The Adoption and Safe Families Act, 1997, offers cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopt out of foster care. Government funding is not given to Fairbanks Office of Children's Services if the case worker tries to "help" the family... money is only given if the case worker removes the child from the home.
Our Grand Children are victims of;
"Protect the "system" at all costs. The "system" is the only ultimate sacred cow - not any particular law or constitution, but only "the system." Because, ultimately, it is the system which makes certain that the individuals functioning within it - from judges to lawyers, to prosecutors, to politicians, to businessmen - have their places and positions, and opportunities and pecking order, and future."
In 1696, England first used the legal principle ofparens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of "charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery." This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families' child rearing practices.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." — Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." — Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776
What if the Fairbanks office of children's services had already kidnapped certain children with usual lies, false allegation for an order placement and pocket money. What if these kids had been shipped to North Carolina from Alaska to live in foster care with the order placer. What if the next step was to remove parental rights so the final step of adoption can happen. With annoying parents in the way, what if child services used taxpayer money to send the parents to North Carolina to "visit" their kidnapped kids. All the parents had to do was sign a paper authorizing the "tickets" (read: giving up parental rights). What if while the parents were gone and out of the way, a secret ex parte hearing was held without them? What if the excuse was "The parents were given notice, but chose to not be here".
What if we already KNOW child services uses ex parte to steal their way to the bank as they have already done it before. What if everyone knew it was about to happen before it happens?
*One type of ex parte hearing is presided over by a judge at which all the parties are not present. The most common reason being a request for an emergency injunction of some sort. The most common of those requests are domestic matters such as requests for a temporary restraining orders or temporary custody. In the United States any orders issued at an ex parte hearing are temporary in nature so as not to deprive any party of due process. A full hearing on the matter will be scheduled where both parties are present. In this type of case no appeal is necessary since the order is temporary.
Another type of ex-parte proceeding is a proceeding in the case where only one party participates or appears in Court although the other party was given notice. In order for this type of an ex-parte hearing to be valid, it must be shown that the non-participant has been provided with proper notice of the proceedings. In spite of proper notice, if the non-participant chooses not to appear and contest the action, then it will result in an ex-parte decree against them.
A common claim in an appeal from an ex parte ruling is that the party didn't receive proper notice. In most jurisdictions that party can file an affidavit asking that the court vacate the order and grant a new trial. The time period for filing is brief and the affidavit must provide compelling evidence for the court to approve the request.
Watch your kids... they are looking for yours as well. Alaska and the Fairbanks Office of Children's (alleged) Services are no different. They want YOUR kids to sell.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
CPS is short for Child Protective Services. What each state calls their CPS is irrelevent. They are all the same system tied together. Alaska calls themselves OCS or Office of Children's Services.
*Oxymoron:
An oxymoron (plural oxymorons or oxymora) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. Oxymorons appear in a variety of contexts, including inadvertent errors such as ground pilot and literary oxymorons crafted to reveal a paradox. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oxymoron
Such as: Office of Children's Services and Child Protective Services
Shortly after... Senator Nancy Schaefer was murdered.
The police immediately called it a murder suicide. Or... was it a hit?
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Social worker whistle blower, others speak out Confirm forced adoptions, Orders for babies, Harassment, Threats, Retaliation. Driven by federal bonus $$ AFSA, SSA Titles IV, XIX.The "Other" Kentucky Lottery: Child Protection and Permanency for Abused and Neglected Children in Kentucky in 2005 January 2006, The National Institute on Children, Youth & Families, Inc. & Kentucky Youth Advocates. http://www.kyyouth.org/Publications/06pub_ChildProtectionPermanency.pdf.pdf
WLKY. November 14, 2007. LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Social workers are alleging abuses in Kentucky's Child Protective Services.
In a follow-up to a 3-year investigation of CPS, NewsChannel 32 interviewed a group of Kentucky social workers who alleged families are harassed and workers are pressured in efforts to boost adoption numbers.
Pat Moore said she was a state social worker until she was fired for not ignoring half a dozen allegations of abuse in a foster home.
"I did what I felt like I had to do," Moore said. "It was the right thing to do and I stand by the complaint." When Moore found that two foster parents had criminal records, a son living with them had multiple felonies, and a convicted sex offender visited and, sometimes, cared for the children, she refused to arrange an adoption.Her supervisors responded to her complaint with a memo suggesting the adoption proceed quickly. "Our theory is that the basis for this is the tie to the federal money," Moore's attorney, Tom Beiting said. "That every time a child is not placed in the home comma the state of Kentucky through its Cabinet is losing money"After she was fired, Moore filed suit and last month, the Commonwealth paid $380,000 to settle it.
The high-adoption trend apparently began in 2004, when adoptions in Kentucky ballooned to 724 while the federal bonus money more than doubled from $452,000 the previous year to more than $1 million. "The Cabinet puts pressure on stats because federal and state money come from statistics," said another social worker who wants her identity concealed for fear of retaliation against her family. "You get praised. The Cabinet praises you for terminating rights and adopting kids out immediately." She said the concerted effort to take children away and put them up for adoption was so brazen, she actually saw someone successfully place an order for children. "Someone could not have a child and wanted a child so within the community," the social worker said. "This person saw a family in distress, having a hard time, relayed to workers that they would like those children, and that's exactly what has happened."And a former CPS supervisor, who also wants anonymity for fear of retaliation, said if an order for a child was delayed or denied, her supervisors would overturn local decisions.
"This one family was promised a child, and when it happened that this child was going to be reunified with the parent, they called our regional office, and our regional office came in our county and they harassed the birth parents and that kind of thing because they didn't agree with our decision," the former supervisor said.
Vanessa Shanks had her kids taken away and, when she fought back, her relatives had their children taken away. Then, after she won in court, her attorney's child was taken away.
The former CPS workers said that kind of retaliatory power is common and, in the secretive, one-sided system, they can take anyone's kids away on a moment's notice - and get away with it.
According to data just released, there's a huge disparity between counties on adoption rates. Some counties reunify 100 percent of children taken with their families. Other counties adopted out as many as 82 percent of children taken from their homes. http://www.wlky.com/news/14596226/detail.html
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Twas the night before Adoption, when all through the states
Not a parent was stirring, not even their mates.
The dockets were hung by the courtrooms with care,
In hopes that profits soon would be there.
The children were hiding all under their beds,
While visions of fear danced in their heads.
And mamma with her ‘kerchief, and my empty lap,
Had just rattled our brains for a miracles hap.
When out of the dawn there arose such a matter,
We sprang from the dead to see this mad hatter.
Away to the courtrooms we flew like a flash,
Tore open threat letters and threw up some cash.
The badge on the breasts of the crew-takin shots
Gave the illusion of importance to children and tots.
When, what through their outlandish lies should appear,
But another court day, and more children in fear.
With a plump little driver, so wicked and slick,
I knew child services were up to old tricks.
More rabid than beagles her minions they came,
And she blathered, and boasted, and called them by name!
"Now Justin! now, Christine! now, Dimwit were fixin!
Those parents are stupid! Kidnap their children without even blinkin!
Damn the constitution! Let‘s take them all!
Now dash away! Crash away! Go have a ball!"
Like dry heaves and the wild tsetse fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, just flat out lie.
So into the households the coursers took new,
Fake court orders for Boys, and their Sisters too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard through false allegations so biled,
The gnashing of teeth and weeping of each little child.
The silence was sad, including those sounds,
Damn child services with their self anointed crowns.
They are happy with money, selling kid’s heads for their loot,
And they do what they want, parents get boot.
As judge, jury and executioners, they think they are bigger,
And they‘ll sell them kids off to the courts highest bidder.
Their eyes-how they twinkle! their pimples now cherry!
They think they’re like Moses, their wallets so merry!
Their dull little lives like freaks in a sideshow,
And the gear of their grin is as yellow spot snow.
The stump of a child they hold tight in their teeth,
And the stench it encircles their head like a wreath.
They have a cold face, shows lack of a mommy. Why would they care, with that bowlful of money!
They are chubby and plump, fat off the riches,
And I have no pity for those sons-a-^&%$#(@!
Like Captain Bly, and pirates we dread,
Soon gave me to know they’re screwed up in the head!
After the kidnappings, they speak not a word,
They fill up their stockings, then run like a herd.
And laying their fingers inside their nose,
And giving the finger, up yours they pose!
They spring to their S.U.V‘s, to their team give a whistle,
And away they all fly, their theft is pretend legal.
But I hear them exclaim, ‘ere they drive out of sight,
"If they find hidden laws, we're all screwed tonight!"
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Parents all over America are losing their rights and don't even know it. If you care about your rights as a parent, please share this video with your family and friends. Featuring 3 reenactments based on real cases, "Overruled" is a shocking 35-minute docudrama that exposes how the rights of parents in America are being eroded and what you can do to turn the tide.
The Proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
I guess you did not receive our last e-mail as to we did not get an answer from you guys. It would really be nice to know that you are all okay and doing good. Apparently your Uncle and Aunt do not think so. Although they have assured us that they were in no way trying to get between us. Grandma and Grandpa can not even send you a Christmas card or gift as we do not have an address to send you one. Just be assured that Grandma and Grandpa love and miss you very, very much. We will send you more e-mails. Here is a picture of the new puppy we told you about in the last e-mail. His name is Rosco and he is very playful and full of puppy energy. Can't wait to here from you guys. We send our love with hugs and kisses. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
Love,
Grandma and Grandpa Ordiway
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
This is a letter telling you that we miss you very, very much and that we love you even more. We want to wish you guys a Merry Christmas and give you big hugs and kisses. Rosey, Kenai, Merle, Bonehead,and Rosco all send their love to. Rosco is a new puppy that your Aunt Dondi and Uncle James brought over for us to make better and they just kind of left him here after he got better. He is a very playful puppy. Grandpa is working 5 nights a week and I am only working 3. Have you been to see Santa yet and did you guys tell him that you have been good all year. [L] how is school going? Are you doing your best? [M] are you enjoying school and are you doing good too? [A] how are doing? Are you also being good? I hope that this letter finds you all in good health. Grandpa and I are okay, just missing you guys lots.
Love,
Gramma and Grandpa
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
This is page six. Check out the family reunification budget of "0". Next: I will post North Carolina's budget. Where our Grand Kids are, allegedly. They could be in North Dakota or Arizona for all we know.
The parental rights of the American family are being systematically eroded by a Child Protection System that has been put into place under the guise of public good - protecting our children. Apparently, there is a pair of stealth hands under a veil of confidentiality - one belonging to CPS and the other belonging to the Administrative or Family Courts to remove up to 3,000 children per day, nationwide. Since the passage of Mondale's Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 which spurred hysterical and slanted hearings, Child Protection or child welfare agencies have been empowered beyond comprehension with all three branches of government. They write their own laws, investigate any complaint from anonymous source and then adjudicate these alleged perpetrators with the subjective opinion of the employee of their agency who is considered not only the expert witness, but the original fact-finder by the family court administrative judge who hears the case. The judge is also a state employee and is supposed to be a neutral arbiter.
In Connecticut, there has been no case law that has been decided for a parent's rights except for Shay vs. Rossi in which the outcome was settlement.
(*These allegations and supporting facts may fairly be characterized as showing a state of consciousness regarding the consequences of the defendants' conduct that was more than negligence or gross negligence. Their conduct, if proven, could be found to indicate a reckless disregard of the plaintiffs' rights to family privacy and integrity free of unwarranted interference by the state. It falls within the standard of highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger of unduly traumatizing the plaintiffs' family was apparent.)
However, if you look at the following link Connecticut Foster Care Statistics, you will notice that the majority of reasons that children are pulled in Connecticut are because of the vague category of neglect, medical needs not met, psychological abuse. In other words, because parents are poor. Once placed in the foster care system, in order for Connecticut to inherit their block grant and other bonuses, they must keep the child in the system for at least nine months. This leads to the next fleecing of parents which is "the best interests of the child" which empowers a judge to terminate the parental rights merely because of the amount of time the child has been, in many cases, wrongfully removed. Too many times, it is delayed by CPS itself so they can assure their monetary status quo. This termination can be done without any probable cause, without a trial by a jury of their peers, without the right to discovery to construct a defense. It, many times, is based onhearsay statements made by one social worker. A social worker who has pressure over their head to not be sued.
Not to make the appropriate decision but to protect their own head whether the child is truly in danger or not. Although this is called "erring on the side of the child" it becomes a license to destroy a happy, emotionally fit child into a damaged article, released into society with little or nothing after the abuses suffered in foster care.
We firmly believe that true child abuse needs to be addressed and that children need protection, but what we have here is a 12 billion dollar CP$ Industry that is used by our government to make money at the cost of any child in our state of Connecticut (or insert state here). The time to act to assert our Parental Rights has come. The American family is the rock on which all society is built. To begin to systematically destroy it will only bring the current societal ills we are beginning to see before us.
JurisdictionThe Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:Common Law:Common Law is based on God's Law. Any time someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party.You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself, provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over State lines in most States, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But, Common law cannot compel performance.Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.Equity Law:Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now, this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action.Are your seat belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.Admiralty/Maritime Law:This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now, we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under.Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes.That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.Statutory Jurisdiction = Admiralty Jurisdiction*AS = Alaska Statute = Alaska Admiralty Jurisdiction 47.10.080. (s)
*International Laws must have a contract
AS 47.10.080. Judgments and Orders.
AS 47.10.080.(s) The department may transfer a child, in the child's best interests, from one placement setting to another, and the child, the child's parents or guardian, the child's foster parents or out-of-home caregiver, the child's guardian ad litem, the child's attorney, and the child's tribe are entitled to advance notice of a nonemergency transfer. A party opposed to the proposed transfer may request a hearing and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer would be contrary to the best interests of the child for the court to deny the transfer. A foster parent or out-of-home caregiver who requests a nonemergency change in placement of the child shall provide the department with reasonable advance notice of the requested change.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
The problem with supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law.
In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what they were told:
America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.
So, you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.
No Expedient
But, the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So, until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we can use this to our benefit.
Next: Jurisdiction
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
I have posted a new article on my blog at: http://www.michaelconnelly.jigsy.com/ titled "About Our Constitution." Please feel free to use it as you see fit. A copy is attached. I have also attached a picture of the cover of the booklet I mention in the article. Please consider ordering copies for yourself and your friends and family. I think they would be good stocking stuffers for Christmas. I need your help in getting thousands of copies distributed before the 2012 election. Best regards, Michael
This is Michael's "About Our Constitution"
ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION
Some people seem to be forgetting that it is “our Constitution.” It belongs to the American people. It is not the property of the President, the Congress, or even the Federal courts. It is not theirs to tinker with, rewrite, or ignore depending on their personal whims and ideologies. It was carefully crafted by the founding fathers to provide a form of government that was limited, not all powerful.
The Bill of Rights does not contain a list of rights that are given to the American people by the government. Instead it provides a list of the rights that are inherently ours, and they can’t be taken away by the government. For example, despite their claims to the contrary, freedom of speech and freedom of the press don’t just belong to those that agree with a certain political ideology. In addition, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not designed for only the people who consider themselves elite and better than the rest of us. In fact, it was designed to protect us from them.
However, despite these truths that have been the foundation of our Republic for over 200 years, every article, section, and amendment of one of our most precious documents is under constant and unrelenting attack by the current administration. The balance of powers between the three branches of government is being ignored in favor of a de facto dictatorship by those who consider themselves above the rest of us. They think they are ordained to tell us how to live our lives and to decide what is best for us.
Yet, sadly, even as we face the imminent prospect of losing our freedoms and the way of life that so many brave Americans have fought and died for, there are many citizens of this country who seem oblivious to this fact. This is because they have either never read the Constitution in its entirety or don’t really understand what it means. This is probably not really their fault because for years the importance of the Constitution has been downplayed or ignored in many of our schools, especially in our so-called institutions of “higher education.”
The bottom line is that if Americans are unfamiliar with the Constitution and the way our government is designed to work, how will they know that it and the rights it protects are being taken from them? That is why I have done something new. I have prepared a pocket sized booklet on the Constitution that doesn’t just contain the wording of the document, but after each section and amendment contains my comments on what each means.
Here is an excerpt from the booklet about the 2nd Amendment:
“Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Comments: The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been the subject of much controversy over the years. Many individuals in the United States own firearms, either for protection, or for hunting, or for both. There are other individuals who feel that only the police and members of the military should be allowed to carry firearms, and that individual citizens should have restrictions put on their gun ownership rights. These “gun-control” proponents have long argued that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right of gun ownership, but, only, a collective right belonging to state militias or to the National Guard. In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is, in fact, an individual right, and it cannot be restricted unduly by either the federal government or by state and local governments.”
Many people who have read the booklet have told me that they have learned things about the Constitution that they had never realized before. The booklet is being offered through my non- profit corporation, the Constitutional Law Alliance (CLA). The website is www.constitution.jigsy.com and single copies can be ordered through the site for $6.00 each including postage. There are also substantial discounts available for multiple copies and these are explained on the website.
I encourage everyone to get at least one copy to carry with you. That way when you hear someone making an incorrect comment about the Constitution or our freedoms you can have the document there to show them. However, I also hope you will let others know about the booklet and order additional copies to distribute. You can also make donations to the CLA to help us supply this booklet to youth groups and schools at reduced prices.
I believe that this booklet will raise the consciousness of Americans when it comes to understanding how important our Constitution is and how it must be defended.
One major issue is of course, how to stop the drugging of our kids in foster care. My personal opinion would be to give each and every psychiatrist a taste of his/her own medicine. If and when they destroy a child, they should be forced to take what they prescribe.
Then you have the "poor me", "there are just so many kids to take care of" over worked social worker.
*Here is a hint:
Stop stealing other peoples kids for your own personal gain! They know it, I know it, the people reading this blog know it as well as all the others that profit from this shameless business know it.
I feel nothing, I repeat, nothing for any and all social workers that are in the child kidnapping business. They should get REAL jobs like the rest of us. They should ALL be in prison for what they do. Along with all those that profit from legal child trafficking.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
ABC
Mind-Altering Psych Drugs for a 7-Year-Old
By JOSEPH DIAZ and CLAIRE WEINRAUB
Dec. 2, 2011
Not long ago, 7-year-old Brooke was on a medical regimen that might seem extreme, even for an adult: The 43-pound girl was prescribed multiple mind-altering psychotropic drugs.
