appeal said delinquent children can be held in secure detention only under ``strict statutory criteria.'' Protecting the child from herself is not one of the accepted criteria, the court wrote.

``Although we sympathize with the trial court's motive -- getting J.J. to stay in one place long enough to get the help she needs -- detention is not authorized under these circumstances,'' the opinion stated. It was signed by Judges Gerald B. Cope, Jr., David M. Gersten and Barbara Lagoa.

The opinion, a ruling on a habeas corpus petition, does not specify what charges J.J. was facing. But at a conference before a Miami-Dade judge, who is not named, the girl's guardian and school principal complained they were ``concerned for her safety and well-being.

``They indicated that J.J. needs medical and dental examinations, psycho-educational testing to determine appropriate school placement, and a psychiatric evaluation,'' the opinion states. But J.J.'s ``conduct'' made it impossible for her foster care caseworkers to get such testing done.

``With the best of intentions,'' the opinion states, ``and an effort to do what is in J.J.'s best interest, the trial court ordered her secure detention.''

J.J.'s situation is not unusual: Throughout the state, hundreds of children in state care have had some contact with the juvenile justice system.

``Some children need assistance beyond what they can get in their residential setting,'' said DCF's child welfare chief, Alan Abramowitz. But, he added, DCF has alternatives for getting such help.

First, caseworkers can ask a judge to order a dependent child into a residential treatment center for long-term psychiatric care. Under state law, such children are entitled to a lawyer and a hearing before they can be committed to a treatment center against their will.

DCF also can have a troubled child committed to a psychiatric hospital under the state's involuntary commitment law, called the Baker Act, Abramowitz said.

``We have a lot of safeguards,'' Abramowitz said. ``We want the youth in our dependency system not to be punished because they were abused or neglected.''

Of the roughly 2,500 children in the Miami-Dade's child welfare system under 18, about 7 to 10 percent have been involved with the juvenile justice system at some point, said Fran Allegra, who heads Miami's privately run foster care agency, Our Kids.

``Generally,'' Allegra said, ``these teenagers have resided in group care and have been in the system for a long time.'' Miami is one of seven U.S. cities that will be part of a Georgetown University study of how to improve coordination of services for youth in the delinquency and foster care systems, she said.

Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez, whose office represents J.J., said jailing children to protect them from themselves is both costly and counterproductive. Children in the detention center, he said, cost the county $281 per day.

``Locking a child up increases the likelihood of future criminal activity,'' Martinez said. ``This is the latest in a long line of appellate court opinions instructing a juvenile judge to follow the law. We remain vigilant.''

Frank Penela, a Tallahassee spokesman for the Department of Juvenile Justice, said his agency has not sought to lock up children who don't meet the criteria for secure detention.

``We just follow the letter of the law,'' Penela said. ``Current law establishes detention admissions criteria. Today's ruling reflects that law and we agree with the decision.''

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/31/1556728/runaway-foster-kids-cant-be-jailed.html#ixzz0jvIpED3B

Victory: Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel

2010-03-29T09:38:00.000-07:00

October 5, 2009

Victory: Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel!

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (the federal level appellate court that reviews decisions from federal district courts in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas) issued the long-awaited decision in Nelson v. Norris. In this case, Shawanna Nelson argued that being forced to go through the final stages of labor with Read More

Foster mom gets probation in infant's death

2010-03-29T09:24:00.000-07:00

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A foster mom who left a 9-month-old girl in a closed minivan, where the infant died of heat stroke, has been sentenced to probation, a fine and a community service.

Wendy Osborne, 31, received 12 months' probation and a $1,000 fine and was ordered to complete 200 hours of community service after pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter, a misdemeanor.

"There is no way the court can lessen the anger and frustration of those who loved the child," Judge Bob Adamson said at last week's sentencing in Jackson County Superior Court, according to the Braselton News. "This act is at the highest level of criminality of a misdmeanor involuntary manslaughter charge. If not for the recommendation of the district attorney, the court would have considered [jail] time in this case."

Osborne told authorities she returned from a doctor's appointment about 2:30 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008, and took her two adopted 3-year-old girls into her Nicholson home. She forgot about the baby in the car seat.

Osborne said she fell asleep, waking around 5 p.m. Then she remembered the baby in the minivan. The girl, Jessica Marie Scovil, was pronounced dead by emergency personnel called to the scene.
Osborne told authorities she had been sick for several days and was taking medication, which might have contributed to her drowsiness.

The infant had been living with Osborne for five months. Her birth parents were on the verge of regaining custody at the time of Jessica's death, relatives told the court.

"I will never understand how anyone could leave a 9-month-old baby in a hot van to die," said Jessica's grandmother, Georgia Nicholas, according to the Braselton News.
Osborne and her husband, Chris, had fostered several children before Jessica. Osborne even helped train new foster parents.

Before sentencing, witnesses testified on Osborne's behalf. "I can't imagine that any punishment you can give her can be worse than what she's already been through," said Osborne's pastor, the Rev. Kent Barry, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. "She deals with this every day. She still has her two [5-year-olds] to care for, and when she looks at them, she can't help but see Jessica."

About Nancy

2010-03-27T19:56:00.001-07:00

Nancy Schaefer Senator, 50th District "THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES"

2010-03-27T18:36:00.000-07:00

UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

BY: Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District

My introduction into Child Protective Service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.

The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent's children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with a caseworker.

In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them.

After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in "adult entertainment". His girlfriend worked as an "escort" and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.

Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmother's door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.

The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved to the southeast. The foster parents began driving to the father's residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.

To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are, in my opinion, permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has never completely recovered. The mother has rights but the father still has custody of the children.

Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I have worked with other desperate parents across the state of Georgia and in many other States because their children were taken for no cause and they have no one with whom to turn. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers, social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who "pick up" the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all across this land.

In this report, I have focused mainly on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.

The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) in Georgia and other titles in other states, has become a "protected empire" built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection. However, this report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in "legal kidnapping," ineffective policies, and an agency that on certain occasions would not remove a child (or children) when the child was enduring torment and abuse.

In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did not know where their children were and had not seen them in years. I had witnessed the "Gestapo" at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off of school buses, and out of homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the agency's department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. It has already made over $100,000.

Due to being exposed, several employees in this particular office were fired. However, they have now been rehired either in neighboring counties or in the same county again. According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the same practices that they had before the light was shown on their evil deeds.

Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, and now hundreds and hundreds across this nation and in nearly every state, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in Child Protective Services system.

I have come to the conclusion:

that poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that's where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (some times parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by "the system" that makes a profit for holding children longer and "bonuses" for not returning children to their parents;
that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;
that the separation of families and the "snatching of children" is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and "court watches"! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold "the system" together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the "system's" psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.
that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash "bonuses" to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the "adoption incentive bonuses" local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a "special needs" child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.
that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care then when a child is placed with a new family, then "adoption bonus funds" are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid;
As you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators. It explains why my bill, SB 415 suffered such defeat in the Judicial Committee, why I was cut off at every juncture.
that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together or provide effective care;
that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, "This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Just look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
that the "Policy Manuel" is considered "the last word" for CPS/DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;
It is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect.
that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them. However, when the parents cooperate with Child Protective Services, their behavior is interpreted as guilt when nothing could be further from the truth.
Fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to visit or even see their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not stress that a foster parent is there temporarily to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many foster parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights as a means to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child placed in their care from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system. Recently in Atlanta, a young couple learning to be new parents and loving it, were told that because of an anonymous complaint, their daughter would be taken into custody by the State DFCS. The couple was devastated and then was required by DFCS to take parenting classes, alcohol counseling and psychological evaluations if they wanted to get their child back. All of the courses cost money for which most parents are required to pay. While in their anxiety and turmoil to get their child home, the baby was left for hours in a car to die in the heat in her car seat by a foster parent who forgot about the child. This should never have happened. It is tragic. In many cases after the parents have jumped through all the hoops, they still do not get their child. As long as the child is not returned, there is money for the agency, for foster parents, for adoptive parents, and for the State.
that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system's services.
that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia and from other states trying to get custody of their grandchildren. CPS claims relatives are contacted, but there are many many cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official "safety", these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!
That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
Recomendations
Call for an independent audit of all State Child Protective Services (CPS) and for a Federal Congressional hearing on Child Protective Services nationwide.
Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage and their lives destroyed.
Abolish the Federal and State financial incentives that have turned Child Protective Services into a business that separates families for money.
Grant to parents their rights verbally and in writing.
Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives if children need to be removed permanently.
Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before permanently removing a child from his or her parents. Open family court. Remove the secrecy. Allow the press and family members access. Give parents the opportunity in court to speak and be a part of their children's future.
Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that "except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.")
Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence made available to parents.
Final Remarks
On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and terrified children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and beaten down individuals.

