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


Showing posts with label ICWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICWA. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The Evil Entity of OCS. Testimony of Rep. Alan Dick, District 6, 27th Legislature

 The Evil Entity of OCS

Testimony of Rep. Alan Dick, District 6, 27th Legislature
alancanyon@yahoo.com


I am 71 and have lived in bush Alaska for over 50 years. I have been married 48 years, and have 5 children, 14 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren.
I flew through the Alaska Range today for the sole reason of testifying before you.
During the 27th Legislature I served as vice Chair of the State House HSS Committee.

In 2011, I worked for one of my constituents regarding an OCS concern, and was immediately inundated by distressed families from across the State. The need was and continues to be desperate. I thank Rep. Tammie Wilson for her continued efforts to reveal OCS violations.

Children who are in danger certainly need protection. However OCS has a clear history of either not showing up when needed or of brutally destroying families. Some good has been done by OCS, but this is not a spelling test where 60% is a passing grade. OCS has been unaccountable and untouchable, with practices unconscionable. Please allow me to cite a few examples from my many related experiences.

• Responsible leaders such as a health professional east of Glennallen told me OCS workers and the local magistrate worked together to cherry-pick their cases, ignoring some egregious situations while targeting certain families. • A community leader in Pilot Station told me she had been calling OCS for over six months regarding a child in danger and could not get help.

• A responsible mature couple in Wasilla told me they tried taking in foster children. They said they enjoyed the children, but dealing with OCS was so insane they would never consider having foster children ever again.

• A grandfather from the northwest coast of Alaska tried to get custody of his three grandchildren that had been taken from his daughter. In desperation, he sold his house, and exhausted the $30K equity in a failed attempt to secure his grandchildren from OCS. When I had a meeting with Director Christy Lawton in Fairbanks regarding his situation, I was told “He was noncompliant.” My response was, “Since when is total compliance with you a prerequisite for good parenting skills?”

• OCS workers, the GALs (guardian ad litems) and court officials are paid state professionals who are quite accustomed to working together. For most families, OCS intrusion is bewilderingly unfamiliar with no means of resolution. The State Ombudsman’s office, who is supposed to defend citizenry against government intrusion, was defunded to the point of worthlessness over a decade ago. Once children are Taken by OCS, even Liam Neeson would have a hard time getting them back.

• When concerned family members or even Legislators try to find out what is going on they are kept at bay by 1” of plexiglass. An Anchorage mother tried to get her two children back for many, many years. OCS had given her children to a woman that literally starved them and kept them chained up. That documented case was made public in the Anchorage media, but two years later, that adoptive, abusive OCS mother still had legal custody of the children and the dedicated biological mother could not contact them! I went with that mother to the OCS office in Anchorage and waited one hour-forty-five minutes attempting to get ROI (release of information) paperwork so the mother could give me legal access to the information regarding her case. The OCS office refused to give us the paperwork which is supposed to be freely available. While waiting, two OCS workers separately called the mother aside and spoke quite rudely to her. I later told OCS Director Christy Lawton about the rebuff, and she admitted that we should have been given the ROI paperwork, but I was not able to get any farther on that case. I was neither the first nor the last Representative who failed in a efforts to break the OCS stronghold.

• Recently in McGrath, an OCS approved home was given a 13 year old girl. For an extended period of time that family allowed her 19 year old boyfriend to move in and stay in the same bedroom. The OCS office was a half of a mile away and most of the community was aware of the situation. The OCS worker did absolutely nothing until pressured by community members. She was later fired, I was told for long-term substance abuse.

• In 2012 Rep. Wes Keller, Chairman of HSS, conducted a public hearing with HSS Commissioner Streur in Wasilla. As vice Chair of HSS, I attended that meeting. Many aggrieved families testified. Commissioner Streur appeared to listen, and said “Game on.” But when I followed up with the families, I discovered that none of them had been contacted after that meeting and absolutely nothing had been resolved for the parents.

• It is the assignment of the GAL (guardian-ad-litem) under the Dept. of Admin. to focus exclusively on the safety of the child. It is, in theory, the function of OCS to restore families. I saw several situations where the GAL pleaded for the child to be returned to the family, yet OCS was adamantly opposed, as the whole focus has been to seize and adopt out the children.

• A grandmother from the mid-west with a Master’s degree is a professional social worker in her own state. I spent several hours with her in the Valley. She was articulate, intelligent and seemed completely responsible. Her Alaskan daughter had not been a good mother, so the grandmother took the grandchildren to stay with her in the mid-west. She later thought it right that the children have contact with the father’s family, and brought the children to Alaska on a short visit. OCS seized the children and later managed to adopt them out to strangers despite the grandmother’s best efforts. When I asked her what the solution was, she immediately said, “Record all conversations!” She said OCS workers lie constantly in and out of court, and without recording all conversations there is no recourse.