Dealt a tough hand early in life — her birth mother had a history of drug dealing and prostitution — Brooke was prone to extreme tantrums and wild behavior. Her foster mother, Lisa Ward, says a Florida foster care agency instructed her to take the girl to a mental health clinic. The clinic prescribed anti-psychotic medication, often used to treat schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder.
“Within a few weeks, probably two, they decided that it wasn’t working. They needed to do something else,” Ward recalled. “At this point, she’s getting worse, she’s not getting any better.”
Brooke was given 10 different prescriptions in four months, with the clinic frequently increasing her doses.
As a foster mother, Ward felt she had no choice. She worried that the state would take Brooke away if she didn’t give the girl the medication.
“We were told to put our faith in the system and that’s what we did,” Ward said. “They kept saying she needs more medication.”
Foster children are medicated with psychotropic drugs up to 13 times more than other kids. Michael Piraino, the chief executive of the National CASA Association, a foster children’s advocacy group, said that, as a population, foster children tend to be more troubled than their peers.
“If you’ve been hurt the way these kids are, you or I would feel the same way,” he said.
But Piraino said helping the children is not about always trying “to change their brain chemistry.”
“When a doctor tells me that the drug is working, I would ask, ‘Who’s it working for? Is it working for the kid? Is it working for the caretaker? Is it working for the system? It only matters to me whether it’s working for the kid,” he said. “Frankly, we want the doctors and nurses who are prescribing these medicines to look at their behavior and think – and ask this question: ‘Are we doing something wrong here?’ And to the extent that we are, individually or collectively, let’s change that.”
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper held a congressional hearing Thursday, demanding changes in the foster care system.
“In my judgment, no children in this country should be taking at the same time five different kinds of psychotropic drugs,” he said. “None.”
A Different Kind of Medicine
Despite the increases in dosage, Brooke’s rages continued. Finally, Ward had enough — she decided to pay for the services of a private doctor, Dr. Luis Quinones. a psychiatrist.
Quinones was stunned by the pills Brooke was taking.
“The first thing we’ve got to think about: Is the medicine causing this?” he said. “There always has to be a high index of suspicion when we’re using these agents.”
Brooke is now being weaned off all her medication, and while she still has emotional challenges, she is learning to take advantage of a different kind of medicine.
“What’s another choice over a tantrum? What’s a good choice?” Ward recently asked her.
“To hug you,” Brooke replied.
Recently, there was a new reason for hugs — and it was a happy one: Ward adopted Brooke and her older sister, Kayla.
Besides being Brooke and Kayla’s mom, Ward also recently took on another role: fighting for all of Florida’s foster children.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
ABC
Doctors Put Foster Children at Risk With Mind-Altering Drugs
By BRINDA ADHIKARI, JOAN MARTELLI and SARAH KOCH
Dec. 1, 2011
Across America, doctors are putting foster children on powerful, mind-altering drugs at rates up to 13 times that of children in the general population. What’s more, doctors are prescribing foster children drugs at doses beyond what the Food and Drug Administration has approved, sometimes in potentially dangerous combinations, according to a new report by the federal Government Accountability Office.
“It’s just almost beyond comprehension,” said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., who asked for the GAO investigation. “We want the doctors and nurses that are prescribing these medicines to look at their behavior and think and ask this question. Are we doing something wrong here?”
In Florida, regulators have been grappling with that question since a 7-year-old boy, Gabriel Myers, killed himself in 2009 after being prescribed a powerful mix of psychotropic medication.
His psychiatrist, Dr. Sohail Punjwani, had, at different times, prescribed two drugs that carry black box labels — warning of the need to carefully monitor patients because of the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children, which call for careful monitoring. However, even though Gabriel visited Punjwani’s office seven times, his foster father said Gabriel usually only spent about five minutes talking to the doctor.
Gabriel’s death was ruled an accident, but investigators pointed to the possibility that the medication may have contributed to his death. The tragedy triggered a storm of outrage across the state.
“I don’t accept that the only way to reach a child who is 7 years old is through psychotropic drugs,” said Florida Sen. Ronda Storm, during hearings over Gabriel’s death. “I do not accept that.”
The boy’s doctor settled a lawsuit in 2010 accusing him of prescribing a toxic cocktail of psychotropic drugs to a 16-year-old patient, who suffered a sudden heart attack and died. Punjwani settled that case but admitted no wrongdoing.
Additionally, Punjwani was arrested for driving under the influence and cocaine possession. He pleaded not guilty to those charges but went through a court-ordered rehabilitation program.
When ABC News caught up with Dr. Punjwani, he told us, “Sad stories happen but that does not mean that everything else the doctor is responsible for it because we are in the business of taking care of these children,” he said.
Antipsychotic medication, which can cause a litany of health problems such as severe weight gain, an increased risk of diabetes and irreversible movement disorders, is among the top-selling drugs in America.
Four drug makers have paid a total of more than $2 billion to settle claims they illegally marketed antipsychotics to children. All deny wrongdoing.
“How do antipsychotics, drugs supposedly for people who have lost touch with reality, how do they develop such a wide market?” said neuropsychiatrist Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, who won millions of dollars as a key whistleblower against drug companies.
There have been very limited long-term studies on antipsychotics in children. And for drugs already on the market, the duration of the studies that were used to get FDA approval for children have been as short as three to six weeks.
ABC News interviewed a social worker now working in a state foster care system, who asked not to be identified.
“Every child that I saw was basically on some type of psychotropic medication,” the social worker told ABC News. “It’s much easier to medicate a child than it is to physically restrain them, than it is to pay $200 an hour to a therapist to talk through their problems with them.”
Dr. Charles Zeanah, a prominent child psychiatrist who is careful to use a minimum of psychotropic medication in children, said that doctors are under pressure from all corners to do something with these troubled children and medication is one of their tools.
“The pressures that I’m aware of are pressures that come from families and schools who have kids with troubling behavior,” he said. “They want something done. They want something done quickly.”
Still, he adds, “The general consensus is that when you’re treating young children, you always try behavioral intervention before you go to medication.”
The problem has not gone unnoticed by some state officials. In the state of Washington, doctors and regulators have implemented a new system to oversee psychotropic medication and identify red flag cases that exceed safety limits, by dosage or number of medications, or arise because of the young age of the child. In those red flag cases, a second opinion by a child psychiatrist is needed before medication can be dispensed.
And some states including Louisiana, Florida and New York are even going so far as kicking out high-prescribing doctors out of Medicaid.
Sen. Carper, who called for the GAO investigation, said he was shocked by the findings.
“The idea that these kids are taking one, two, three times the regular dose for a child or for an adult — it’s just the wrong thing to do,” he said. “We need to get to the bottom of this and do the best that we can to stop it, not just the Congress, not just the doctors, not just the states. All of us together.”
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
ABC NEWS
U.S. Government Fails to Oversee Treatment of Foster Children With Mind-Altering Drugs
By DR. MARK ABDELMALEK, BRINDA ADHIKARI, SARAH KOCH, JOSEPH DIAZ and CLAIRE WEINRAUB
Nov. 30, 2011
The federal government has not done enough to oversee the treatment of America’s foster children with powerful mind-altering drugs, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to be released Thursday.
ABC News was given exclusive access to the GAO report, which capped off a nationwide yearlong investigation by ABC News on the overuse of the most powerful mind-altering drugs on many of the country’s nearly 425,000 foster children.
The GAO’s report, based on a two-year-long investigation, looked at five states — Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas. Thousands of foster children were being prescribed psychiatric medications at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in these five states alone. And hundreds of foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time despite absolutely no evidence supporting the simultaneous use or safety of this number of psychiatric drugs taken together.
GAO Key Findings:
Overall, the GAO looked at nearly 100,000 foster children in the five states and found that nearly one-third of foster children were prescribed at least one psychiatric drug.
The GAO found foster children were prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates up to nearly five times higher than non-foster children, with foster children in Texas being the most likely to receive the medications compared to foster children in the other four states.
Although the actual percentages of children who received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time were low in the five states included in the GAO report, the chances of a foster child compared to a non-foster child being given five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time were alarming.
In Texas, foster children were 53 times more likely to be prescribed five or more psychiatric medications at the same time than non-foster children. In Massachusetts, they were 19 times more likely. In Michigan, the number was 15 times. It was 13 times in Oregon. And in Florida, foster children were nearly four times as likely to be given five or more psychotropic medications at the same time compared to non-foster children.
Initially part of GAO’s investigation, Maryland was later excluded from GAO’s analysis “due to the unreliability of their foster care data” according to the report, a problem ABC News learned many states face.
Foster children were also more than nine times more likely than non-foster children to be prescribed drugs for which there was no FDA-recommended dose for their age.
For the most vulnerable foster children, those less than 1 year old, foster children were nearly twice as likely to be prescribed a psychiatric drug compared to non-foster children.
When Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., lead requestor of the GAO report, first learned of the report’s findings, he said, “I was almost despondent to believe that the kids under the age of one, babies under the age of one were receiving this kind of medication.”
ABC News has reviewed dozens of medical studies published in recent years that echo GAO’s findings — research showing foster children receive psychiatric medications up to 13 times more often than kids in the general population.
In some parts of the country, as many as half of foster kids are on one or more psychiatric medications. This, compared to just 4 percent of kids in the general population.
Dr. George Fouras, a child psychiatrist and co-chairman of the Adoption and Foster Care Committee of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), said, “There is an incredible push to use medications to solve these problems as if it is a magic wand.”