We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become an adult centered business to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with, or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for the social workers.

I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to so many families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so.

Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It's time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy" Proverbs 31:8-9

A Good Example in Kentucky

2010-03-27T07:00:00.001-07:00

CPS CORRUPTION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA EXPOSED!!!: Former GA Senator Nancy Schaefer speak in Amsterdam on CPS

2010-03-27T06:51:00.000-07:00

CPS CORRUPTION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA EXPOSED!!!: Former GA Senator Nancy Schaefer speak in Amsterdam on CPS

Sen. Schaefer was a brave woman who fought against Juvenile Courts, Family Courts and CPS Corruption

2010-03-27T06:43:00.000-07:00

Tribute to Former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer

2010-03-27T06:22:00.000-07:00

FOXNews.com - Deaths of Former Ga. Lawmaker, Husband Probed as Murder-Suicide

2010-03-27T05:49:00.001-07:00

FOXNews.com - Deaths of Former Ga. Lawmaker, Husband Probed as Murder-Suicide

Posted using ShareThis

"Child Rights" Forces Gearing Up Again

2010-03-25T23:57:00.000-07:00

"Child Rights" Forces Gearing Up Again

The “child rights forces,” led by one particular organization of internationalists, are gearing up once again. According to a recent newsletter, The Campaign for US Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child just acquired a new advocacy and grassroots director who will build “a database of senator profiles identifying how senators support and oppose children’s bills before congress,” to help their campaign target senators to support the CRC. They have also just pushed for and received from The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) an endorsement of the CRC, which I suppose should come as no surprise. If the CRC were ratified, family courts and those who work in that system would stand to gain power and money as they begin to play a primary role in enforcing U.S. obligations under the Convention.

Fortunately, we are getting ready to launch a major campaign of our own that will remove the threat of the CRC for a little while. The Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution remains the only permanent solution to this international effort to steal parental rights and place the government in control of our families – under strict U.N. guidelines. But we are gearing up for a short-term fix in the meantime, and we look forward to giving you those details in the next week or two.

Action Items

This is the fourth and final week of our effort to encourage each of you to secure one new petition signer per week. Though our efforts so far have not been as fruitful as we hoped, it is not too late to join in, and it is not too hard to add all four signatures this week!

Even more importantly, though, it is vital that as many as possible print out this petition and get as many as you can to sign up and add their email address to our list. This is specifically because we are about to launch a major call-in blitz to the U.S. Senate. Don’t call yet – we’ll let you know when and where to call and what to say – but it is urgent to line up as many people as possible to participate in that blitz. As mentioned above, we expect that blitz within the next two weeks

Ever Wonder Who Trains Juvenile Court Judges?

2010-03-25T23:14:00.000-07:00

Friday, November 20, 2009
EVER WONDER WHO TRAINS FAMILY COURT JUDGES?
An Action Item. Your Responses to Judge Gormley's Suspension

For those of you who have been through the family courts and wondered what just happened this email contains several resources judges use to determine whether or how much time you will have with your children. There are many good judges across the nation working to keep children and parents fully engaged with each other. On the other hand statistics continue to indicate Fathers are the parent overwhelmingly relegated to visitor, non-custodial or non-primary residential status even when that Father has joint legal and/or physical custody of the children and has been a 'hands on' fully engaged parent.

Our movement needs to be aware of an influential organization located in Reno, Nevada called the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). For the better part of the past 60 years NCJFCJ has provided training and programming material for family court judges. Their influence in family law and the courts is significant. For those whose cases involve allegations of Domestic Violence or restraining orders you'll want to be aware of these two publications of NCJFCJ which address these issues and how the organization counsels judges to view your case when you come to court. Take a look at NCJFCJ's Burgundy Book and their latest Judges Bench Guide for safety involving child custody cases. There are a number of serious concerns within these documents, for example judges are instructed to ignore claims and evidence of parental alienation and strike them from the record.

Why This Matters For All of Us

The domestic violence movement wants child custody cases examined through the abuse lens. False allegations of abuse to gain advantage in divorce are recognized throughout the profession's literature. Attorneys writing in law journals complain about the practice of some colleagues who routinely file for a restraining order several weeks before filing divorce papers. Many of us recognize what's become known as the 'Silver Bullet Technique' or 'The Nuclear Option.'

On Tuesday, legislators in Suffolk county NY passed a law stating the county would now be required to establish a public domestic violence offender registry operating similarly to the sex offender registries. In passing this law the county legislators are claiming a 'first' in the nation and hope their example is replicated around the country. Thanks to Greg Fisher for passing on the vote results.

Earlier this year a legislator from Indiana sent ACFC this DV bill requesting comments. The bill passed. Financial sweeteners for the judiciary and law enforcement were included thereby assuring bill support from those communities. The result is Indiana has started establishing databases to track restraining orders on an inter and intra state basis. How long will it be before these databases become the portal for Indiana's public domestic violence registries as well? Not very. As an aside this law requires an officer to accept 'victims' statement that a restraining order exists even when proof of its existence is unavailable. What this means is immediate arrest without proof of violation.

Next year the violence against women act (VAWA) comes up for reauthorization in Congress. VAWA money funds Suffolk county and Indiana type activity around the nation. It has become very evident DV advocates intend to create databases around the nation then federalize those databases into a seamless national network, not dissimilar to the existing systems in place for child support collection.

While to some this data warehousing may sound like a good idea to protect victims of domestic violence it should raise significant red flags for citizens concerned about their ability to receive justice in our courts. There do not appear to be safeguards in place to protect innocents. Considering a judge recently ruled several West Virginia domestic violence program rules unconstitutional, an outcome similar to one last year in the California Woods v. Shrewy case and the case of Crespo v. Crespo heading to the NJ Supreme Court ever encroaching government into the private sphere of family life is a legitimate issue.

Are these victim safety or revenue generation programs? A review of Pennsylvania data reveals almost 50% (about 30,000 per year) of all restraining orders are withdrawn, dismissed or not extended on hearing. The cost to taxpayers for these orders is approximately $60,000,000 per year. Dr. Ben Foster authored this report several years ago on the cost of dismissed or false restraining orders in West Virginia. The Suffolk county DV registry program allows for going back five years from enactment to build the database and will charge 'offenders' a $25 per year fee to keep their information current

Treaty threatens parents' rights.....Washington Times

2010-03-25T22:54:00.000-07:00

A ll good parents are committed to seeking the best for their children, and in the crucial days of the presidential nominating process, many of us are turning our eyes to the years ahead.

What will the future look like for our children?

Though candidates and voters may have different perspectives on the specifics of achieving a positive future, one thing remains certain: Children need their parents.

The overwhelming majority know that parental involvement in the lives of children makes a key difference when it comes to their healthy development, education and positive life choices. In particular, home-school families know firsthand the impact of strong parental involvement in the lives of children.

Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack.

By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the "best interests of the child," outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision.

If this treaty is made binding upon our country, government officials could be advancing their definition of the "best interests" of your child — even if it means overriding some of our parental choices.

Since the U.S. Constitution makes treaty provisions binding on the nation, the only way to defend against the UNCRC, if it's ratified, is to amend the Constitution.

To this end, the Home School Legal Defense Association is actively supporting ParentalRights.org, a new grass-roots movement of concerned parents across the nation. ParentalRights.org is an organization dedicated to ensuring the long-term security of the child-parent relationship.

The ultimate goal, however, of ParentalRights.org is to secure a constitutional amendment that will preserve and protect the rights of parents.

The parental rights amendment does not add to or change current parental rights — it only protects the rights parents presently possess, ensuring that those rights will not be weakened or devalued.

The amendment would ensure that, even if the UNCRC is ratified, your parental rights would still be protected. If you would like to read more about your parental rights and why they need to be protected, visit www.ParentalRights.org.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at 540/338-5600; or send e-mail to media@hslda.orgAs the new year gets under way, many of us are thinking about the future of our families. The safeguarding of parental rights is vital to the future of our nation because of the role parents play in the lives of their children is one that no government official ever could replace.Many parents are completely unaware of the hazards lurking within the words of this treaty. Wrapped neatly within its positive phrases and child-focused language is a dangerous disregard for the vital role parents play in the lives of their children. In the mid-'90s, the UNCRC was opposed by a core group of senators and stopped. The treaty still can be ratified, however, since we do not know who will control the Congress and the presidency in the future. This frightening scenario could be just around the corner. It's not as far-fetched as we may believe. The UNCRC, after being approved by the Clinton administration in February 1995, was then sent to the Senate. It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children. Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we home-school, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Public School Helps 15 Year Old Get Abortion Without Parents’ Knowledge

2010-03-25T21:28:00.000-07:00

2010 March 25

by Paul Coopertags: Abortion, health care, parents rights, public schools, Seattle.