• OCS workers commonly extort parents, “If you don’t relinquish your parental rights to these children, then we will seize the others.” Not understanding their rights, the intimidated parents do so and never see their children again. One mother told me that OCS assured her that her children were better off with their paternal grandparents, and that she would have free access to her children if she relinquished her parental rights. She complied and the children were moved out of state within two weeks. Multiple tactics are used to get uninformed parents to relinquish parental rights.

• The same mother was previously told that she had to attend training in Anchorage in order to keep her children, but she had no job, no housing, no transportation in Anchorage. Her children were taken away as there was no way for her to take that training in her village. I arranged for that mother to have an interview with Governor Parnell’s Legislative Liaison, Heather Hebdon, in the Anchorage LIO, but the 45 minute meeting produced no results for that mother.

• Instead of working with ICWA, OCS has been adversarial and has gone out of its way to keep village people uninformed about the purpose and legal authority granted by ICWA. At the same time, the criminal justice system in western Alaska is so broken that many village people are saddled with boundary crimes as they have had to plea-bargain out of exaggerated allegations and impossible bail requirements. Those families will never be able to get custody of a related family member even if they maintain a good, loving home.

• Extreme turnover among OCS staff members statewide has produced inconsistent interpretation and implementation of OCS regulations. I understand that families can say absolutely anything they want, true, false, or exaggerated, while OCS must outwardly appear professional. There are multiple facets of all situations. It is not until you get to the third or fourth layer that the whole truth starts to emerge. Families do not attract OCS attention without having some form of functional issues. However, as I told Commissioner Struer in person, “You can’t fix dysfunction with worse dysfunction. OCS is more dysfunctional than the families they purportedly restore.” Over a long period of time, State government has been extremely non-responsive to the cries of the people. How unresponsive? As a State Representative, I told Governor Parnell, in the presence of Heather Hebdon, that one of my constituents had told me he murdered seven people. That man told me who he murdered and how he murdered them. Governor Parnell’s response was identical to that of over a dozen people in state government including the Commissioner of Public Safety… absolute… extended… dead… silence. Pleas regarding OCS transgressions have fallen on the same deaf ears. The anecdotes I have cited sound exaggerated, incredible, even impossible, yet it is that incredulity that has allowed the transgressions to continue in plain sight. “Certainly, this couldn’t be true!” I know there are concerned and responsible workers within the OCS operation, but I also believe that a large number, and perhaps majority, would end up behind bars if the 1” of plexiglass and impenetrable wall of “confidentiality” were removed.

Solutions:

1) To stop human trafficking in Alaska, start by dismantling OCS. A rigorous yet clear, informative, positive, restorative process must be created for families to follow who have been identified as lacking good parenting skills. Create a Restoration Handbook for families needing help including clear information regarding parents’ rights.

2) GAL’s must be held accountable as well. Biased and inept GAL’s also exist.

3) Malfeasance and outright perjury by OCS workers and GAL’s should constitute a felony with the same sentence as aggravated kidnapping because the result is identical: family members are stolen and scores of hearts are scarred for life.

4) The authority and resources of ICWA should be maximized in villages.

5) All conversations with parents must be recorded and digital copies provided for use in appeal processes.

6) All OCS activities within the statute of limitations should be seriously investigated and human rights violations prosecuted to the full extent of the existing law, with guilty OCS workers doing actual prison time. Prove to the wounded families and all the people of Alaska that reform is genuine.

In sum, OCS is an evil entity whose reign must end, at least in current form. For those who think they are not impacted by current OCS issues, the question arises- If government can seize children without accountability for alleged “abuse,” who then defines abuse? Is my personal belief system or your personal belief system abusive? If not today, could it be tomorrow?

Family is the fundamental inviolable structure in a stable society. Healthy family values must be nurtured, encouraged and defended.

Thank you for your attention. Please fully support Rep. Wilson’s efforts.

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

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Courts are violating ICWA in South Dakota