Meet Ke’onte
The stories include kids like 11-year-old Ke’onte from Texas, whose journey was documented by ABC News over the past year and who will be testifying before Congress on Thursday about the overuse of psychiatric medications in foster children.
Neglected and often left home alone with his 1-year old sister, Ke’onte became a ward of the state at the tender age of four. Ke’onte was placed with a relative who, he said, beat him with belts, switches, and extension cords — which not only left him with the physical scars on his body he showed ABC News, but, understandably, with anger and despair.
Simply too much for the relative, the state of Texas bounced Ke’onte between six foster homes and hospitals over just four years.
Along the way, Ke’onte’s trauma was treated with an onslaught of psychotropic drugs — powerful mind-altering medicines like the mood-stabilizer Depakote, the stimulant Vyvanse, the antidepressant Lexapro, clonidine for ADHD and the antipsychotic Seroquel.
“I was put on bipolar meds. I am not bipolar at all,” Ke’onte told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer.
Ke’onte was on at least 12 psychiatric medications while in foster care, up to four of them at the same time. “I was on a whole lot of medicines that I should have not been on,” Ke’onte told ABC News.
But Ke’onte is lucky — a member of a select group of foster kids, about one in 10, who leave state custody to enjoy the security and stability of being adopted by a loving family according to the latest data from the Administration for Children and Families.
And his new family, Carol and Scott Cook, were on a mission to get Ke’onte off drugs; he is now in therapy beginning to heal. Additionally, his doctor now says Ke’onte doesn’t have ADHD and he’s not bipolar.
Meds Aren’t Always the Answer:
While almost all experts acknowledge children in foster care have more emotional and behavioral issues, experts ABC News spoke to do not believe this alone justifies the magnitude of the overuse of psychiatric medications in this vulnerable population.
“The general consensus is that when you’re treating young children, you always try behavioral intervention before you go to medication,” said Dr. Charles Zeenah, Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Tulane University.
Experts are also beginning to question the accuracy of diagnoses like bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses in children, especially in foster children who may not always have access to comprehensive mental health services.
Stephen Crystal, Phd, Director of the Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics at Rutgers University, said while foster kids may be three times as likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, “the validity of these diagnoses is uncertain, and the fact of being in foster care may itself increase the likelihood of psychiatric conditions being diagnosed.”
And while the National Institute of Mental Health reports schizophrenia affects just 1percent of the population and bipolar disorder less than 3 percent of the population, antipsychotics have become one of the top-selling class of medications in the United States with 2010 prescription sales of $16.2 billion according to IMS Health.
Concerned about numerous reports of waste and the abuse of psychiatric medications in foster children, Republican and Democratic United States Senators, led by Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), requested an independent GAO investigation on the growing problem nearly two years ago.
In the five states included in this week’s GAO report, over $375 million dollars were spent on psychiatric drugs in 2008, $200 million of which was spent in Texas alone.
Medicaid spends at least $6 billion a year, nearly 30 percent of its entire drug budget, on psychiatric drugs, more than double what was spent in 1999 according to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.
GAO Holds HHS Accountable:
The GAO report is an indictment on HHS’s oversight of the nation’s foster care children and asks that “HHS consider endorsing guidance for states on best practices for overseeing psychotropic prescriptions for foster children.”
Several factors may be contributing to the increasing number of psychotropic prescriptions for foster children — greater exposure to trauma before entering the foster care system, frequent changes in foster placements, and lax oversight policies on the part of states.
“You know, there are a lot of people you need to talk to- to find out as much as you can about what the child’s behavior is like in a variety of different situations before you make a determination that you’re going to use something like a very powerful medication to treat them,” Zeanah said.
GAO found that Texas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and Florida each “falls short of providing comprehensive oversight as defined by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry” with regards to prescribing and overseeing the use of psychotropic drugs.
Currently HHS simply provides “informational resources for states to consider for their programs” when it comes to psychotropic drugs provided to children in state custody according to GAO.
States are not obligated to follow consent and oversight best principle guidelines set by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry for medicating foster children.
However, many states are also not following oversight provisions required by law according to the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act passed in September 2011 and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
In addition to providing guidance, HHS also has the authority to withhold federal funds from states who do not comply with strengthened oversight measures.
Senator Carper said Congress has a responsibility too, “to try to get to the bottom of this, and armed with that information, to make sure that behavior is changed, that’s going to be beneficial to children.”
HHS sends letter to states the day before Thanksgiving in anticipation of GAO report claims:
HHS was given an early look at the GAO report and issued a letter to states the day before Thanksgiving regarding the effective use of psychotropic medications among children in foster.
Senator Carper said, “too many states, I’m afraid, just don’t know what best practices are.” But states have been asking for help for years.
One state official told researchers at Tufts, “[We] need guidelines to determine whether medications are needed, and if so, for how long.”
HHS says it will “offer expanded opportunities to states and territories to strengthen their systems of prescribing and monitoring psychotropic medication use among children in foster care.”
Dr. Christopher Bellonci, a child psychiatrist and author of a 2010 Tufts study which showed nearly 50percent of states either didn’t have or were still in the process of developing policies regarding foster care psychotropic drug use, thinks HHS guidance for states on best practices while good, are not enough.
Bellonci told ABC News we need the states to have to report pharmacy claims of actual psychotropic drugs given to foster children. “We need to be able to benchmark states around one another, then at least it is all public record,” Bellonci said.
Antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers are some of the so-called psychotropic drugs- psychiatric medicines that alter chemical levels in the brain which impact mood and behavior.
Of the psychotropics, antipsychotics, like Ke’onte’s Seroquel and others like Abilify, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Geodon, Invega, Latuda, Fanapt, Clozaril, Saphris, and Solian are among the most powerful.
And of all the psychiatric medications, antipsychotics are by far the most prescribed, especially for foster children. Foster children are given antipsychotics at a rate 9 times higher than children not in foster care according to a 2010 sixteen-state analysis from Rutgers of nearly 300,000 foster children.
While doctors aren’t exactly sure how or even why antipsychotics work, most experts believe antipsychotics block specific receptors in the brain, which are thought to be overactive in patients with symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations and delusions.
Antipsychotics were initially designed for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. And only Seroquel, Abilify, Risperdal, and Zyprexa have very limited FDA-approval for use in children.
However, antipsychotics are being widely prescribed off-label, for conditions the FDA has not approved them for- for things like agitation, anxiety, acting-out, irritability, behavior issues, and even as sleeping aids.
Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, Chief Medical Officer for Medicaid in the State of Washington said, “Nobody gets up in the morning to overdose kids. It just happens that it’s a momentum in the system. Kids get aggressively diagnosed and sometimes we look for the easy solution- which is a pill over psychotherapy or better parenting.”
Critics charge that because of their sedating properties, antipsychotics are actually being used in foster care treatment facilities as chemical restraints.
Dr. Fouras is particularly concerned about the use of these drugs as chemical restraints.
“We are trying to put a nice shiny term that sounds- ‘oh we’re just restraining the kid,’ really what you are doing is just knocking them out to make them less of a problem for you,” Fouras said.
This widespread and frequently unchecked use of antipsychotics is concerning considering the serious side effects of these medications. Antipsychotics change a person’s metabolism, frequently cause significant weight gain and can increase the risk of diabetes.
In addition to tremors, muscle spasms, and restlessness, antipsychotics can cause tardive dyskinesia, a permanent and irreversible condition where a person has involuntary movements of the tongue, lip, mouth, and arms and legs.
While less common with newer antipsychotics, each year 5 percent of people on antipsychotics will develop tardive dyskinesia according to the National Institute of Mental Health.
Many experts are also concerned about the prolonged use of antipsychotics in children given there are absolutely no long-term safety studies for their use in children.
Fouras said, “Some of these medications have only been out for 10-15 years so that is not enough time to know what is going to happen over the long term.”
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
We called the office of children's services the afternoon of 11/29/2011 and asked about the date and time of the hearing for placement of our grand children. Although we already knew the time was 2:30PM on 12/02/2011 was the time, we wanted to see if ocs would call us back. Mary Ann talked to the phone answerer and was referred to Jaylene Day's (Justin Heminger's boss) voice mail. Mary Ann left a message and asked that she call us and tell us the time and date of the hearing. She NEVER called us back. If fact, we never thought ocs would call back since they very rarely did.
The results were; that ocs and the court changed the date and time to a day sooner to 12/01/2011. We missed the hearing.
Here is my understanding;
The kids NEVER left Alaska. They were here all along and we were never told so we could not interact with them. Justin Heminger LIED on the phone to us about the kids being sent to North Carolina. A real honest person he is. I wish him a long life of at least six or seven hundred years of family responsibility towards his old, decrepit body until one of them that may be left after his relatives are ripped away by the very core of his beliefs and pride, pull the plug.
Omission of the facts to us is a lie. Anyone that knew of this and is responsible of the kidnapping of our grand children, is also responsible. May they also live a long, long, long, long life of perfect brain clarity.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Schedule of Hearings
Citation: Alaska Stat.§§ 47.10.080; 47.10.086
If the court determines that reasonable efforts are not required to be provided, the court shall hold a permanency hearing for the child within 30 days after the determination.