I thought our government didn’t fund abortions? I guess they don’t. They just tell students to have abortions and counsel them to not tell their parents, ship them off to an abortion clinic, and make sure they’re back in time before the school day is out. That has recently happened and appears to be the normal plan of action for pregnant girls at at least one high school in Seattle, Washington.

The names have not been released, but a mother in Seattle is rightly furious to find out that her young daughter was given abortion assistance by the local public high school. The 15 year old daughter went to the Ballard High School’s health center to telling them she thought she was pregnant. The health center confirmed her pregnancy and then gave the girl options which included the option to abort the baby.

The mother claims the workers told the student that if she told her mom she was going through with the abortion that the mom would be the one who would have to pay for it. But, if the girl kept it from her parents then she could get a free abortion. Basically, they were advertising free abortions while attempting to keep everything a secret from the mother.

The school then called a cab for the young girl to send her off all by herself to an abortion clinic. I can’t imagine what that 15 year old was thinking as she rode in the back of that cab with so many thoughts and pressures running through her mind. She was left alone with the task of going to a clinic where they would kill the life inside of her. And I thought pro-choice people were supposed to care for women and young girls.

Washington state is one of thirteen states with no parental consent or even parental notification laws. Any girl at any age can get an abortion without their parents ever having to know. And at least at one public school in Seattle, they will help you do it. In fact, the school says sending students in cabs to clinics is a normal occurrence. However, the school refuses to fess up to how many students they’ve sent off to abortions in the past. Obviously this heartless act has been done before.

“We had no idea this was being facilitated on campus. They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility…Makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away” – Mother of teen girl

Parents had signed health forms for what they believed were for emergency reasons for when the parents could not be reached. However, the school uses them as permission for counseling teens into abortions without telling the parents. Why would anyone with a sane mind think this is a good idea?

If you look at the school’s health center site it says:

Teens can be seen for confidential family planning services(at any age), STD testing(if over age 14), and mental health counseling(if over age 13) without parental consent. Consent may be required for other services, and forms are available at the Teen Health Center. – Ballard Teen Health Center

What “other service” would parental consent be required for that are bigger than having an abortion? I can’t think of any.

With abortion and government health care being in the spotlight as of late, this is a sad reminder of what our tax dollars will be used for. Here is a government funded high school counseling a young girl to have a free, secret abortion. What’s next? I’m not sure I want to know.

School Abortion

2010-03-25T21:17:00.000-07:00

School Abortion
FOX NEWS Fair and Balanced

March 24, 2010 - 4:46 PM
by: Dan Springer

The mother of a 15-year old Seattle girl is furious because her daughter had an abortion with some assistance from the nurses at her school and she was never informed. She only found out after the fact when her daughter had an unrelated health problem and finally revealed she had terminated a pregnancy.

The girl attends Ballard High School in Seattle which has a teen health clinic inside. The clinic is run by Swedish Medical Center and administered by the King County Health Department.

According to the girl's mother, who did not want to give her name, her daughter was given a pregnancy test at the school clinic which was positive. She was then told by the nurse that she could have an abortion at a nearby clinic without her parents' knowledge.

The girl then called a taxi, which picked her up at the school and drove her by herself to the abortion clinic.

The mother acknowledges she signed a consent form at the beginning of the school year giving the school permission to administer health care off campus. She assumed that meant in cases of emergency. Nowhere on the form is abortion mentioned.

A King County Health official would not speak about any of the details surrounding the case, but did say that no laws were broken. In Washington State a girl of any age can get an abortion without her parent's being notified. It's one of 15 states without either parental consent or parental notification laws.

The county health official also says that schools have sent kids in taxis in the past when they're taken off campus for medical procedures. James Apa, a Health Department spokesman says it's one of several modes of transportation used.

Abuse of LGBTQ children

2010-03-24T10:13:00.000-07:00

Abuse of LGBTQ children

By CEI BELL

ATRANSGENDER teen girl and Lambda Legal Defense have filed a lawsuit against the city's Youth Study Center and Department of Human Services. The girl alleges that despite being diagnosed with gender identity disorder she was housed with males and subjected to constant verbal and physical abuse.

In fact, according to the suit, one Youth Study Center supervisor told this petite girl that he would not call her by her feminine name until she had her genitals removed. Of course, the language he used was much more crude.

Last spring, DHS held a meeting for young people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) and who find themselves in the foster-care system. About 100 people attended. Half were clients and half social-service providers. Several transgender teens spoke about being harassed at the Youth Study Center and in group homes.

Phillip (not his real name), who recently turned 18 and is in college, spoke to me about seeing an effeminate boy being beaten up in a group home. The supervisors put the child in a room with the bullies to fight them. The boy ended up being beaten again. Philip also claims to have witnessed effeminate boys being sexually abused by other boys at residential treatment facilities.

Carrie Jacobs, executive director and co-founder of the Attic Youth Center, said she's seen an increase in young people coming out at earlier ages. Jacobs said that, when she was young, they didn't have words for the feelings they had. Now they do - but going public has consequences. And it's particularly thorny because foster parents are rarely trained to deal with gay youth.

According to Jacobs, "Foster parents may take on the care of a child when he is 3 years old and then when the youth turns 14 or 15 and comes out he may get kicked out." Jacobs suggested that when the state is contracting with a foster parent, "they might want to make clear the reality that some youth will come out as lesbian, gay or transgender."

LGBTQ youth in the foster-care system and residential treatment facilities can be forced to endure child abuse by the very people paid to look out for their welfare.

Transgender youth, in particular, are targets for physical and sexual abuse with no recourse for rescue or escape. If an LGBTQ child avoids going to school or leaves foster care due to fear of being beaten up, then the child is delinquent. If an LGBTQ child is assaulted and fights back, the child can be prosecuted as a criminal.

Where other adolescents are offered college and careers, all too often LGBTQ youth are offered the streets, drugs, sexual abuse, solicitation and worse. There is no way that this can be tolerated as either moral or ethical.

Cei Bell is a Philadelphia writer.

Innocent children lost in parents' dysfunction

2010-03-24T08:03:00.000-07:00

SHERYL KORNMAN and DAVID L. TEIBEL

Tucson Citizen

Tyler Payne's stepgrandfather wants Christopher M. Payne to tell authorities where the 5-year-old boy is.

Christopher Payne is the father of Tyler and Ariana Payne. Police believe Ariana, 4, is the girl found dead in a plastic tub in a storage locker Feb. 18. No one knows where Tyler is.

Christopher Payne is in the Pima County Jail on charges that include first-degree murder in the death of Ariana. Police are awaiting DNA test results to confirm the badly decomposed body they found is her's.

Tyler and Ariana's stepgrandfather, Richard Barcalow, said Tuesday he heard Payne may have sold his 5-year-old grandson.

"I hope he did sell him. At least he'd be alive," said Barcalow, stepfather of the children's mother, Jamie Marie Hallam. Police said she is not a suspect in the death of Ariana.

Police have been searching for Tyler since arresting Payne Thursday.

"It just hurts so much to have them killed or missing. You don't know what happened," Barcalow said. "If he didn't want them, why didn't he give them back to us?"

Tucson Police Detective Capt. Bill Richards, in a statement released through TPD spokesman Dallas Wilson, said Tuesday:

"We reiterate: We suspect the boy is a victim of foul play but until he is found, we are keeping all doors open."

Barcalow said he's been told Payne knew someone who also was renting a storage locker at the U-Store-It, 519 E. Prince Road, where the body police believe is Ariana's was found.

Police have yet to release the cause of death or name who rented the locker, saying only that Payne was connected to the rental in some way.

Barcalow's neighbor, Norma Wyllie, speculated that Payne may have killed Ariana because he did not want to pay child support.

On Jan. 29, a Pima County Superior Court Judge ordered Christopher Payne to pay Hallam back child support he owed her.

Barcalow, who lives in Catalina about 15 miles north of Tucson, said he raised Hallam from the age of 3, when he married her mother, Linda, in New Jersey. They have since divorced. Linda remarried and lives in New Jersey, he said.

He said Hallam came to Tucson to stay with him after bearing a son in New Jersey. The boy, now "8 or 9," lives with his father in New Jersey and shares joint custody with Hallam, Barcalow said.

Hallam has a fourth child, he said.

She gave birth to a girl in October who was born with methamphetamine in her system, according to state records viewed by the Tucson Citizen. Hallam did not test positive for drugs at the time of the birth, the records show.

The baby was taken by Child Protective Services at the hospital and placed in foster care, the records show.

