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 of parens 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

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

A Savior Is Born?

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Judge OKs $18M settlement in 'kids for cash' case


Judge OKs $18M settlement in 'kids for cash' case.
SCRANTON, Pa. - A federal judge in Pennsylvania has given final approval to a settlement that will pay out nearly $18 million to juveniles who allege they were wrongly jailed by corrupt judges.
The approval granted Friday in Scranton allows attorneys to begin distributing money to about 1,600 teens and their parents.
The funds come from developer Robert K. Mericle (MEHR'-ih-kuhl), who built a pair of for-profit youth detention centers.
Two Luzerne County judges accepted payments from Mericle and routinely jailed teens at the facilities. The judges are now serving lengthy prison terms.
Mericle pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony. He awaits sentencing in the so-called "kids for cash" scandal.
Affected youths will receive between $500 and $5,000. Some will get more based on the circumstances of their incarceration.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Monday, December 17, 2012

Organized Crime in Child Protective Services

Organized Crime in Child Protective Services
(90 minutes)

Listen to internet radio with Marti Oakley on Blog Talk Radio

James Roger Brown from The Sociology Center joins the show this evening to discuss the organized crime rings operating in Child Protective Services.  Federal funding dependent on a quota system plays a large role in the abduction and kidnapping of children from their homes to then be placed in foster care for profit.
We will also cover Mr. Brown's "The Family Defense Manual", a book he has published with essential tools for protecting you and your family from state actors and agencies in complete violation of the law.
1. Services that detect and document pseudoscience, science fraud, structural corruption and organized crime in government agencies and programs; 2. Specialized knowledge publications such as THE ESSENTIAL SKILLS OF CRITICAL THINKING for Home Schooling parents and other parents who want to enhance their children's skills for college, and THE FAMILY DEFENSE MANUAL, the only publication that integrates corporate legal strategy and model legal forms designed to discourage false child abuse allegations being made or pursued by corrupt or extremist government employees; 3. Application of advanced intelligence collection and analysis methodology;
BIO: James Roger Brown, Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
Called by some “The most dangerous mind in North America,” Roger’s general field is sociology of knowledge with specializations in the sociology of intelligence operations, cultural reality models, and how cultures define and relate to the spiritual world.
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
(606) 836-7613

List of US Federal Government Funding Programs

Total Funding  $1,974,042,215,500
Programs   1607

Justin Heminger, Jaylene Day, judy ringstad, bruce downs, Kelly Anderson, Katie Dabney, Fairbanks office of childrens services.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Legislative committee tackles reducing kids in child welfare system

 Legislative committee tackles reducing kids in child welfare system

October 05, 2012 3:30 pm  • 

Too many kids find their way into Nebraska's child welfare system -- it's been said over and over in the past year.
On Friday, the Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee continued to gather testimony on how other states keep their numbers lower and how Nebraska can follow their lead.
Interim studies suggested by Lincoln Sens. Colby Coash and Kathy Campbell are examining screening, assessment and investigations of reports of child abuse and neglect, and how the current process contributes to a higher rate of out-of-home care.
The state spent the past two years focusing on how to support families once they are in the child welfare system, Coash said. Now it's time to look at how to keep families together and reduce the trauma for kids.
Caren Kaplan, an expert in child welfare policy and practice, endorsed a method of addressing child welfare cases called "differential response," which allows for more than the traditional investigation.
Nebraska's reliance on the traditional investigative response often results in families being shuffled to the courts, case workers and out-of-home care. With alternative approaches, families could get support to resolve issues putting kids at risk without bringing them into the system.
Differential responses can engage parents, the extended family and community service providers in a less adversarial manner, she said. And through assessment, rather than investigation, parents do not end up on the state's child abuse registry.
Kaplan told the committee, which included Coash from the Judiciary Committee, that since the 1970s, states have used the investigation approach for allegations of maltreatment of children, although only a small percentage involve serious abuse such as broken bones, concussions, deliberate burns, abandonment and starvation.
Over time, child neglect cases resulting from poverty-related issues of inadequate food and clothing, poor hygiene, unclean homes and improper supervision have become the largest proportion of cases.
In 2010, 96.5 percent of Nebraska child welfare cases involved neglect, she said. The national average is 75 percent. Kaplan said she had never seen a percentage of neglect cases higher than Nebraska's.
Kaplan said families that come to the attention of the state have unique histories, circumstances, strengths, needs and challenges. Differential response allows child protection systems to respond in diverse ways, she said.
"What is most important is that safety is not compromised through this approach," she said.
Thomas Pristow, director of the division of children and family services in the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee he expects to implement differential response in the summer of 2013.
That response would be used for a targeted and clearly defined population of families when there's no indication an investigative response is needed, he said.
The Legislature is looking at putting the differentiated response method into state law, Coash said.
The number of state wards as of Oct. 1 stood at 5,812, down 309 from the 6,121 of six months ago.
Pristow said in the past six months, the state has reduced the number of children in the child welfare system in part by focusing on children who have been in their homes as state wards for more than 60 days.
When the department began to look at this, about 1,800 state wards were living safely at home, some for hundreds of days, some for thousands of days, Pristow said. The state was able to vacate custody in a number of those cases.
"We're not done with that yet. We're going to continue to focus on that," he said. "There is no reason for us to maintain that type of long-term relationship if there is no safety issue."