Within 12 months after the date a child enters foster care, the court shall hold a permanency hearing. The court shall hold a hearing to review the permanent plan at least annually until successful implementation of the plan. If the plan approved by the court changes after the hearing, the Department of Health and Social Services shall promptly apply to the court for another permanency hearing, and the court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days after application by the
department.
Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings
Citation: Alaska Stat. §§ 47.10.030; 47.10.080
In all cases under this chapter, the child, each parent, the Tribe, foster parent or other out-of-home care provider, guardian, and guardian ad litem of the child, and each grandparent of the child shall be given notice of the proceedings and the possibility of termination of parental rights and responsibilities.
The department shall give advance written notice of all court hearings to a child’s grandparent if:
The grandparent has contacted the department, provided evidence of being the child’s grandparent, requested; notice about the hearings in the child’s case, and provided the department with a current mailing address.
The department is aware that the child has a grandparent and the grandparent’s mailing address is on file.
The department is not required to give advance notice to a grandparent about hearings in a child’s case if the
grandparent:
Has been convicted of a crime in which the child was the victim.
Is prohibited by a court order from having contact with the child
The department, the child, and the child’s parents, guardian, and guardian ad litem are entitled, when good cause is shown, to a permanency hearing on application. If the application is granted, the court shall afford these persons and their counsel reasonable advance notice and hold a permanency hearing where these persons and their counsel shall be
afforded an opportunity to be heard.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
After I told Justin Heminger that he was not allowed on our property, he sent Bruce Downes and Judy Ringstad (the same ones that kidnapped the fourth grand child with five police officers). The papers they gave me that I should have looked at before the kidnapping only had the 3 year olds name on them. I always wondered why that was since the 3 year old was not involved in any accusations dreamed up by Justin Heminger. Looking back, It was an excuse.
When the kids were at their parents place, they were playing and running around. The 3 year old ran into the kitchen table and cut her head (the reason for the scar over her right eye). Her father took her to the emergency room. He called me and I went as well. She was fixed up and I brought all three kids home with me. During the time the 3 year old was at the hospital, a worker there called her in. THAT is where it all started. Everything beyond that was nothing more than stupid and unwarranted excuses for a bonus for "bringing dem bad kids in".
Now, we have lies, false accusations, child kidnapping, misinformation, manipulation of civil rights (trickery). I was told that when I signed that paper during that "emergency" meeting, I gave them permission to come into our home. Another flat out and blatant lie. NO WHERE on that paper does it say we gave up our rights.
So far... a psychologist (we have proof was NOT needed) has made money, a judge, lawyers, doctors, lab assistants, foster care workers, cab drivers, airlines... and social workers. I am sure there are lots of other service workers along the way. And since the kids are in another state, the hypocrisy starts all over, Making money for that state.
Children ARE the natural resources for this county. Steal them, make money, train them, make more money in a socialist and obediant environment.
Much of this nonsense started years ago with the United Nations taking control of our United States with the help of the Clintons, Mondale and others way before them.
(A) to public or other nonprofit institutions of higher learning, and to public or other nonprofit agencies and organizations engaged in research or child-welfare activities, for special research or demonstration projects in the field of child welfare which are of regional or national significance and for special projects for the demonstration of new methods or facilities which show promise of substantial contribution to the advancement of child welfare;
(B)to State or local public agencies responsible for administering, or supervising the administration of, the plan under this part, for projects for the demonstration of the utilization of research (including findings resulting there-from) in the field of child welfarein order to encourage experimental and special types of welfare services; and
(C) to public or other nonprofit institutions of higher learning for special projects for training personnel for work in the field of child welfare, including traineeships described in section 429 with such stipends and allowances as may be permitted by the Secretary; and
(2)for contracts or jointly financed cooperative arrangements with States and public and other organizations and agencies for the conduct of research, special projects, or demonstration projects relating to such matters.
(b) Payments of grants or under contracts or cooperative arrangements under this section may be made in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments, as the Secretary may determine; and shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary finds necessary to carry out the purposes of the grants, contracts, or other arrangements
(c)Child Welfare Traineeships.—The Secretary may approve an application for a grant to a public or nonprofit institution for higher learning to provide traineeships with stipends under section 426(a)(1)(C) only if the application—
(1) provides assurances that each individual who receives a stipend with such traineeship (in this section referred to as a “recipient”) will enter into an agreement with the institution under which the recipient agrees—
(A) to participate in training at a public or private nonprofit child welfare agency on a regular basis (as determined by the Secretary) for the period of the traineeship;
(B) to be employed for a period of years equivalent to the period of the traineeship, in a public or private nonprofit child welfare agency in any State, within a period of time (determined by the Secretary in accordance with regulations) after completing the postsecondary education for which the traineeship was awarded;
(C) to furnish to the institution and the Secretary evidence of compliance with subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
(D) if the recipient fails to comply with subparagraph (A) or (B) and does not qualify for any exception to this subparagraph which the Secretary may prescribe in regulations, to repay to the Secretary all (or an appropriately prorated part) of the amount of the stipend, plus interest, and, if applicable, reasonable collection fees (in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary);
(2) provides assurances that the institution will—
(A) enter into agreements with child welfare agencies for onsite training of recipients;
(B)permit an individual who is employed in the field of child welfare services to apply for a traineeship with a stipend if the traineeship furthers the progress of the individual toward the completion of degree requirements; and
(C) develop and implement a system that, for the 3-year period that begins on the date any recipient completes a child welfare services program of study, tracks the employment record of the recipient, for the purpose of determining the percentage of recipients who secure employment in the field of child welfare services and remain employed in the field.
Ref: (B)
To me, that would meen a FREE education on YOUR (social security) dime.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Sec. 425. [42 U.S.C. 625] To carry out this this subpart (other than sections 426, 427, and 429)[101], there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary not more than $325,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016[102].
[101] P.L. 110-351, §102(b), inserted “(other than sections 426,427, and 429)”. For the effective date, see Vol. II, P. L. 110-351, §601.
[102] P.L. 112–34, §101(a) struck out “2007 through 2011” and inserted “2007 through 2016”, effective September 30, 2011.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
Around this time of the year many Britons look towards the Canary Islands for a sunshine break. What most don't know, however, is that on one of the Canary Islands lies a major global catastrophe in the making, a natural disaster so big that it could flatten the Atlantic coastlines of Britain, Europe, North Africa and the United States of America and cause enormous damage to London and other UK cities. Scattered across the world,s oceans are a handful of rare geological time-bombs which, once unleashed, create an extraordinary phenomenon, a gigantic tidal wave, called a Mega Tsunami. These are able to cross oceans and ravage countries on the other side of the world. The word Tsunami derives from the Japanese for harbour wave. They are normally generated by offshore earthquakes, sub-marine landslides and undersea volcanic activity, and range from barely perceptible waves to walls of water up to 300 feet high.
Recently, scientists have realised that the next Mega Tsunami is likely to begin on one of the Canary Islands, off the coast of North Africa, where a wall of water will one day race across the entire Atlantic Ocean at the speed of a jet airliner to devastate the east coast of the United States, the Caribbean and Brazil.
Caseworkers should be public info. If and when we find those who are, we will post them. Everyone of them, supervisors and all. If they wish to skulk, they can do it in public.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services: Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act
Program Description
The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program provides grants to States and Indian tribes for programs directed toward the goal of keeping families together. They include preventive intervention so that, if possible, children will not have to be removed from their homes. If this is not possible, children are placed in foster care and reunification services are available to encourage the return of children who have been removed from their families. Services are available to children and their families without regard to income.
These funds are a small but integral part of State social service systems for families who need assistance in order to stay together. These funds, often combined with State and local government, as well as private funds, are directed to accomplish the following purposes:
protect and promote the welfare of all children;
prevent the neglect, abuse or exploitation of children;
support at-risk families through services which allow children, where appropriate, to remain with their families or return to their families in a timely manner;
promote the safety, permanence and well-being of children in foster care and adoptive families; and
provide training, professional development and support to ensure a well-qualified workforce.
States can use a portion of their funds (no more than their 2005 expenditure level) for foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance and day care related to employment or training for employment. States must limit expenditures for administrative costs 10 percent or less of their expenditures under this program.
Budget Information
Each state receives a base amount of $70,000. Additional funds are distributed in proportion to the state's population of children under age 21 multiplied by the complement of the state's average per capita income. The state match requirement is 25 percent. Funding is approximately $282,000,000 for FY 2008.
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT T H E F I R S T S E S S I O N
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven
An Act To amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend the child and family services program through fiscal year 2016, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child and Family Services
Improvement and Innovation Act’’.
TITLE I—EXTENSION OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PRO-
GRAM.
(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 425 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 625) is amended by striking ‘‘2007 through 2011’’
and inserting ‘‘2012 through 2016’’. (b) MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.— (1) RESPONSE TO EMOTIONAL TRAUMA.—Section
422(b)(15)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)(15)(A)(ii)) is
amended by inserting ‘‘, including emotional trauma associated with a child’s maltreatment and removal from home’’ before
the semicolon.
(2) PROCEDURES ON THE USE OF PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICA- TIONS.—Section 422(b)(15)(A)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
622(b)(15)(A)(v)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, including protocols for the appropriate use and monitoring of psychotropic medica- tions’’ before the semicolon.