A week later, the infant was given to Hallam and her male companion. CPS workers were to follow up with home visits to make sure the home environment was appropriate for a newborn and that Hallam was on medication. She had been diagnosed with postpartum depression.

The documents indicate Hallam was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the same time and told by the state to get medical care for this mental illness at CODAC, a publicly funded behavioral health care provider, and at Catalina Community Services in Catalina.

Barcalow said he did not know whether she got any medical care for bipolar disorder following the infant's birth.

He said that a few weeks ago she called him in the middle of the night after her companion "smashed in a door with a sledge hammer." The incident was not reported to authorities, he said, and Hallam and her baby continued to live with the man, who is believed to be the baby's father.

Barcalow said the last time he saw Payne was several months ago. Payne, who was well dressed and polite, had come to pick up his children for a weekend visit.

That was the last time he saw Tyler and Ariana alive.

Barcalow said police will not tell him how Ariana was killed.

"I hope it was quick," he said. "She's an adorable little girl."

He said Hallam began living in the Tucson area full time in 2000, when she came to live with him in Catalina.

"She met Chris (Payne). He helped her work on the trailer I got her," he said.

At one point, the couple were living in an apartment in Tucson. One night, Hallam called Barcalow to move her out of the apartment because she said Payne had beat her, Barcalow said.

He said he moved her and her furniture to his home.

Hallam and Payne divorced in 2003. She was granted sole custody of Tyler and Ariana, but he was allowed to take the children on weekends.

Hallam eventually got involved with another man, Barcalow said, this one at least 20 years her senior. Barcalow said that man has been abusive to Hallam but she wants to stay with him.

Barcalow said he never saw signs that Hallam had bipolar disorder as she was growing up in New Jersey.

He said he misses Ariana and Tyler, who called him "Pop-pop" and jumped into his arms or onto his lap as soon as they came into his house.

Their favorite television show to watch together was "Cops," he said. All of them enjoyed singing the "Bad Boys" theme song together.

Barcalow said he tried to provide a safe environment for Ariana, Tyler and Hallam but he said his stepdaughter didn't like his rules.

"No alcohol, no drinking. No drugs," he said. "I'm against that kind of stuff."

Hallam left his home and "got back to the same (bad environment)", he said.

Still, she would call him for help.

"Every time she gets hurt, she calls me to come and get her," Barcalow said.

He said she has never worked, except for about a month as a secretary and gets by on monthly government-funded assistance.

The children enjoyed sleepovers with Barcalow's neighbor Wyllie, whose 5-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter were close friends of the youngsters.

"We've been saying prayers every night," she said. "It's hard enough for an adult to cope, let alone another child who is innocent and doesn't know there are bad people."

She said her son, whose name is being withheld to protect his privacy, prays: "Please dear God, bring them home and we'll feed them the right food."

Liz Barker, a spokeswoman for Arizona Child Protective Services, issued a statement Tuesday afternoon regarding its involvement with Christopher Payne. It did not comment on the more recent CPS case involving Hallam's newest child.

"Prior to his arrest, CPS had received no reports alleging that Christopher Payne had abused or neglected his children," the statement read. "We had received reports that the children had been neglected by another individual and our investigation of those allegations included contact with Mr. Payne."

Barker did not name the "individual."

She said CPS did not place the children with Payne but that they were "placed" with him by another family member.

That contradicts the account of Barcalow, who said the children were not returned to Hallam after a scheduled weekend visit.

Barker's statement said the children were placed with Payne by "another family member and our investigation revealed no information that the children were at risk of harm with him."

She did not identify that person.

Barker said that a year ago, TPD and CPS investigated concerns about the children's safety but neither agency "had information at the time that indicated the children would not be safe with Mr. Payne."

Hallam is believed to be in the Tucson area. The Tucson Citizen left a message for her and she has not responded.

Court records show Hallam and Payne had a tumultuous relationship.

Christopher Payne's arrest record dates back to 1994, with most of his arrests involving drug and alcohol violations. Most of the charges were either dismissed or resulted in a brief time in jail with the charges later dismissed after he completed probation.

He and his ex-wife accused each other in civil court records of drug use, but online court records show Hallam has no drug arrest record.

Neither has served prison time in Arizona, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections Web site.

Payne and Hallam married in Tucson on Jan. 25, 2002. By June 16, 2003, the couple had divorced, court records show. In the divorce filing, Payne accused Hallam of using methamphetamine and leaving their "kids with different people."

She accused him of using alcohol and drugs and creating a "violent environment."

In December, Hallam got an order of protection against Payne granted by Judge Pro Tem Karen Adam in Superior Court.

In seeking the order of protection, she asked the judge to include her children, citing "fear of endangering them or kidnapping them," the record shows.

Police say the children were with Payne when they disappeared. No missing-child reports have been filed in the disappearance of the children.

Payne has a third child, a son born in 2004 to another woman.
Police wait on DNA test to confirm girl's ID
"The child is healthy," said TPD spokesman Sgt. Decio Hopffer. He wouldn't say where the child was.

Police urge anyone with information about Tyler or Ariana to call 88-CRIME or the special tip line at 791-4499 Ext. 1238.

Citizen Staff Writer Ryn Gargulinski contributed to this article.

Jacksonville girl wins $788,421 in abuse suit

2010-03-24T07:51:00.000-07:00

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 4:36 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 4:36 p.m.

JACKSONVILLE -- A 12-year-old Jacksonville girl has been awarded $788,421 in a civil lawsuit against a former Department of Children & Families employee who allegedly sexually abused her seven years ago, an attorney for the child said Thursday.

A Duval County Circuit Court jury ruled May 23 that Louis Templeman, then a DCF child protection investigator, violated the then 5-year-old girl's civil rights by sexually molesting her. The judgment was announced Thursday because the time for an appeal had passed, said Brian Cabrey, a Jacksonville lawyer who represented the child.

"It was the DCF's responsibility to ensure that the child was protected and kept safe from harm, certainly from its own employees, and they failed miserably. The last person she should have had to worry about hurting her was the person who was supposed to be protecting her," Cabrey said.

The alleged abuse occurred in July 2000 while the child was being taken to emergency shelter care after her mother was arrested for child abuse for excessive corporal punishment, Cabrey said. But it was not reported until a year later when the youngster disclosed the information to a therapist.

The girl's 26-year-old mother, whose name is being withheld to protect the child's identity, has custody of her daughter now. She said her daughter is still receiving counseling, is very clingy and has nightmares.

"She is concerned about him getting out and finding her," the mother said. "She has good days and bad days.

"On a daily basis, I have to deal with her insecurities," she said.

The girl is in the seventh grade at a private school.

Relatives say officials were told Deandre Green, 2, was being harmed before his death

2010-03-24T07:04:00.000-07:00

Father says he warned of abuse

Relatives say police and L.A. County child welfare officials were told Deandre Green, 2, was being harmed before his death.

March 23, 2010
By Tony Barboza and Garrett Therolf

Family members of Deandre Green, a 2-year-old boy who was fatally beaten last week, allegedly by his mother's boyfriend, said they had warned police and Los Angeles County child welfare officials at least twice about possible abuse in the last few months of the child's life.

Deandre's father told The Times in an interview Tuesday that in October, he had taken his son to the Hawthorne Police Department to show officials bruises on the child's chest and stomach. Deandre's cousin said she had called the county Department of Children and Family Services in February to report her concerns.

The cousin, Lavetta Jones, and other family members said their calls went unreturned for weeks. At one point, a someone at the county told them the person they needed to talk to was on vacation, the family members said.

"It wasn't as urgent as it should have been," the boy's grandmother, Sharlynn Pinkard, 43, said. "We truly sensed something wasn't right."

County officials declined to comment immediately on Deandre's case.

It remains unclear exactly what steps authorities took after receiving the allegations of abuse regarding Deandre -- and whether social workers ultimately confirmed the accusations. Under law, police and social service agencies are required to notify each other of such allegations.

What is clear is that Deandre continued to live with his mother and her boyfriend. On Saturday, the boy, who was living in Long Beach at the time, was pronounced dead at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center. Officials said he showed signs of repeated abuse, and Long Beach detectives have arrested his mother's boyfriend, Hector Ernest Jr., 26, on suspicion of killing the boy. He is being held without bail.

Deandre's death comes as the county continues to face scrutiny in its handling of child abuse cases. Earlier this month, 2-year-old Viola Vanclief was killed while in the care of a foster family agency that contracts with the court despite a long history of child abuse incidents. About 35 children since January 2007 who passed through the county system have died from abuse or neglect. They have declined to disclose records related to the dozen most recent cases.

Long Beach Police Officer Jackie Bezart confirmed that detectives are examining at least two reports of abuse submitted to the county before Deandre died but said she could not provide more details.