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Couple accuses county of playing politics with baby

 Couple accuses county of playing politics with baby

By Michael Barrett
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 18:56 PM.


Leon and Chrissy Smith thought they had finally completed their two-year-long journey to parenthood when they adopted a 22-month-old boy in late August.
Yet five weeks after the toddler was brought to the Smiths and stole their hearts, the Gaston County Department of Social Services took him back. He was returned to a Gaston County couple that had fostered him from birth, after a public and political outcry here about why the child had been removed from that home in the first place.
Since the Smiths had registered directly with an adoption agency, instead of first serving as foster parents, they had no reason to believe the placement wouldn’t be final. But because the adoption process technically takes 90 days to become official, they had no legal recourse.
Still bitter about their treatment by Gaston County DSS, however, the couple is not letting the matter rest. They are talking with an attorney about filing a civil lawsuit against that agency, as well as a custody suit to get the child back.
“I want people to know there’s another side to this story,” said Chrissy Smith. “Our world got turned upside down for no reason.
“I didn’t ask for this. I didn’t get involved in this to be a baby sitter for five weeks.”
The decision to return the child to original foster parents David and Michelle Buchanan, who are now proceeding with plans to adopt him, was made by Gaston County DSS Director Keith Moon. It is believed to be the first time a director here has made such a unilateral move, overruling the Adoptions Committee that typically decides where to place children in foster care.
Moon has declined to comment specifically about the case, citing Social Services confidentiality laws. But he said he is sorry for the angst that recent events have caused.
“Your heart always goes out to the people in these situations,” he said.
A child of their own
Leon Smith has a 7-year-old son from a previous relationship. He and Chrissy hoped to have a child together once they were married, but after she suffered seven miscarriages in the last few years, they realized adoption was their only option.
Because they are a biracial couple, they sought to adopt a black or biracial child of any age. The Smiths went through the Children’s Home Society of North Carolina because they wanted to adopt immediately, rather than foster.
“I was not going to put a child in my home to give us more heartache,” Chrissy Smith said.
In August, after months of reviewing profiles of children, the Smiths were told about a biracial, 22-month-old toddler who was being moved out of a foster home in Gaston County, where he had been raised from birth by the Buchanans. They said they would be interested in adopting, as long as there were no unresolved issues with the boy.
After an extended meeting Aug. 29 with the DSS Adoptions Committee, the Smiths were approved to become the child’s adoptive parents. Two days later, two social workers arrived with the toddler.
“We were so excited,” Chrissy Smith said.
Public uproar
By most accounts, the Buchanans are highly regarded foster parents. They said they grew to love the newborn boy they began fostering in November 2010 and were on what they believed was a path to adoption. But the 22-month-old was suddenly taken from them and placed in the Smiths’ home Aug. 31, and the Buchanans were offered no explanation why.
The Adoptions Committee that made that decision was largely made up of DSS officials. Despite the child’s relocation, DSS had only recently renewed the Buchanans’ foster care license.
After the Buchanans’ story was documented in a Gazette article Sept. 27, they pleaded for help during a Gaston County commissioners meeting. A number of their friends and fellow foster parents also spoke on their behalf and testified to their character.
Behind the scenes, county commissioners and state legislators began to question the decision to take the child from the couple.
The public pressure prompted Moon to call in an outside attorney to review the Adoptions Committee’s decision. That attorney cited legal concerns  about the committee’s rationale and suggested it needed to reconvene, according to a Gazette source with knowledge of the discussions.
Revisiting the decision