(3) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF VERY YOUNG CHILDREN.—Section 422(b) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 622(b)) is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (16);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(17) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(18) include a description of the activities that the State has undertaken to reduce the length of time children who have not attained 5 years of age are without a permanent family, and the activities the State undertakes to address the developmental needs of such children who receive benefits or services under this part or part E.’’.
H. R. 2883—2
(4) DATA SOURCES FOR CHILD DEATH REPORTING.—Section
422(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)), as amended by paragraph
(3) of this subsection, is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (17);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(18) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(19) contain a description of the sources used to compile information on child maltreatment deaths required by Federal law to be reported by the State agency referred to in paragraph (1), and to the extent that the compilation does not include information on such deaths from the State vital statistics department, child death review teams, law enforcement agen- cies, or offices of medical examiners or coroners, the State shall describe why the information is not so included and how the State will include the information.’’.
(c) CHILD VISITATION BY CASEWORKERS.—Section 424 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 624) is amended by striking the 2nd subsection
(e), as added by section 7(b) of the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006, and inserting the following:
‘‘(f)(1)(A) Each State shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the total number of visits made by caseworkers on a monthly basis to children in foster care under the responsibility of the State during a fiscal year is not less than 90 percent (or, in the case of fiscal year 2015 or thereafter, 95 percent) of the total number of such visits that would occur during the fiscal year if each such child were so visited once every month while in such care.
‘‘(B) If the Secretary determines that a State has failed to
comply with subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, then the percentage
that would otherwise apply for purposes of subsection (a) for the
fiscal year shall be reduced by—
‘‘(i) 1, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short of the percentage specified in subparagraph
(A) is less than 10;
‘‘(ii) 3, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short, as described in clause (i), is not less
than 10 and less than 20; or
‘‘(iii) 5, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short, as described in clause (i), is not less
than 20.
‘‘(2)(A) Each State shall take such steps as are necessary to
ensure that not less than 50 percent of the total number of visits
made by caseworkers to children in foster care under the responsi-
bility of the State during a fiscal year occur in the residence
of the child involved.
‘‘(B) If the Secretary determines that a State has failed to
comply with subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, then the percentage
that would otherwise apply for purposes of subsection (a) for the
fiscal year shall be reduced by—
‘‘(i) 1, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short of the percentage specified in subparagraph
(A) is less than 10;
‘‘(ii) 3, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short, as described in clause (i), is not less
than 10 and less than 20; or
H. R. 2883—3
‘‘(iii) 5, if the number of full percentage points by which
the State fell short, as described in clause (i), is not less
than 20.’’.
(d) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 423(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 623(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘per centum’’ each place
it appears and inserting ‘‘percent’’.
SEC. 102. PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES PROGRAM.
(a) EXTENSION OF FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 436(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 629f(a)) is amended by striking all that follows ‘‘$345,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.’’.
(2) DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.—Section 437(a) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 629g(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2007 through 2011’’
and inserting ‘‘2012 through 2016’’.
(b)TARGETING OF SERVICES TO POPULATIONS AT GREATEST RISK OF MALTREATMENT.—Section 432(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629b(a))
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9)
and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(10) describes how the State identifies which populations are at the greatest risk of maltreatment and how services are targeted to the populations.’’.
(c) REVISED PURPOSES OF FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES AND TIME- LIMITED FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES.—
(1) FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES.—Section 431(a)(2) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(2) FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘family support services’ means community-based services designed to carry out the purposes described in subparagraph (B).
‘‘(B) PURPOSES DESCRIBED.—The purposes described in
this subparagraph are the following:
‘‘(i) To promote the safety and well-being of chil- dren and families.
‘‘(ii) To increase the strength and stability of fami- lies (including adoptive, foster, and extended families).
‘‘(iii) To increase parents’ confidence and com- petence in their parenting abilities.
‘‘(iv) To afford children a safe, stable, and sup- portive family environment.
‘‘(v) To strengthen parental relationships and pro- mote healthy marriages.
‘‘(vi) To enhance child development, including through mentoring (as defined in section 439(b)(2)).’’.
(2) TIME-LIMITED FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES.—Section
431(a)(7)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)(7)(B)) is amended
by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (viii) and inserting after
clause (v) the following:
‘‘(vi) Peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for parents and primary caregivers.
‘‘(vii) Services and activities designed to facilitate access to and visitation of children by parents and siblings.’’.
H. R. 2883—4
(d) UNIFORM DEFINITIONS OF INDIAN TRIBE AND TRIBAL
ORGANIZATION.—Section 431(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)(5)
and (6)) is amended by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting
the following:
‘‘(5) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘Indian tribe’ has the meaning
given the term in section 428(c).
‘‘(6) TRIBAL ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘tribal organization’
has the meaning given the term in section 428(c).’’.
(e) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS OF STATE SUMMARIES OF FINAN-
CIAL DATA; PUBLICATION ON HHS WEBSITE.—Section 432(c) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 629b(c)) is amended—
(1) by striking all that precedes ‘‘shall’’ and inserting the
following:
‘‘(c) ANNUAL SUBMISSION OF STATE REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
‘‘(2) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED.—The compilation shall
include the individual State reports and tables that synthesize
State information into national totals for each element required
to be included in the reports, including planned and actual
spending by service category for the program authorized under
this subpart and planned spending by service category for the
program authorized under subpart 1.
‘‘(3) PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY.—Not later than September 30 of each year, the Secretary shall publish the compilation on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services in a location easily accessible by the public.’’.
(f) GAO REPORT ON MULTIPLE SOURCES OF FEDERAL SPENDING AND FAMILY ACCESS TO SERVICES.—Not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to Congress a report that—
(1) identifies alternative sources of Federal funding that
are being employed by States or other entities for the same
purposes for which funding is provided under subpart 1 or
2 of part B of title IV of the Social Security Act; and
(2) assesses the needs of families eligible for services under
such program, including identification of underserved commu-
nities and information regarding—
(A) the supports available for caseworkers to appro- priately investigate and safely manage their caseloads;
(B) the length of the wait time for families to receive substance abuse and other preventive services; and
(C) the number of families on waiting lists for such services and the effect of the delay on healthy, successful reunification outcomes for such families.
(g) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—
(1) Section 432(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
629b(a)(8)(B)) is amended in each of clauses (i) and (ii) by
striking ‘‘forms CFS 101–Part I and CFS 101–Part II (or any
successor forms)’’ and inserting ‘‘form CFS–101 (including all
parts and any successor forms)’’.
(2) Section 433(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
629c(c)(2)) is amended—
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘FOOD STAMP’’ and inserting ‘‘SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSIST- ANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS’’; and
H. R. 2883—5
(B) by striking ‘‘benefits benefits’’ each place it appears
and inserting ‘‘benefits’’.
SEC. 103. GRANTS FOR TARGETED PURPOSES.
(a) EXTENSION OF FUNDING RESERVATIONS FOR MONTHLY CASE-
WORKER VISITS AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.—Section
436(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629f(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ‘‘433(e)’’ and all that
follows and inserting ‘‘433(e) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.’’; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘437(f)’’ and all that follows
and inserting ‘‘437(f) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.’’.
(b) REVISION IN USE OF MONTHLY CASEWORKER VISITS
GRANTS.—Section 436(b)(4)(B)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
629f(b)(4)(B)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘support’’ and insert ‘‘improve the quality of’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘a primary emphasis’’ and all that follows
and inserting ‘‘an emphasis on improving caseworker decision making on the safety, permanency, and well-being of foster children and on activities designed to increase retention, recruitment, and training of caseworkers.’’; and
(c) REAUTHORIZATION OF REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP GRANTS TO
ASSIST CHILDREN AFFECTED BY PARENTAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE.—
(1) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 437(f)(3)(A) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 629g(f)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘2007
through 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2012 through 2016’’.
(2) REVISIONS TO PROGRAM.—Section 437(f) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 629g(f)) is amended—
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘METH-
AMPHETAMINE OR OTHER’’;
(B) in each of paragraphs (1), (4)(A), (7)(A)(i), and
(9)(B)(iii), by striking ‘‘methamphetamine or other’’;
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B)
and inserting the following:
‘‘(B) REQUIRED MINIMUM PERIOD OF APPROVAL.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A grant shall be awarded under
this subsection for a period of not less than 2, and
not more than 5, fiscal years, subject to clause (ii).
‘‘(ii) EXTENSION OF GRANT.—On application of the
grantee, the Secretary may extend for not more than
2 fiscal years the period for which a grant is awarded
under this subsection.
‘‘(C) MULTIPLE GRANTS ALLOWED.—This subsection
shall not be interpreted to prevent a grantee from applying
for, or being awarded, separate grants under this sub-
section.’’;
(D) in paragraph (6)(A)—
(i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of clause
(iii) and inserting a semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iv) 70 percent for the sixth such fiscal year; and
‘‘(v) 65 percent for the seventh such fiscal year.’’;
(E) in paragraph (7)—
H. R. 2883—6
(i) by striking ‘‘shall—’’ and all that follows through
‘‘(A) take’’ and inserting ‘‘shall take’’;
(ii) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by striking ‘‘; and’’
and inserting a period;
(iii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(iv) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) of
subparagraph (A) as subparagraphs (A) through (D),
respectively, and moving each of such provisions 2
ems to the left; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(10) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE SECRETARY.—Not more than 5 percent of the amounts appropriated or reserved for awarding grants under this subsection for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016 may be used by the Secretary for salaries and Department of Health and Human Services administrative expenses in administering this subsection.’’.