Coming Soon: The Definition of Social Work/Social Service

2010-03-24T02:20:00.001-07:00

NY denied thousands accused of child abuse the chance to clear their name

2010-03-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

Breaking News, Government, Regional News,
State News, Top News » Central NY Real-Time News

By John O'Brien / The Post-Stand
March 22, 2010, 6:00AM

Syracuse, NY - The state Office of Children and Family Services in 2004 had a backlog of requests for hearings from people accused of mistreating children.

Three women had recently sued the agency over the delays that were costing them jobs working with kids because they couldn’t get their names cleared.

The agency had a solution to the thousands of pending written requests that would come under scrutiny by the lawsuit, according to sworn testimony from state workers: Shred.

For a month in 2004, the workers were under orders to take carts of the requests for name-clearing hearings and shred them after hours in their Albany offices, according to the testimony. They shredded about a thousand a day for a month, one OCFS worker testified.

The revelation came in a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit last month that could affect 25,000 people across the state who are listed in a statewide database as reported child abusers. Under the settlement, anyone who requested a hearing on child abuse or maltreatment charges but never got it regained the right to the hearing.

Employers such as day care centers check the database to see if a job applicant was ever accused of child abuse. Those accused could request a hearing with OCFS to clear their names. More than half of those challenges result in the accused person being cleared, according to Thomas Hoffman, a lawyer for the three women who sued the state over the lengthy delays.

Those women claimed they lost opportunities for jobs working with children because the state took up to two years to give them a name-clearing hearing. By then, the potential employer had filled the job opening.

Four years after the suit was filed, a whistleblower who works for OCFS called Hoffman, he said. She told him how the agency was getting rid of the written requests for hearings, then marking the case “waived” or “withdrawn” on the database, court papers said. The state never told the accused. To the inquiring employer, it would appear that the person had given up on their request for a hearing, and the child abuse accusation stood.

The backlog of hearing requests was much longer than two years — some requests had been sitting around for seven years, court papers said.

The whistleblower came forward in February 2009. Hoffman then took testimony of 18 or 19 OCFS workers about the handling of the requests for hearings, he said.

In some cases, workers called the prospective employers with whom the accused person had applied for a job, according to the workers’ testimony. If the employer was no longer interested, the state workers were told to mark the file “waived,” according to the testimony of six OCFS workers. The accused person was never notified in those cases. The written requests were shredded or thrown in the garbage, at least three of the workers testified.

If the whistleblower hadn’t come forward about the shredded cases, Hoffman would never have known the extent of the backlog, he said.

Cathy Dufty, a clerical worker in the office, testified that supervisor David Peters ordered her to gather a bunch of temp workers and start shredding.

“I would go down to his office about 3:30 and I would take the cart back, and it would be, ‘These are to be shredded, and these over here are to be refiled,’” Dufty testified last year.

Peters was then the director of the statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. He has since retired. In his deposition for the lawsuit, Peters denied that his agency did anything improper, Hoffman said. Peters could not be reached for comment.

The assistant state attorney general who represented the state in the lawsuit, Robert Kraft, refused to comment. A spokeswoman for OCFS, Pat Cantiello, said no one from the agency could comment because the settlement has not yet been approved by a federal judge.

The whistleblower, who still works for OCFS, also would not comment.

Under the proposed settlement, the state would have to send notices to the 25,000 people on the central register whose requests for hearings were ignored between 2003 and 2007. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin will hold a hearing in April in Manhattan, then decide whether to approve the settlement.

As part of the settlement, the state agreed to stop the practice of calling potential employers to see if they still wanted to hire the person accused of child abuse. The state agreed that the accused person has a right to a hearing whether the employer is interested or not, Hoffman said.

The settlement only applies to people who requested a hearing and never got one. It doesn’t affect anyone who never requested a hearing or who withdrew his or her hearing request.

Once the settlement is approved, Hoffman will submit a bill for legal services to the court. The state will pay those costs, but will not pay damages under the proposed settlement. Anyone who might be affected should check Hoffman’s Web site on the case: registryclassaction.com.

The state gets about 350,000 inquiries a year from prospective employers, including child care centers, foster care agencies, juvenile detention centers and other employers who work with children. The register is accessible only to employers who are required to check a job applicant’s background.

’’The employer doesn’t know why you’re on the list,” Hoffman said. “You could be a pedophile or it could be something benign.”

John O’Brien can be reached at jobrien@syracuse.com or 470-2187.

The Welfare State Kills Children

2010-03-17T13:42:00.000-07:00

Privatize Adoption
Posted March 16, 2010

On February 22 a court in suburban Washington, D.C., passed judgment in one of the most horrendous cases of child abuse in modern times. Renee Bowman, the adopting parent of three girls, had for years starved, neglected, and beaten them, while keeping them locked night and day in their bedroom. She choked two of the girls to death and put their bodies in plastic bags and stored them in the freezer. The third girl escaped the house by jumping from a window.

At first glance, these child murders may seem an inexplicable, isolated tragedy; a closer look reveals that this outrage was constructed, piece by thoughtless piece, by the modern welfare state.

The first error came with the selection of Bowman as the adoptive parent. She was obviously a negligent and seriously deranged person who should never have been approved for adoption. Well, who approved her? The adoption had been supervised from start to finish by a government agency, the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services. In theory, it was supposed to establish that Renee Bowman, the mother, was a suitable parent. In practice, it didn’t even notice—or care—that she had a criminal record, a rather glaring instance of “government failure” by this notoriously incompetent agency.

The next link in the tragedy concerns Bowman’s motivation for adopting the children. If she did not love children, if she saw them as a burden to her, such a burden that she considered them better off dead, why had she bothered with expense and effort of adopting them? The answer is money. In 1980, Congress approved a subsidy program to provide payments to parents who adopt children from foster care. I’m sure lawmakers thought it was a useful idea. If federal money can buy ethanol, they reasoned, why wouldn’t it buy adoptions?

Well, it does buy adoptions, but not high-quality ones. Worthy parents adopt out of love, conviction, enthusiasm, and dedication. They are willing to make real sacrifices for their children. Putting money on the table changes the mix of motivations. Yes, loving parents will still appear, but insensitive people who view children as an economic commodity also come forth. Renee Bowman was one of these insensitive, grasping types. She was being paid $2,400 a month by the federal government to be listed as the mother of these three girls; altogether she collected $152,000. “This woman was in it for the money,” said the prosecutor at the trial. “And by killing the children, keeping them literally on ice, the money continued to flow.”

Officials point out that without adoption subsidies to attract parents, children would languish in the state foster care systems. There’s some truth to this, but it exposes another flaw in the state system of handling orphans. Under government management, adoption from foster care has become a tortuous process, one burdensome and demeaning to prospective parents. The government agencies are so focused on trying to apply a host of bureaucratic regulations that they repel many prospective parents, especially independent-minded individuals critical of silly red tape and micromanagement. The result is that children languish in foster care, even though hundreds of thousands of prospective parents would like to adopt them. A survey by the National Center for Health Statistics found there were nearly 600,000 women seeking to adopt children, a figure over four times the total of 129,000 children in foster care available for adoption. The oversupply of willing parents holds for all categories of children, including older children, black children, and children with disabilities.

Adoption Impediments

The severity of government’s impediments to adoption was documented by a study undertaken in 2005 by Listening to Parents, a nonprofit research group. It followed 1,000 prospective parents who called a public child-welfare agency seeking to adopt. Out of this initial group, only 36 adoptions occurred.

Having inadvertently contrived a deplorably low adoption rate, government sought to correct the problem by applying government’s inevitable fix-all: throwing more money at the problem, in the form of adoption subsidies. They created a situation of moral hazard where a person like Renee Bowman might adopt children primarily for the money, and, lacking love and a sense of responsibility, might neglect and abuse them.

Bowman’s was not an isolated case. Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy reported in February 2009 that in the previous eight months at least seven adopted children in D.C. had been killed, their adoptive parents charged or suspected in the homicides. The number of children in Washington D.C.’s adoption subsidy program who are being neglected and abused in ways short of murder could easily number in the hundreds.

This brings us to the most shocking failure in this sorry episode. After the deadly consequences of the misguided adoption subsidy became screaming headlines, officials did nothing! They didn’t close down the program. They didn’t fire, fine, or imprison employees responsible for the miscues. They didn’t resign in shame and embarrassment. Jobs and careers depend on this program: It’s in officials’ economic self-interest to downplay its problems. The same is true of the pressure groups that represent parents taking the subsidy. Their attitude was captured by a Washington Post reporter: “Even with limited oversight, most children end up in safe and supportive families, advocates said.”