It was soon revealed that the child had been removed from the Buchanans’ home for permanent placement elsewhere in part because they are white, and the child is biracial, according to the Gazette’s source. At least one social worker involved in the case had also accused the Buchanans of Munchausen by proxy syndrome. The term pertains to a form of child abuse that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker.
But two physicians who had cared for the toddler stood up for the Buchanans. Both wrote letters testifying that the child’s medical issues were valid, and in no way due to the Buchanans’ actions.
The idea that social workers could make such claims in an Adoptions Committee meeting, without medical justification, prompted concerns about the procedures in place.
More than one DSS employee who was involved in the Buchanans’ case was also found to have made threatening comments on Facebook as the story gained publicity. Those included postings that the Buchanans should “watch what you do, or things will come back to bite you,” according to several Gazette sources.
Moon has since reassigned at least one social worker with ties to that case to a new job.
Decision overturned
In early October, Moon convened the Adoptions Committee again to review the case of the foster child in question. Several committee members still refuted the idea of returning the child to the Buchanans, but Moon overrode them.
“After consultation with legal counsel, I have decided to overrule the decision of the Adoptions Committee,” Moon wrote in an Oct. 5 email to county leaders. “The child will be placed in foster care with the Buchanan family and we will move quickly to review our adoption process and reconstitute the committee.”
Since then, Moon has changed the committee’s makeup, condensed its size and given the DSS attorney more oversight in guiding each meeting. In the future, he said foster parents will be allowed to offer their perspective to the Adoptions Committee before placement decisions are made.
After the child was returned to the Buchanans, they were asked to no longer speak with the media about their case.
When the child was taken back from the Smiths on Oct. 5, they were also advised not to speak about the case. But after a meeting with Moon and other DSS officials in late October, they decided to go public with their complaints.
Taken back
Chrissy Smith said she bonded with her adopted son from their first day together.
She said she had been told – and read in his medical records – that he had numerous issues, such as trouble talking, urinating, swallowing and eating certain foods. But she said she noticed no such problems in the five weeks she had him. He also became more expressive and talkative in that time, she said.
The Smiths had been reading Gazette articles about the uproar regarding their adopted child for a week, when they received a phone call on Oct. 5. They were told that new evidence had been presented in the case, and that DSS would be coming to take the child back that day.
“I fell completely to the floor,” said Chrissy Smith. “I was crying.”
Late last month, the Smiths were finally allowed to meet with Moon and other DSS officials. They were immediately asked to sign papers agreeing to never again discuss the case publicly, but they declined.
The Smiths secretly recorded the meeting, and they pressed Moon about his decision to remove the child from their home, despite never having met them before.
“I told him, ‘You’re not a social worker and you had never even met this child before making this decision, but you’ve ripped my life apart,” Chrissy Smith said.
Custody battle possible
Cheryl Harris, the DSS program administrator for Family and Children’s Services, was also in attendance during the meeting with the Smiths. Like Moon, she declined to speak about the case specifically. But she alluded to the events that have transpired.
“I can tell you I did not get into this role to cause people pain,” said Harris. “I don’t think anyone in this agency would intentionally make decisions that would cause someone pain. It’s very, very difficult, I think, for everybody.”
But the apologies have given the Smiths no comfort. They believe Moon made his decision because of pressure from county commissioners, who were under fire from the public, and that Moon feared he would lose his job if he didn’t act.
“I don’t think DSS wants this to go to court,” said Chrissy Smith. “But honestly, I would like it to all come to light, because this man played with my life.”