(3) EVALUATIONS.—Not later than December 31, 2012, and
not later than December 31, 2017, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall evaluate the effectiveness of the
grants awarded to regional partnerships under section 437(f)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629g(f)) and shall publish
a report regarding the results of each evaluation on the website
of the Department of Health and Human Services. Each report
required to be published under this subsection shall include—
(A) an evaluation of the programs and activities con-
ducted, and the services provided, with the grant funds
awarded under such section for fiscal years 2007 through
2011, in the case of the evaluation required by December
31, 2012, and for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, in the
case of the evaluation required by December 31, 2017;
(B) an analysis of the regional partnerships awarded
such grants that have, and have not, been successful in
achieving the goals and outcomes specified in their grant
applications and with respect to the performance indicators
established by the Secretary under paragraph (8) of such
section that are applicable to their grant awards; and
(C) an analysis of the extent to which such grants
have been successful in addressing the needs of families
with methamphetamine or other substance abuse problems
who come to the attention of the child welfare system
and in achieving the goals of child safety, permanence,
and family stability.
SEC. 104. COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) GRANT PURPOSES.—Section 438(a) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)—
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and
inserting ‘‘, including the requirements in the Act related
to concurrent planning;’’;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end;
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(C) to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption;’’; and
H. R. 2883—7
(2) in paragraph (4)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(4)’’;
(B) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(C) by adding after and below the end the following:
‘‘(B) to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption.’’.
(b) SINGLE GRANT APPLICATION.—Section 438(b)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 629h(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(2) SINGLE GRANT APPLICATION.—Pursuant to the require-
ments under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a highest State
court desiring a grant under this section shall submit a single
application to the Secretary that specifies whether the applica-
tion is for a grant for—
‘‘(A) the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of subsection (a);
‘‘(B) the purpose described in subsection (a)(3);
‘‘(C) the purpose described in subsection (a)(4); or
‘‘(D) the purposes referred to in 2 or more (specifically
identified) of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this para-
graph.’’.
(c) AMOUNT OF GRANT.—Section 438(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
629h(c)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(c) AMOUNT OF GRANT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each of subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of subsection (b)(2) that refers to 1 or more
grant purposes for which an application of a highest State
court is approved under this section, the court shall be entitled
to payment, for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, from
the amount allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection
for grants for the purpose or purposes, of an amount equal
to $85,000 plus the amount described in paragraph (2) of this
subsection with respect to the purpose or purposes.
‘‘(2) AMOUNT DESCRIBED.—The amount described in this
paragraph for any fiscal year with respect to the purpose or
purposes referred to in a subparagraph of subsection (b)(2)
is the amount that bears the same ratio to the total of the
amounts allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection for
grants for the purpose or purposes as the number of individuals
in the State who have not attained 21 years of age bears
to the total number of such individuals in all States the highest
State courts of which have approved applications under this
section for grants for the purpose or purposes.
‘‘(3) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(A) MANDATORY FUNDS.—Of the amounts reserved
under section 436(b)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary
shall allocate—
‘‘(i) $9,000,000 for grants for the purposes
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
‘‘(ii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose
described in subsection (a)(3);
‘‘(iii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose
described in subsection (a)(4); and
‘‘(iv) $1,000,000 for grants to be awarded on a competitive basis among the highest courts of Indian tribes or tribal consortia that— H. R. 2883—8
‘‘(I) are operating a program under part E, in accordance with section 479B; ‘‘(II) are seeking to operate a program under part E and have received an implementation grant under section 476; or ‘‘(III) has a court responsible for proceedings related to foster care or adoption.
‘‘(B) DISCRETIONARY FUNDS.—The Secretary shall allo-
cate all of the amounts reserved under section 437(b)(2)
for grants for the purposes described in paragraphs (1)
and (2) of subsection (a).’’.
(d) EXTENSION OF FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 438(d) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘2002 through
2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2012 through 2016’’.
(e) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Effective as if included in the enactment of the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, section 8(b) of such Act (120 Stat. 513) is amended by striking ‘‘438(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 638(b))’’ inserting ‘‘438(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(b)(1))’’.
SEC. 105. DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part B of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 621–629i) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘Subpart 3—Common Provisions
‘‘SEC. 440. DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING.
‘‘(a) STANDARD DATA ELEMENTS.—
‘‘(1) DESIGNATION.—The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group established by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, and considering State perspectives, shall,
by rule, designate standard data elements for any category
of information required to be reported under this part.
‘‘(2) DATA ELEMENTS MUST BE NONPROPRIETARY AND INTER-
OPERABLE.—The standard data elements designated under
paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable, be nonproprietary
and interoperable.
‘‘(3) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—In designating standard data
elements under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the
extent practicable, incorporate—
‘‘(A) interoperable standards developed and maintained
by an international voluntary consensus standards body,
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, such
as the International Organization for Standardization;
‘‘(B) interoperable standards developed and maintained
by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National
Information Exchange Model; and
‘‘(C) interoperable standards developed and maintained
by Federal entities with authority over contracting and
financial assistance, such as the Federal Acquisition Regu- latory Council.
‘‘(b) DATA STANDARDS FOR REPORTING.—
H. R. 2883—9
‘‘(1) DESIGNATION.—The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group established by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, and considering State government perspec-
tives, shall, by rule, designate data reporting standards to
govern the reporting required under this part.
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The data reporting standards
required by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable—
‘‘(A) incorporate a widely-accepted, non-proprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format;
‘‘(B) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles; and
‘‘(C) be capable of being continually upgraded as nec-
essary.
‘‘(3) INCORPORATION OF NONPROPRIETARY STANDARDS.—In
designating reporting standards under this subsection, the Sec-
retary shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate existing non-
proprietary standards, such as the eXtensible Business
Reporting Language.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with respect
to information required to be reported on or after such date.
SEC. 106. PROVISIONS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE OR ADOPTION.
(a) EDUCATIONAL STABILITY FOR EACH FOSTER PLACEMENT.—
Section 475(1)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(1)(G))
is amended—
(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘the placement’’ and inserting
‘‘each placement’’; and
(2) in clause (ii)(I), by inserting ‘‘each’’ before ‘‘placement’’.
(b) FOSTER YOUTH ID THEFT.—Section 475(5) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 675(5)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (G);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H)
and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(I) each child in foster care under the responsibility
of the State who has attained 16 years of age receives
without cost a copy of any consumer report (as defined
in section 603(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) per-
taining to the child each year until the child is discharged
from care, and receives assistance (including, when feasible,
from any court-appointed advocate for the child) in inter-
preting and resolving any inaccuracies in the report.’’.
(c) DESCRIPTION OF ADOPTION SPENDING.—Section 473(a)(8) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)(8)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, and
shall document how such amounts are spent, including on post-
adoption services’’ before the period.
(d) INCLUSION IN ANNUAL REPORT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON CHILD VISITATION BY CASEWORKERS.—Section 479A(6) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 679b(6)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph
(C) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
‘‘(B) the total number of visits made by caseworkers
on a monthly basis to children in foster care under the
responsibility of the State during a fiscal year as a percent-
age of the total number of the visits that would occur
H. R. 2883—10
during the fiscal year if each child were so visited once
every month while in such care; and’’.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on October 1, 2011, and shall apply to payments under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether regula- tions to implement the amendments are promulgated by such date.
(b) DELAY PERMITTED IF STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRED.—If the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that State
legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) is required
in order for a State plan developed pursuant to subpart 1 of part
B, or a State plan approved under subpart 2 of part B or part
E, of title IV of the Social Security Act to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by this title, the
plan shall not be regarded as failing to meet any of the additional
requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter begin-
ning after the first regular session of the State legislature that
begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. If the State
has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the session is deemed
to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
TITLE II—CHILD WELFARE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
SEC. 201. RENEWAL OF AUTHORITY TO APPROVE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS DESIGNED TO TEST INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
IN STATE CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS.
Section 1130 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–
9) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—During fiscal years 2012 through 2014,
the Secretary may authorize demonstration projects described
in paragraph (1), with not more than 10 demonstration projects
to be authorized in each fiscal year.’’.
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(3) CONDITIONS FOR STATE ELIGIBILITY.—For purposes of
a new demonstration project under this section that is initially
approved in any of fiscal years 2012 through 2014, a State
shall be authorized to conduct such demonstration project only
if the State satisfies the following conditions:
‘‘(A) IDENTIFY 1 OR MORE GOALS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall demonstrate that
the demonstration project is designed to accomplish
1 or more of the following goals:
‘‘(I) Increase permanency for all infants, chil-
dren, and youth by reducing the time in foster
placements when possible and promoting a
successful transition to adulthood for older youth.
‘‘(II) Increase positive outcomes for infants,
children, youth, and families in their homes and
communities, including tribal communities, and
H. R. 2883—11
improve the safety and well-being of infants, chil-
dren, and youth.
‘‘(III) Prevent child abuse and neglect and the
re-entry of infants, children, and youth into foster
care.