In the old days, before we got hardened to welfare-state abuses, we would have said that a system that resulted in even one murdered child was unacceptable. Today, the self-interested participants of the welfare state are content with a program where “most” of the children aren’t slain.

The solution to the travesties being committed by government child welfare agencies lies right before us: move away from the welfare state as fast as we can. Turn the problem of orphans, foster care, and adoptions back to private charitable and commercial entities, unsubsidized by tax money and largely unregulated.

Will errors occur in this voluntary system? Undoubtedly they will, but there could hardly be more blunders than government agencies now commit. And the voluntary system would have this advantage: When a private agency was implicated in a tragic malfunction, donors and customers would be free to turn away from it and the agency would disappear.

In today’s welfare state we have no way to eliminate or even significantly reform wrongheaded government agencies that monopolize human services. They continue to feast on our tax dollars no matter how deplorable the outcome.

Georgia Child Welfare Reforms Endangered by New Litigation

2010-03-17T13:34:00.000-07:00

ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 16 /PR Newswire - US Newswire/ Legal action by a group that calls itself “Children’s Rights” (CR) threatens child welfare reforms that have made Georgia’s children safer, a national child advocacy group said Tuesday. CR issued an inflammatory press release alleging that Georgia “may” be endangering thousands of children by keeping them out of foster care. “They rely largely on horror story cases from the state’s Office of Child Advocate (OCA),” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “But when you try to make policy based on horror stories the results for children are horrible.

“In fact, since Georgia instituted its ‘diversion’ program, child safety has significantly improved. That’s clear from the reduction in re-abuse of children known to the child welfare agency – a reduction seen both in formally-opened cases and in cases where families are helped through a process known in Georgia as ‘diversion.’

“In contrast, independent court-appointed monitors overseeing a consent decree negotiated by CR concerning foster care in Atlanta found that there is a huge problem of abuse in foster care itself. Just two months ago, CR’s own Associate Director, Ira Lustbader declared that ‘We are extremely concerned that children in the Atlanta foster care system are simply not safe. …’ Yet now, CR is back in court, initiating a process apparently designed to shovel more children into this unsafe system.”

At the moment, Wexler said, CR is seeking only further information – information even the court monitors refuse to help them get. “As a matter of principle, we believe almost every record maintained by a child welfare agency should be public. So we believe that even though CR may misuse the information, they should get it.”

In addition, Wexler said, though diversion has made Georgia’s children safer, OCA found real problems in the process, including a lack of statewide standards.

“Georgia has contracted with an outside expert to design a statewide system based on best practice in other states. OCA should monitor the process and make sure it’s implemented. That’s a far better approach than the one taken by CR, which seems intent on scaring Georgians away from a safe, proven alternative to needless foster care,” Wexler said.

www.nccpr.org
SOURCE National Coalition for Child Protection Reform

Is Obama really dumping No Child Left Behind or just giving it a new name?

2010-03-15T05:50:00.000-07:00

4:31 pm March 13, 2010, by Maureen Downey

President Obama outlined his own education vision Saturday, one that he hopes will replace the punitive elements of the sweeping No Child Left Behind Act and give schools more flexibility in bringing students up to speed. To convey the new focus, the law will get a new name, although it has not been announced. (I am sure a few of you will have some pithy suggestions.)

The president and Ed Secretary Arne Duncan have clearly heard the cries from the classrooms where teachers complained that they were teaching to the tests in a futile attempt to meet impossible and overly rigid standards. Details are few right now, but the president did outline a new direction that is supposed to be kinder, fairer and more realistic.

I am not sure that teachers will agree that the plan is more realistic and fairer as it still seems to have high expectations that schools will make strides with all students.

While the changes suggest a broadening of the definition of a good school, Obama clearly intends to maintain a strong federal role in education and in prodding schools to improve. He is tightening the definition of an effective teacher, requiring that student performance become part of the equation. And he is measuring how well schools diminish the achievement gap between poor children and their more affluent peers.

Among the changes proposed by Obama:

-The new goal for every child would not be proficiency in math and science as measured by test scores, but graduation from high school “college or career ready,” which has become a mantra of sorts for the Obama administration.

-States can use subjects other than reading and mathematics as part of their measurements for meeting federal goals, appeasing the many critics who said that other subjects like history and art were neglected because of No Child’s singular emphasis on reading and math performance.

-In another nod to critics, Obama would dump the law’s pass-fail school grades that rely heavily on test scores, assessing schools on broader criteria, including attendance and the learning climate.

-Taking a page from a reform that briefly was considered in Georgia, the feds would intervene less in schools that are doing well.

According to the story in the AJC:

And, for the first time in 45 years, the White House is proposing a $4 billion increase in federal education spending, most of which would go to increase the competition among states for grant money and move away from formula-based funding.

The blueprint goes before the House Education and Labor Committee on Wednesday as Obama pushes Congress to reauthorize the education law this year, a time-consuming task that some observers say will be difficult. Committee Chairman George Miller, a Democrat from California, praised Obama’s plan.

Mother Sues DHS for Taking Her Child Under False Allegations

2010-03-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

Mother Sues DHS for Taking Her Child Under False Allegations

By Trish Mehaffey, Reporter
By Aaron Hepker
Story Created: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST
(Story Updated: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST )

IOWA CITY — A Guernsey mother filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Iowa Department of Human Services for placing her 5-year-old daughter in foster care based on a false allegation and asks the court to prevent this from happening again.

Jessica Wilbur, 20, filed the civil lawsuit in Johnson County District Court, claiming Paul Lafauce, a DHS abuse investigator, and DHS Director Charles Krogmeier violated her constitutional rights by placing her child in foster care based on document signed by the child’s non-custodial father Robert Nino of Marshalltown, a convicted sex offender.

Nino took the 5-year-old girl for a weekend visit in November and instead of returning her to Wilbur, he kept her and filed a false sexual abuse complaint against Wilbur with the department, according to petition filed Nov. 13. Nino then signed a voluntary foster care placement agreement with DHS and the child entered foster care for two weeks.

The sexual abuse allegation was false and no child abuse investigation was filed by DHS, but the department refused to return the child until after the article about the case ran in The Gazette, Natalie Cronk, Wilbur’s attorney, said.

Cronk said DHS contacted Wilbur at that point and said her child would be returned if she signed a plan to assure the child’s safety. The plan had nothing to do with the initial allegations.

Cronk then went with Wilbur to the foster care home of Nino’s sister, who wasn’t a qualified foster parent, to take the child home after DHS couldn’t produce an order granting authority to restrain or withhold the child from her mother.

The Johnson County DHS office has retaliated against Wilbur after she took her daughter home by proceeding with a baseless investigation and has threatened additional action, the lawsuit contends.

Roger Munns, DHS spokesman, said Tuesday after reading the lawsuit that he had to consult with department officials and didn’t think he could comment.

The suit asks the court to declare the DHS policy of taking children away from their parents by obtaining signatures on voluntary foster care placement from parents with no custodial rights as a violation of Iowa law and constitutional principles.

It also asks for punitive damages against LaFauce.

Offensive School Reform "Backwards Teaching"

2010-03-14T03:02:00.000-07:00

Voicing My Opinion

I am a mother of 5 and a grandmother of 5, I have raised one grand daughter all of her life and she is in the 6th grade in GA. I don’t blame the teachers although a lot of them don’t seem to mind blaming us!

For the past year or so I have been trying to figure out what in the world was going wrong with my grand daughter and school. She has been a gifted student since 1st grade. I have read posts from teachers where they have said that they were not much more than robots in class. The teachers are not the only ones who are “robots,” the children….. “all of our children!” It’s not just Georgia either it’s our entire nation of children and educators. School Reform was deliberately designed to set them up for the workforce and nothing else! People either know, don’t know, or don’t want to know what this is all about.

Judy B. Codding, President and Chief Executive Officer of “America's Choice,” along with Dr. D.L. Cuddy, Mark Tucker, Michael Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Hilda Taba, Scot Nearing, Judge John Hylan, Ralph Tyler, The Carnegie Corporation, “ Rockefeller,” Dr. Abraham Flexner, Marx, Stalin, H. Rowan Gaither, Norman Dodd, oh and we don't want to forget John Dewey. I imagine most of you have heard or studied something about his Cosmopolitanism ways and you may or may not have learned that he disliked intelligent children. Did you know he was founder of the University of Chicago Laboratory School and they still praise him today? Isn’t that the school our President and First Lady sent their children to? If you put all these names plus many, many more in a pot and stir them up you get the much awaited school reform that has been planned for our nation for many years.