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Saturday, December 8, 2012

A reporters moral struggle over Child Protective Services

 A reporters moral struggle over Child Protective Services


I read a story of the couple whose two young children were removed from them because social workers thought their son’s bone fractures must have been caused by physical abuse. 
Only after a nightmarish 18-month ordeal, which drove the couple apart, were they finally able to produce medical evidence to indicate that the boy’s injuries were caused naturally, by brittle bone disease. 
The court dropped the case, and Amy Garland and her children are now happily reunited. 
When I spoke to her last night she told me how lucky she’d been to be put in touch with a medical expert who established the truth when Doctor’s for CPS were so wiling to say what they were told to say. 
I listened to her story with particular interest because it is only one more example in a very dark area of our national life I have long been investigating, and which I have come to see as one of the greatest scandals unfolding today — as shocking as anything I have come across in all my five decades as a journalist. 
In the past two years, the number of children being taken away from their parents by social workers has soared by almost 50 per cent to an all-time record level of nearly 10,000 a month shown by billing records.
And having followed scores of such cases in detail, it is abundantly clear to me that in far too many of them there is absolutely no reason why the families should be torn apart in this way. 
Forcibly separating happy, well-cared for children from loving, responsible parents creates a tragedy which will last for the rest of the lives of all those involved — even if they are eventually reunited. The emotional agony if the children who are permanently removed is the worst crime imaginable and should be punishable for life, the same punishment the family receives when a child is lost to these NAZI criminals. If I was to decide the fate of a social worker found guilty of stealing my child, with out ever giving it another thought, the sentence would be life behind bars with no possibility of parole.
Of course there is no objection to social workers removing children from parents who have genuinely abused them. As we know from many notorious examples, social workers have failed to take into care children who died as a result.  It is so hard to consider any statements made by CPS today, so many statements have turned out to be false and after some digging were just pleas for public sympathy and increase funding. I will say this children have been sent into the lions den many times to get increases in funding.
But a key reason for the rise in the number of children now being seized from their parents is that, precisely to avoid such scandals like, the child porn ring Senator Nancy Schaefer brought to public attention, social workers were caught head deep in corruption.
With the press silenced on a national level CPS is confident the pubic has not heard of the scandals and staggering numbers of children being removed for no good reason and that by going to the extreme, becoming trigger-happy, snatching children for possible crimes that may or may not happen is the way to prevent abuse, these people are so far removed from the American belief system that the day has come CPS must end. 
What is most shocking about this is that the families then find themselves in the grip of a system which seems horribly rigged against them. Too often these cases will begin on the flimsiest of grounds, as when the social workers are tipped off by a malicious neighbour or an over-zealous teacher. 
One mother I know, who holds down a responsible job, lost her two children when her only mistake was to tap her daughter’s arm with a roll of cling wrap. 
The next day this was twisted by a foolish teacher into a charge that the girl had been ‘hit with an implement’, and the court paid a psychiatrist for a 235-page report arguing that the mother suffered from ‘a borderline personality disorder’, one of the vague, unprovable claims they love to use. 
Another lost her three children after she had tripped up on a charity walk, pulling the daughter holding her hand to the ground. When a health visitor reported the bruises the child suffered as a result to social workers, without asking how these had arisen, they sent the mother to one psychiatrist after another until they also found one prepared to say she had a ‘borderline personality disorder’. 
One of the sanest and brightest mothers I have come across had her baby removed after the woman had accidentally fallen from a window, because the social workers alleged that she had tried to commit suicide. 
They phoned to tell her they were taking her baby while she lay temporarily paralyzed in the hospital. 
On such dubious grounds, the social workers may arrive to snatch children from their beds, all too often accompanied by a gang of four or more policemen, who seem only too willing to comply with any demands the social workers make. It has become a all out war to keep your children protected from government.
One mother was breastfeeding her three-hour-old baby on a hospital bed when two social workers and four policemen burst into the room to take the child forcibly from her arms, after a series of false allegations were made against her only because she herself was taken from her parents years earlier. How does that make her guilty of any crime? It may make her inexperienced but not a bad mom.  