‘‘(ii) LONG-TERM THERAPEUTIC FAMILY TREATMENT
CENTERS; ADDRESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—With
respect to a demonstration project that is designed
to accomplish 1 or more of the goals described in clause
(i), the State may elect to establish a program—
‘‘(I) to permit foster care maintenance pay-
ments to be made under part E of title IV to
a long-term therapeutic family treatment center
(as described in paragraph (8)(B)) on behalf of
a child residing in the center; or
‘‘(II) to identify and address domestic violence
that endangers children and results in the place-
ment of children in foster care.
‘‘(B) DEMONSTRATE READINESS.—The State shall dem-
onstrate through a narrative description the State’s
capacity to effectively use the authority to conduct a dem-
onstration project under this section by identifying changes
the State has made or plans to make in policies, procedures,
or other elements of the State’s child welfare program
that will enable the State to successfully achieve the goal
or goals of the project.
‘‘(C) DEMONSTRATE IMPLEMENTED OR PLANNED CHILD
WELFARE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT POLICIES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall demonstrate that
the State has implemented, or plans to implement
within 3 years of the date on which the State submits
its application to conduct the demonstration project
or 2 years after the date on which the Secretary
approves such demonstration project (whichever is
later), at least 2 of the child welfare program improve-
ment policies described in paragraph (7).
‘‘(ii) PREVIOUS IMPLEMENTATION.—For purposes of
the requirement described in clause (i), at least 1 of
the child welfare program improvement policies to be
implemented by the State shall be a policy that the
State has not previously implemented as of the date
on which the State submits an application to conduct
the demonstration project.
‘‘(iii) IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW.—The Secretary
may terminate the authority of a State to conduct
a demonstration project under this section if, after
the 3-year period following approval of the demonstra-
tion project, the State has not made significant
progress in implementing the child welfare program
improvement policies proposed by the State under
clause (i).’’;
(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘and the ability
of the State to implement a corrective action plan approved
under section 1123A’’ before the period; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(6) INAPPLICABILITY OF RANDOM ASSIGNMENT FOR CONTROL
GROUPS AS A FACTOR FOR APPROVAL OF DEMONSTRATION
H. R. 2883—12
purposes of evaluating an application to con-
PROJECTS.—For
duct a demonstration project under this section, the Secretary
shall not take into consideration whether such project requires
random assignment of children and families to groups served
under the project and to control groups.
‘‘(7) CHILD WELFARE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT POLICIES.—
For purposes of paragraph (3)(C), the child welfare program
improvement policies described in this paragraph are the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(A) The establishment of a bill of rights for infants,
children, and youth in foster care that is widely shared
and clearly outlines protections for infants, children, and
youth, such as assuring frequent visits with parents, sib-
lings, and caseworkers, access to attorneys, and participa-
tion in age-appropriate extracurricular activities, and
procedures for ensuring the protections are provided.
‘‘(B) The development and implementation of a plan
for meeting the health and mental health needs of infants,
children, and youth in foster care that includes ensuring
that the provision of health and mental health care is
child-specific, comprehensive, appropriate, and consistent
(through means such as ensuring the infant, child, or youth
has a medical home, regular wellness medical visits, and
addressing the issue of trauma, when appropriate).
‘‘(C) The inclusion in the State plan under section
471 of an amendment implementing the option under sub-
section (a)(28) of that section to enter into kinship
guardianship assistance agreements.
‘‘(D) The election under the State plan under section
471 to define a ‘child’ for purposes of the provision of foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance pay-
ments, and kinship guardianship assistance payments, so
as to include individuals described in each of subclauses
(I), (II), and (III) of section 475(8)(B)(i) who have not attained age 21.
‘‘(E) The development and implementation of a plan
that ensures congregate care is used appropriately and
reduces the placement of children and youth in such care.
‘‘(F) Of those infants, children, and youth in out-of-
home placements, substantially increasing the number of
cases of siblings who are in the same foster care, kinship
guardianship, or adoptive placement, above the number
of such cases in fiscal year 2008.
‘‘(G) The development and implementation of a plan to improve the recruitment and retention of high quality foster family homes trained to help assist infants, children, and youth swiftly secure permanent families. Supports for foster families under such a plan may include increasing maintenance payments to more adequately meet the needs of infants, children, and youth in foster care and expanding training, respite care, and other support services for foster parents.
‘‘(H) The establishment of procedures designed to assist
youth as they prepare for their transition out of foster
care, such as arranging for participation in age-appropriate
extra-curricular activities, providing appropriate access to
cell phones, computers, and opportunities to obtain a
H. R. 2883—13
driver’s license, providing notification of all sibling place-
ments if siblings are in care and sibling location if siblings
are out of care, and providing counseling and financial
support for post-secondary education.
‘‘(I) The inclusion in the State plan under section 471
of a description of State procedures for—
‘‘(i) ensuring that youth in foster care who have
attained age 16 are engaged in discussions, including
during the development of the transition plans required
under paragraphs (1)(D) and (5)(H) of section 475,
that explore whether the youth wishes to reconnect
with the youth’s biological family, including parents,
grandparents, and siblings, and, if so, what skills and
strategies the youth will need to successfully and safely
reconnect with those family members;
‘‘(ii) providing appropriate guidance and services
to youth whom affirm an intent to reconnect with
biological family members on how to successfully and
safely manage such reconnections; and
‘‘(iii) making, when appropriate, efforts to include
biological family members in such reconnection efforts.
‘‘(J) The establishment of one or more of the following
programs designed to prevent infants, children, and youth
from entering foster care or to provide permanency for
infants, children, and youth in foster care:
‘‘(i) An intensive family finding program.
‘‘(ii) A kinship navigator program.
‘‘(iii) A family counseling program, such as a family
group decision-making program, and which may
include in-home peer support for families.
‘‘(iv) A comprehensive family-based substance
abuse treatment program.
‘‘(v) A program under which special efforts are
made to identify and address domestic violence that
endangers infants, children, and youth and puts them
at risk of entering foster care.
‘‘(vi) A mentoring program.
‘‘(8) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection—
‘‘(A) the term ‘youth’ means, with respect to a State,
an individual who has attained age 12 but has not attained
the age at which an individual is no longer considered
to be a child under the State plans under parts B and
E of title IV, and
‘‘(B) the term ‘long-term therapeutic family treatment
center’ means a State licensed or certified program that
enables parents and their children to live together in a
safe environment for a period of not less than 6 months
and provides, on-site or by referral, substance abuse treat-
ment services, children’s early intervention services, family
counseling, legal services, medical care, mental health serv-
ices, nursery and preschool, parenting skills training, pedi-
atric care, prenatal care, sexual abuse therapy, relapse
prevention, transportation, and job or vocational training
or classes leading to a secondary school diploma or a certifi-
cate of general equivalence.’’;
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
‘‘(d) DURATION OF DEMONSTRATION.—
H. R. 2883—14
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a demonstra-
tion project under this section may be conducted for not more
than 5 years, unless in the judgment of the Secretary, the
demonstration project should be allowed to continue.
‘‘(2) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—In no event shall a dem-
onstration project under this section be conducted after Sep-
tember 30, 2019.’’;
(3) in subsection (e)—
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(which shall provide,’’
and all that follows before the semicolon;
(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8);
and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
‘‘(7) an accounting of any additional Federal, State, and
local investments made, as well as any private investments
made in coordination with the State, during the 2 fiscal years
preceding the application to provide the services described in
paragraph (1), and an assurance that the State will provide
an accounting of that same spending for each year of an
approved demonstration project; and’’;
(4) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h);
(5) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
‘‘(f) EVALUATIONS.—Each State authorized to conduct a dem-
onstration project under this section shall obtain an evaluation
by an independent contractor of the effectiveness of the project,
using an evaluation design approved by the Secretary which pro-
vides for—
‘‘(1) comparison of methods of service delivery under the
project, and such methods under a State plan or plans, with
respect to efficiency, economy, and any other appropriate meas-
ures of program management;
‘‘(2) comparison of outcomes for children and families (and
groups of children and families) under the project, and such
outcomes under a State plan or plans, for purposes of assessing
the effectiveness of the project in achieving program goals;
and
‘‘(3) any other information that the Secretary may require.
‘‘(g) REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) STATE REPORTS; PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Each State
authorized to conduct a demonstration project under this sec-
tion shall—
‘‘(A) submit periodic reports to the Secretary on the
specific programs, activities, and strategies used to improve
outcomes for infants, children, youth, and families and
the results achieved for infants, children, and youth during
the conduct of the demonstration project, including with
respect to those infants, children, and youth who are pre-
vented from entering foster care, infants, children, and
youth in foster care, and infants, children, and youth who
move from foster care to permanent families; and
‘‘(B) post a copy of each such report on the website
for the State child welfare program concurrent with the
submission of the report to the Secretary.
‘‘(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate—
H. R. 2883—15
‘‘(A) periodic reports based on the State reports sub-
mitted under paragraph (1); and
‘‘(B) a report based on the results of the State evalua-
tions required under subsection (f) that includes an analysis
of the results of such evaluations and such recommenda-
tions for administrative or legislative changes as the Sec-
retary determines appropriate.’’; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(i) INDIAN TRIBES OPERATING IV–E PROGRAMS CONSIDERED
STATES.—An Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium
that has elected to operate a program under part E of title IV
in accordance with section 479B shall be considered a State for
purposes of this section.’’.
TITLE III—BUDGET PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined
by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of
PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Com-
mittee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior
to the vote on passage.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