The more I researched the more things fell into place. A lot of people knew, Hillary Clinton knew! Yes, that’s right, she knew! At the time she was uplifting the Public and Our Government Officials about putting into action School Reform, not everyone realized the negative impact it could have and many were happy it was going to happen. After being put into place, slowly and subtly, we are now seeing that is not the “meaningful, positive changes,” that we were told we would be seeing but just the opposite. Administrator’s, School Psychologists, Teachers and Children have/are being taught basically from the Quantum Learning Technique, based on the philosophical foundation of John Dewey. The No Child Left Behind Act fit right into the plan.

The United Nations Convention on The Rights of The Child Treaty or UNCRC has not even been ratified yet but it’s expected to be and the President and staff are working their way toward just that. Every country but Somalia and the US have Ratified and he publicly announced that America was an embarrassment for not ratifying yet. Have any of you read the UN Treaty? Have you read the CRC? I hope you read it carefully if you did. After 20 years of being in place it is proving not to be all that it claimed it would be for what sounded like the “good” for the child in the UK! Officers of the Courts in our Judicial System have been quoting International citations for quite sometime in our Courts. More and more I wonder what happened to due process of law? I'd sure like to know because Our Constitution is still in place!

The STW, School To Work program plan is not how it seems. Our children are being used and are being led to believe that they can reach their goals if they try hard enough. Eventually they won't get anywhere! The core subjects now are 1. Science and 2. Math. It's almost too hard to believe that so many people are "with" this strange curriculum, especially very well educated people. Thyey are taught usually by another person sometimes called a "change agent," and I have read they are being taught to teach these children the wrong way No, I don’t blame the teachers or the parents but I place a lot of blame on those Government Officials who did know! The one’s who were suppose to be looking out for everyone’s best interest, especially, “the best interest of the child”.

Now President Obama wants to reform it again! Major reform of education has been tried time and time again in the past with mostly failed attempts. What do we have now that we didn’t have then? We have the Technology! President Obama wants to make broadband capacity available to everyone throughout the country, over the next five years. Where will he get the money? He also wants to rewrite the federal education law. He wants the federal government to have a role in education. New Technology would be wonderful for our education system if it were used is a healthy way and if we could afford it! The No Child Left Behind Act law due for renewal right now. I would like to include this citation from: http://nochildleft.com/

The Last Word
"With support for NCLB/Helter-Skelter faltering in Congress as the country wakes up to the stupidity of the change strategies and the damage being done to its schools, No Child Left has accompished its goal, the repeal or drastic amendment of the law which will occur during 2009. Publication of the journal stopped with the May 2007 issue but the site will remain as an archive of articles exploring the distortions, simple-minded thinking and fraudulent notions hidden within this dangerous experiment."

Remember the slogan, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste?” Must we sit idly by while Our Countries Children are Abused with evil intellect blocking to be left with open ended answers to their questions and an education by trickery, giving Obama his attempt at School Reform when we know it may now be accomplishable? I Say NO!

Please read The Congressional Testimony Excerpted From The US Congressional Records, "Background Of School to Work Concept." The Hyde, Cuddy Testimony:

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/OtherPDFs/Hyde_Cuddy_testimony.pdf

"Oh it’s going to take a Village, alright, it’s going to take Much MORE than a village to straighten out the damage that’s already been done."

Israeli Group: Police Improperly Arresting Kids

2010-03-13T13:43:00.000-08:00

Mar. 09, 2010

Israeli Rights Group
Says Police Improperly Arrested Palestinian Boys As Young As 12

Font size PrintE-mailShare.(AP) JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli police are improperly arresting Palestinian boys in nighttime raids in Jerusalem that involve assault rifle wielding security forces handcuffing minors and interrogating them without lawyers or parents, an Israeli rights group charged Tuesday. Most of the youths were accused of hurling rocks at Jewish settlers and damaging their property in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, where tensions are high between settlers and Palestinian residents. Some of them have since been charged. Police say the arrests were legal, and a matter of law and order. "They are using military-style night raids to extract children as young as 12," said Sarit Michaeli of rights group B'tselem, which says the raids are an inappropriate method to detain children. They also argue the raids defy Israeli law, which demands children be accompanied by guardians while being arrested. In affidavits to B'tselem, six boys aged between 12 and 14 years old described arrest raids involving around a dozen heavily armed military police surrounding their homes, handcuffing them and leading them to cells where they were slapped, kicked and told by interrogators to confess if

Children under 12 should not be prosecuted (More of What Life Will Be Like If The UNCRC is Ratified!)

2010-03-13T06:49:00.000-08:00

Yahoo News
UK & Ireland

7 hours 7 mins ago

Buzz Up! Print Story The Children's Commissioner says the killers of James Bulger should not have been prosecuted for his murder because children under the age of 12 who commit crimes are too young to understand the full consequences of their actions. Maggie Atkinson believes under 12s should not be prosecuted for any crime and called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12 years old.Dr Atkinson told The Times that a civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences should be treated differently from adult criminals.Her comments come after James' mother Denise Fergus met Justice Secretary Jack Straw this week to discuss the return to custody of her two-year-old son's killer Jon Venables.Dr Atkinson said politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims' relatives. "The 'we are too worried about the parents issue' is something that runs like a thread through a number of cases. My constant song is 'listen to the children and young people'."Calling for a change in the law, she said even the most "hardened" of youngsters who have committed serious crimes were "not beyond being frightened"."The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 - that's too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12; in some European countries it is 14," she said.Dr Atkinson said the James Bulger killing was a "dreadful thing", and Venables and Robert Thompson, who were 10 in 1993 when they were charged with the toddler's murder, needed to be in a contained environment like a youth justice facility and given programmes to help them turn their lives around.

Judge fed up with CPS

2010-03-12T01:10:00.001-08:00

2010-03-10T22:49:00.000-08:00

Sign the Petition: No Healthcare Reconciliation

2010-03-10T19:36:00.000-08:00

Sign the Petition: No Healthcare Reconciliation

Courts distrust evidence from social workersJudges

2010-03-09T11:45:00.000-08:00

Courts distrust evidence from social workers Judges delay decisions in urgent cases affecting vulnerable children to hear from other experts, says report

Courts are refusing applications to take children into care because some members of the judiciary hold social workers in such low esteem that they do not trust their evidence, it will be claimed this week in a major study.

Local authorities told researchers that children were being put at risk because social workers were not always recognised as experts.

The findings are part of research commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) into the practicalities of implementing the 58 recommendations of Lord Laming's report into child protection , carried out in the wake of the death of Baby Peter. The 17-month-old boy from Haringey, north London, who suffered more than 50 injuries over an eight-month period, died despite being seen repeatedly by social services, police, doctors and health vistors.

The LGA report, carried out by academics at Loughborough University and published this week, concludes: "The low status afforded to social workers was ... perceived to impact upon the court decision-making process. A number of authorities felt courts were refusing applications that children's social care felt were necessary to protect children." Social workers, it says, "are not always recognised as experts in the court arena".

As evidence of their low status, it points out: "Experts such as hospital consultants are not expected to wait in court all day to give evidence, but social workers are, meaning they are not able to use the time available more effectively." The report found that social workers had to wait on average 20 hours in court to get a care order.

Nushra Mansuri, joint manager of the English office of the British Association of Social Workers, said it was appalling that professionals were treated so badly, and said it could be dangerous for children.

"There is good practice, and there are plenty of members of the judiciary who do show due respect," she said , but she had seen a number of examples of the sort of attitude detailed in the report. "I think there is a bit of a snobbery because social work is the soft target. We are the most exposed of all the professions, whereas others are a little more anonymous in the process."

She said judges had....More here

Adoption gone awry lands couple on child abuse list

2010-03-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

March 8th, 2010, 3:00 am · 68 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

George and Bette McFetridge were living in a great big house in Las Vegas. Their son was grown and gone, with a family of his own. There were all those extra bedrooms… .

And so the TV ads saying that Las Vegas dearly needed foster and adoptive parents lingered in their minds.

George, a deputy district attorney, and Bette, a nurse, didn’t feel they could handle a small child at this stage of their lives. But a teen – well, they could take in a teen for a few years, show her what it’s like to live in a real family, and hopefully, give her a better shot at succeeding in life.

Soon, they were introduced via brochure to a “cute-as-a-button” 14-year-old girl with beautiful long hair. Her biological mom had a drug problem and her biological dad was in jail, but she liked to read, enjoyed school and was doing well in her classes. That’s how George and Bette McFetridge took a 14-year-old they call H into their family.

One might argue that every teenager is a handful, even those with the most placid of backgrounds. But never did the McFetridges expect the trials they were in for - culminating when their names appeared on California’s Child Abuse Central Index, because of what they say were the girl’s false accusations.