The parents in such cases often find themselves treated like criminals, held for hours in police cells before being released without charge. But worse is to come when they arrive in a CPS court, where all the normal rules of justice don’t apply and the parent doesn’t have any idea what they have done but they already have found guilty by the unlicensed social worker.
The social workers can produce hearsay evidence which are guaranteed 85 % of the time, to be lies, but which the parents are not allowed to question, and the documents to the judge the parents are not even allowed to read, all for the best interest of the child. When did kidnapping the child away from family become in the child’s best interest. 
If they are represented by court appointed lawyers, in most cases forced on them by the council, they often find that their lawyers refuse to oppose the council’s application for a care order — which allows the children to be removed for a longer period — and accept every allegation CPS makes. 
The system hides itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy 
Most family judges are as much part of this broken system as the social workers themselves — one rare exception being the senior family judge who last year castigated the behavior of Devon social workers as ‘more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China.
Meanwhile the children, generally ambushed and distraught at what is happening to them, are placed with foster caregivers, who receive on average 400.00 a week or 20,000 a year for each child from the federal government .  
The biological parents and children may be allowed to meet for only a few hours a week of rigorously ‘supervised contact’, in CPS office ‘ this limited amount of time allows the court to use the excuse that all bonds have been severed.
Any expression of affection or mention of the court case is strictly forbidden and can be punished by suspension of the contact, possibly permanently. 
It may sound hard to believe, but I know of cases where children have been groomed by the social workers and their foster caregivers  to believe that their parents no longer love or want them. In several cases I have followed, it is clear that children in foster care are being maltreated or even sexually abused. 
Finally, this travesty of justice may wind to its conclusion when, after anything up to two years, a judge agrees that a child can be sent for adoption — although in recent years our adoption rate has markedly fallen, leaving ever more thousands of these children as fodder for a ‘fostering industry’ which is now costing taxpayers more than 3  billion a year for California alone and this is paid by social security.  
Obviously there are happier exceptions to this dreadful picture. Some children are rightly saved by social workers from genuine abuse, and there are many good and caring foster homes. But in far more cases, the other, more tragic scenario has become the norm to kidnap children to balance other state budgets
So, if things have gone so terribly wrong with our child protection system, why has this happened — and why have we not heard more about it? It is difficult for outsiders to realize just how corrupted it has become until they experience it at first hand — because the entire system has managed to hide itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and a press gag order. 
It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognized for what it is, nothing but a child theft ring leading to prison, pornography, and hardships placed on innocent people that can never be forgiven. The suicide rate of parents that have lost their children is around 36% according to CPS this just proves how bad the home was. I say, it just may be how important the child is and the utter destruction our family leading such depression. CPS doesn’t understand how important the family is to parent. Do we really want a government agency looking out for our children that doesn’t have a clue how much our family’s mean to us? For myself life just wouldn’t be good if I lost my children and anyone taking them will be risking his or her life.  
Supposedly designed to ‘protect the interests of the children’ by ensuring that they cannot be identified, this secrecy had been used by the system to conceal its workings from public view, by threatening parents with prison for talking about their case to outsiders, and even journalists like me for trying to report what goes on. 
It is this cloak of secrecy which more than anything has allowed the system to go so far off the rails. Too many social workers are in the grip of a self-righteous, politically correct ideology which drives them to abuse the power the Government has given them over other people’s lives, in the conviction that they are doing good in the world.  These people do know what they are really doing is harming people for life
The secrecy which surrounds the way they wield that power means they are hardly ever called to account. 
Nothing did more to distort the system in this way than President Clinton’s personal crusade to drive up the number of adoptions by setting adoption targets for the number of children they place with new families. 
They were given huge cash incentives to fulfill their quotas thanks to a government policy and adoption week fast track adoption destroying as many people as they can in the process which has left a terrible legacy in convincing both social workers and the courts that one of their prime duties is to seize children from their parents, even when there is no good reason for it. 
It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognized for what it is, and for the trail of horrors it is perpetrating to be dragged into the light. This reporter is putting my life a risk by breaking the silence.
I have had it. With the terrorism by Social Services, call me whistle blower something I can be proud of for a change.
Daily Vall