The McFetridges’ fought back, and after about a year, were removed from the child abuse registry. But they were so outraged by the experience that they filed suit against the Orange County Social Services Agency last month for violating their civil rights, seeking damages to be decided at trial – and, more than anything, seeking to change a system that they say shoots first and asks questions later.

“It was probably the most stressful thing I’ve ever experienced in my life,” Bette said. “I’m a nurse. My whole life has been about helping people. To walk into a school and have two cops in a conference room berating me, and the principal, teachers, child psychologist – everybody’s staring at you, it’s an awful feeling. I wanted to crawl in a hole and die. How do you make people believe you? How do you get help for this kid?

“You should get a trial,” Bette said, “before you’re convicted.”

JUDGE AND JURY

The controversy arises from how California handles complaints. An investigator is sent out, asks the people involved lots of questions, and then decides – pretty much unilaterally – whether the complaint is valid or not.

Once the investigator makes this decision, it enters the official record. Only after that information becomes public – potentially ruining a person’s reputation, or a business’s reputation – does that person or business get to mount a challenge.

The issue is identical to one that’s been raised by businesses subject to state inspections, such as nursing homes, child care centers and drug treatment facilities. The state’s investigator is essentially prosecutor, judge and jury, and the “accused” has no chance to formally challenge the accusations or mount a defense until after the “verdict” is handed down – and after incredibly damaging information is made public.

A furor erupted last year after a state investigator found that a manager at a Costa Mesa drug treatment center had sexually harassed patients. Attorneys for the center argued that the state process itself was greatly flawed, and caused great harm.

The McFetridges are acting as their own attorneys. George McFetridge is a deputy district attorney for Orange County. The county he is suing.

COMPLICATED PICTURE

One can read wrenching details of the McFetridges’ life with their new charge in the suit itself (Complaint). Suffice to say their new daughter did a lot of lying, ran away, was cavorting with a man she refused to identify and sneaking out at night.

Bette McFetridge said she quit her job to tutor her daughter, and tried traditional discipline – taking away privileges – to no avail. The family is firmly opposed to corporal punishment and never struck the girl, she said, but one of the girl’s complaints against them was, indeed, true. It’s one that may raise eyebrows with many parents.

After H. returned home after running away, Bette tried to find out who was aiding her, where she had been, and what she had done. Bette warned H. not to lie; and after a time, said that every lie would be paid for with a snip of H.’s lovely, long hair. Locks were cut until H. began telling the truth.

Bette is sure that it is this incident that the investigator found so distasteful. But she was just trying to impress upon H. that lying was not acceptable, she said.

After the McFedridges’ learned that both of them had been placed on the child abuse registry, the deputy D.A. and his wife threw themselves into the fight, and ultimately were removed. “ We got off their list, but there are a lot of people out there who don’t have the resources we have,” Bette said. “ They don’t’ have a husband who’s an attorney, they don’t know what the law is. To me, it’s a really sad state of affairs when your liberties are taken away from you and you have no recourse. We want the public to know that this situation exists. Is there anyone else who’s been in this situation?”

The county does not comment on pending litigation, and so had nothing to say about the suit. In general, though, if something is in question, the county will err on the side of caution, said TerryLynn Fisher, spokeswoman for the county Social Services Agency.

In the end, the adoption did not hold. It turned out that H. has a legal guardian, in California, but she will not stay with that guardian, either. She is living in Las Vegas with a man, turns 18 next month, and still keeps in touch with the McFedridges. But usually when she needs something, Bette said.

The whole experience was a great heartache. Says the McFetridge’s suit:

“This case amounts to an unconstitutional abuse of power by county social workers and county policies that both violate and demonstrate a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, parents and others who work with children. County social workers, acting as judge and jury, and without meeting any burden of proof, have the ability and authority to arbitrarily and falsely stigmatize individuals as ‘child abusers’ and without providing any pre-deprivation procedural due process, then blacklist their names by reporting them to a central registry maintained by the California Department of Justice without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. In doing so, the (county and state) trample on the constitutional rights of parents to raise their children and maintain family integrity, do irreparable damage to the reputations of those stigmatized as child abusers, deny them procedural due process guaranteed under the 14th Amendment nad ultimately harm the very children the defenders are supposed to protect.”

We’ll be following up.

Mom: 'I'm on Cloud 9' after judge OKs son's return

2010-03-09T11:30:00.000-08:00

Philadelphia Daily News
By DANA DiFILIPPO
difilid@phillynews.com 215-854-5934

She's getting her boy back.

Shannon Berthiaume, the West Philadelphia mother whose battle to get her three children out of foster care was chronicled in the Daily News in January, asked a Family Court judge yesterday to return her eldest son, who has been in and out of foster care since May 2005.

Judge Ann Butchart agreed, with several conditions, and Berthiaume expects to have her 16-year-old son by early summer.

"Finally! Finally!" Berthiaume said a few hours after the closed hearing, at which Butchart approved a therapist's recommendation that the teen be reunited with his mother at school year's end.

"We was all crying. I told my son: 'Pinch me, because this is too good to be true,' and he pinched me hard too!" Berthiaume said, laughing. "I'm on Cloud 9."

Berthiaume, 37, lost her children, then ages 8, 10 and 12, to county custody after she drove her minivan into a West Philadelphia elementary school in May 2005 to protest the escalating racial bullying her kids had suffered there. Read the rest of this story here

Worker on child protection case lacked experience

2010-03-09T11:21:00.000-08:00

Kirsty McGregor email
Tuesday 09 March 2010 11:09

An inexperienced agency social worker who failed to follow proper procedures in a complex child protection case has been admonished for misconduct.

Caroline Wilson was working for Lancashire Council's family support team in February 2007 when appointed as the key worker for Child M, whose mother had recently completed a three-year prison sentence for the manslaughter of another of her children.

Wilson, who had no previous child protection experience and had mainly worked with adults, did not inform her managers of a decision to allow Child M to return to live with her mother, a General Social Care Council conduct committee found.

The committee also found she submitted a late and "poor standard" joint assessment of the case, in which she lied about referring the child to child and adolescent mental health services.

Wilson, who works for Bury Council, admitted her handling of the case fell "far below proper professional standards".

The committee said it found this a "troubling case" because of the social worker's lack of experience in child protection at the time.

Taking this into account, along with the professional development she has undertaken and a character reference from her former manager, the committee placed a five-year admonishment alongside Wilson's name on the social care register.

High School Broke the Law With Sex Survey for Kids, Parents SayCity

2010-03-09T07:20:00.000-08:00

Date: 02/23/2010 Click here for the full story

A sex survey was distributed to students by a high school newspaper at Ventura High School, located in southern California. Some of the questions included were: "What grade were you in when you lost your virginity?" "What is your overall number of partners you have engaged in sexual activity with ?" "Were you sober the first time you engaged in sexual activity?" "How often do you engage in sexual activity?" "Are your parents aware of your sexual activity?" "Have you or your partner ever had an abortion?" The student newspaper, called the Cougar Press, subsequently published the results of the clandestine survey. This despite state law which prohibits sex surveys without parental knowledge. According to the newspaper, the survey was given to 1,000 students in every grade in the high school.

The survey was administered with the knowledge and assistance of the high school during the second class period and had no relationship to any subject the students were enrolled in during that period. "The school allowed the use of instructional time to administer the survey and the teachers then collected it and handed it over to the newspaper," said parent John Silva who obtained a copy of the newspaper from a concerned student. "Because the sex survey was given without prior written notice and subsequent written consent by the parents or guardians, the school violated the law," commented Kevin Snider, chief counsel of the Pacific Justice Institute. "By facilitating the newspaper to conduct the survey, we feelthe school was complicit in violating the rights of the parents," said Julie Wilson, a parent of a high school student.

Pacific Justice Institute will be assisting the parents with the filing of an administrative complaint. "The parents have tried to reason with school officials about this, but so far administrators have failed to grasp that giving the students this survey without prior written notice and consent was illegal," Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute stated

Stafford Social Services: Torn From Their Mothers Arms

2010-03-07T15:47:00.000-08:00

Torn from their mothers’ arms What are social workers for? Charles Pragnell considers some disturbing cases
Is social work out of control? This question has again been raised this week with reports of a series of events in Lancashire in which social workers are alleged to have acted intrusively and wrongly towards mothers and children.
Now, more than 60 families have formed an action group,Mothers In Action, each with a story to tell of overt interference by social workers which has often resulted in the parents being separated from their children for long periods. In many cases children have been placed with adoptive parents.
So what is going wrong in Lancashire? The Children Act, which was passed in the wake of the 1987 Cleveland child abuse affair and came into force in October 1991, was supposed to control many of the abuses of power by social workers.
The Act placed duties on social workers to promote the To read the ful story click here