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Medicating Children: A “Whistleblower’s” Lawsuit Raises a Novel Legal Question

 Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)

 Medicating Children: A “Whistleblower’s” Lawsuit Raises a Novel Legal Question

In the past few years, a number of pharmaceutical companies have admitted to federal charges that they illegally marketed psychiatric medications for non-approved uses, with the companies paying large sums to settle the cases. Now, a legal complaint filed by the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights in an Alaskan federal court is raising a related question. When healthcare providers bill Medicaid for prescriptions of psychiatric drugs to children for non-approved uses, are they committing Medicaid fraud?
The case, United States ex-rel Law Project for Psychiatric Rights v. Matsutani, was unsealed earlier this year, and legal papers were recently filed that have brought this novel question -- which obviously has profound implications for the prescribing of psychiatric medications to poor children and adolescents -- into sharp focus.
The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights), which is headed by Alaskan attorney James Gottstein, filed its whistleblower complaint in April 2009. Known as a qui tam lawsuit, PsychRights sued on behalf of the federal government under the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals to pursue legal complaints against individuals or companies that are allegedly defrauding the government. In December, the federal government declined to join PsychRights in the case.
PsychRights named Alaskan state officials, hospitals, mental health agencies, psychiatrists, and pharmacies as defendants. In its complaint, PsychRights argues that the federal government has agreed to provide Medicaid reimbursement only for those outpatient drugs that are prescribed for an FDA-approved use or for a use supported by a medical compendium (such as the DRUGDEX Information System.) PsychRights maintains that the defendants defrauded the federal government when they billed Medicaid (or the federal Children's Health Insurance Program) for outpatient drugs that didn't meet this standard.
As part of its complaint, PsychRights identified 16 commonly prescribed psychiatric medications that have no "medically accepted indication" for youth under 18 years old, and it also identified the limited number of "medically accepted indications" that exist for 32 other psychiatric drugs. PsychRights compiled this list of "approved" uses by methodically going through the drug compendiums, and it serves as the evidential heart of the complaint, for it reveals that psychiatric medications are regularly prescribed to poor children for non-approved uses. PsychRights is asking the federal court to stop this practice (which it argues is harmful), and to pay hefty financial penalties for the fraudulent claims made to date.
In early April, the defendants petitioned the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was "fatally flawed" for a number of reasons, including several technical ones. For example, the defendants maintain that PsychRights has not "disclosed" private information that is required of "whistleblowers" in qui tam suits. But the defendants also argued --and this goes to the core legal issue of interest to healthcare providers -- that PsychRights has misinterpreted the applicable Medicaid law. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program, with each state establishing a Medicaid plan that must be approved by the federal government, and the defendants argue that a state may in fact choose to provide Medicaid reimbursement for outpatient drugs that are not FDA approved or "medically indicated" by drug compendia. The defendants argue that Alaska implicitly made that choice in regard to off-label use of psychiatric medications in children, and thus no fraud was committed.
The U.S. District Court in Alaska will likely take months to rule on the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints. If the court rules on the central issue, it will help define whether Medicaid law supports off-label, non-compendia-approved use of psychiatric medications in children, or deems this commonplace practice to be medically unjustified.


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Wednesday, December 5, 2012


This video describes the fraudulent use of indicators in psychology for the prosecution in government trafficking of children to strangers for Title IV and medicaid. From Jan Smith.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Monday, December 3, 2012

OCS Is Scrutinized

 OCS Is Scrutinized
Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Letters to the editor
by Christy Lawton
12.02.12 - 12:00 am
Nov. 30, 2012

To the editor:

Having spent the last 15 years working in child protective services, one of the hardest lessons learned early in my career was that no matter what, there will always be folks who will say the Office of Children’s Services didn’t do enough to protect a child or that we did too much. Opinions go one way or the other most of the time because the work is complex and confidential, and the stories you’ll likely hear about via the media are extreme and elicit strong emotional responses. However, the truth lies as with most things in life, somewhere in the middle.

OCS is neither perfect nor broken. We are a system comprised of people committed to child safety and strengthening families. We face the realities of abuse, addiction and much more every day because of that commitment and desire to help families.

We don’t decide who gets reported; those decisions are made by the public, by those with concerns for a child’s safety and/or are required to report by law. Of the thousands of investigations that are completed annually, approximately only 10 percent of those will open for ongoing services which then initiate legal proceedings to ensure due process.

While OCS has a great degree of authority, it comes with a great deal of accountability and intense scrutiny. Once the legal system is engaged, it provides an infrastructure to ensure compliance with state and federal laws. Public defenders, guardians ad litem, court appointed special advocates, tribal representatives, assistant attorneys general, judges and OCS staff have the collective responsibility to ensure families are served and treated appropriately.

In addition, we also conduct regular quality assurance reviews on cases statewide to monitor practice and policy implementation. We are subject to regular federal audits and scrutiny by other organizations, such as the Ombudsman’s Office and the volunteer based Citizen’s Review Panel.

Everyone at OCS regards our role as public servants with the utmost reverence. While we’ll never be perfect, every day we do our best to ensure Alaska’s children are safe and to serve the public in a manner that is respectful and appropriate.

Christy Lawton

Office of Children’s Services

 Be sure to visit The Daily News Miners Letters To The Editor and read the comments from readers. Perhaps... make some of your own.

Update: If you visit the link above, you will get this:

404 error

Sorry, the page you requested could not be found. Try searching the site:


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207