Courts are violating ICWA in South Dakota
By Dana Hanna
In a recent column in the Native Sun News, Regina Brave wrote about the history and importance of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and asked about the current status of the lawsuit that was filed in federal court in which the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other plaintiffs claimed that state authorities were violating the ICWA rights of Indian families in state courts. Along with lead counsel Stephen Pevar of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Rachel Goodman of the ACLU office in New York, I am one of the attorneys representing the Indian plaintiffs in that lawsuit. I am writing to thank Regina Brave for drawing further public attention to this very important issue and to answer her question about the current status of that federal lawsuit. Earlier this year, the Oglala and Rosebud Sioux Tribes and three Indian mothers filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rapid City on behalf of all parents of minor Indian children in Pennington County. That lawsuit, Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, charges that the South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS), the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office, and the presiding judge and other judges in the Seventh Judicial Circuit routinely violate the constitutional and ICWA rights of Indian parents in child abuse and neglect cases. In a nutshell, the Indian plaintiffs charge that state court judges, assisted by DSS and state prosecutors, routinely order Indian children into long term foster care placements, based on allegations of neglect or abuse, without giving their parents any kind of fair and meaningful hearing. The Indian plaintiffs are seeking an order from the United States District Court that would prohibit state court judges, DSS and the State’s Attorney’s office from placing Indian children in foster homes unless they first give Indian children, parents and Tribes the fair hearing that is their right under ICWA. In this lawsuit, the Indian plaintiffs’ legal argument is really quite simple and straightforward: Any state system that removes Indian children from their parents and places them in long term foster care through a judicial proceeding in which only the State is allowed to present evidence, but Indian parents are not allowed to present evidence, is a system that is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally unconstitutional and fundamentally racist. The lawsuit focuses on the first judicial hearing that takes place in all child abuse and neglect cases–the 48 hour temporary custody hearing. State law requires that parents be given a hearing before a judge within 48 hours after an emergency removal of their children from their home. Under ICWA and state statutes, the purpose of that hearing is to have the judge consider evidence so that he or she can make an objective determination as to whether giving physical custody of the children to DSS is necessary to protect the children from abuse or neglect. Under ICWA, at any hearing in which the State seeks to place an Indian child in a temporary foster care placement, the parents of an Indian child have a right to challenge the State in an evidentiary hearing and they have the right to have an attorney in that hearing. Our lawsuit claims–and we can prove–that over the past four years, state court judges, prosecutors and social workers have routinely denied those fundamental federal rights to Indian parents in Pennington County. In the 48 hour temporary custody hearings, judges will hear no sworn testimony from any witness; only the State is allowed to present evidence, which consists of police reports and affidavits by DSS caseworkers; and the Indian parents are never given, or even informed of, their right under ICWA to be represented by a court-appointed lawyer in the 48 hour hearing. Although the State is allowed to present evidence of neglect in the form of written reports and affidavits, the Seventh Circuit courts do not allow the parents to give sworn testimony or to present any evidence in those hearings. Our lawsuit charges that for the past 4 years, the judges of the Seventh Judicial Circuit have routinely ordered Indian children into long term foster care in 48 hour hearings in which Indian parents have virtually no rights to contest the State’s petition to take their children. So where are we now? Soon after the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the other plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the state defendants, represented by private counsel and the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, filed motions asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Indian parents have no rights under ICWA at the 48 hour temporary custody hearing. In our view, such an interpretation of ICWA is absurd: it defeats the very purpose of ICWA and leaves tribal children to the tender mercies of the State child welfare system. Five months ago, the Indian plaintiffs submitted briefs opposing the State defendants’ motions to dismiss. We have recently been informed that we can reasonably expect a decision by the court on the motions to dismiss in the very near future. If the federal court rules in our favor, that decision will not end the case, but we expect that it will decide many of the important questions of law that are at the heart of our case. We hope to get a decision within the next few weeks that will be a major step forward in changing the way Indian parents, children and Tribes are treated in child abuse and neglect cases in the state courts of South Dakota. Dana Hanna is an attorney with the Hanna Law Office, P.C. in Rapid City. A former Attorney General for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, his practice focuses on Indian law, federal civil rights, and criminal law.
 From:  http://www.indianz.com/News/2013/012072.asp



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

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend

 

Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend

10/25/13
Next week, South Carolina Judge Marsh Robertson has a hearing scheduled for the finalization of the adoption of Oklahoma-born infant, Merry Rejoice Bixler, better known as “Baby Deseray,” in Greenville County family court. The hearing, on Monday, October 28, comes a little over a month after Oklahoma County Judge Allen Welch granted custody of the girl to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and ordered her return to that state.
RELATED: Second Indian Infant Whisked to South Carolina for Quickie Adoption
Oklahoma Judge Gives Custody of Deseray to Absentee Shawnee Tribe
Four months after her removal, Mike Nomura, the Oklahoma administrator for the Interstate Custody for the Placement of Children (ICPC) applications, approved the paperwork for the child's adoptive parents, Bobby and Diane Bixler, of Irmo, South Carolina. The Bixlers are represented by Raymond Godwin, attorney for Nightlight Christian Adoptions of Greenville, South Carolina, and by Nomura's friend and colleague, Tulsa-based attorney Paul Swain in Oklahoma. (All of them declined to comment on this story.) 
Oklahoma is one of only three states that outsource their ICPC applications to private contractors; in the other 47, all interstate adoptions are handled by the states' departments of human services. Sources in the adoption industry say that state-controlled ICPC approvals reduce cronyism and corruption within the adoption industry and “de-incentive-ize” the financial benefit for private practitioners.
Though Nomura has been in the adoption industry for over 30 years, he graduated from law school in 2012 and has been a licensed attorney for only a year. Additionally, because he is also now a practicing adoption attorney, he can approve his own ICPC applications.
“There are several very serious conflicts of interests in this situation,” said an Oklahoma attorney who declined to be identified because of ongoing professional dealings with Nomura. “But there is no question that he has now become a one-stop shop for all of his own adoption cases, as well as his business dealings with his friends. Also, he is now 'incentive-ized,' if you will, to proceed with these interstate adoptions because he can handle the whole thing on his own—and no one is watching the henhouse.”
In the Baby Deseray case, Indian Country Today Media Network has learned that Nomura is close friends with Swain, who is on the board of directors for Nomura's Tulsa-based private adoption agency, Heritage Family Services. Nomura has been the state’s Department of Human Services compact administrator for ICPC applications since 2008.
When contacted by ICTMN regarding the apparent conflict of interest in approving that ex post facto ICPC application for his friend and colleague, Nomura declined to respond. When asked about his decision to grant the application in spite of the fact that he knew both the birth father and the Absentee Shawnees were objecting to the baby's removal, and that there was a court order calling for her return to Oklahoma, Nomura pointed to case law, Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, which he claimed gives him the authority to grant retroactive applications if it is in the child's “best interest.”
Citing Nomura’s relative lack of courtroom and legal experience, however, adoption experts across the country have scoffed at what they characterize as his “rather fluid” analysis of a court case in which he was the defendant. “[Cherokee v. Nomura] does not apply in this case,” said an Oklahoma City-based ICWA expert who declined to be identified because the case involves a juvenile.
“There's no way he was able to make an informed best interest determination when the kid has been gone for five months and the judge, the birth father and the tribe were very clearly demanding her return before he granted approval. And he's scrambling behind them with a broom trying to make it appear tidy and legal. It's not.”
When asked who he reports to, Nomura forwarded to ICTMN the contact information for Linda Foster, a Tulsa-based Adoption Field Manager for Region 4 of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, saying she was his supervisor. Foster declined to comment for this story, as did her immediate supervisor, Ed Lake, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Bonnie Clift, assistant general counsel for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and section chief for child welfare, said she had "no idea" who was supervising Nomura. Additionally, she said she was unaware of the case of Baby Deseray and its potential impact on the Absentee Shawnee.
When ICTMN first reported Deseray's removal by the Bixlers in August, Nomura signaled his displeasure with both Raymond Godwin, the Bixler's South Carolina adoption attorney, and Tulsa attorney Yeksavich because he said that no paperwork had been filed with his office. At the time, Nomura told ICTMN he was “hypothetically, off the record” aware of the situation with Baby Deseray and her removal from the state, but declined to comment further.
According to ICWA experts, the secretive nature of the adoption industry allows many standards and practices to go unregulated and unmonitored, often in violation of state and federal child trafficking and adoption laws. Adoption reformers say that it is the lack of transparency promulgated by “juvenile confidentiality” and laws specifically designed to inhibit and terminate parental rights that have led to numerous custodial train wrecks.
RELATED: Trafficking Native Children: The Seamy Underbelly of U.S. Adoption Industry
For example, in the recent Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, commonly referred to as the Baby Veronica case, it was South Carolina's statute requiring prenatal financial support that was used as a cudgel to terminate Dusten Brown's parental rights. Arguing for the plaintiffs, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, adoption attorney Raymond Godwin cited a South Carolina statute that Brown's rights should be terminated because he had not met the strict payment requirements set forth in South Carolina Code (§ 63-9-310).
From the outset, attorneys and spokespeople for the Capobiancos maintained that Dusten Brown did nothing to support Veronica's biological mother, Christy Maldonado, a charge he and his family have always fiercely denied.
RELATED: Some Disturbing Facts About Baby Veronica's Birth Mother
There are documented cases in South Carolina in which the birth mother was, in fact, instructed to reject help from the birth father in order to ensure compliance with that statute. In Reeves vs. Jane Roe and John Roe (2009), the plaintiff, Craig Reeves, and the unnamed birth mother both testified in court that she had been instructed by Godwin neither to have any contact, nor to accept any money from Reeves.
Quoting Reeve’s testimony from the trial transcript: “She really wouldn’t take anything from me. She advised me that Mr. Godwin at the adoption agency told her that she should not take anything from me or should even be speaking to me.”
During testimony in family court, the birth mother corroborated Reeves' testimony.
Q. Isn’t it true that – or is it true that there were time that you were offered money by [the Petitioner] after Ray Godwin [adoption agency attorney] talked to you about not taking money that you turned down money from [Craig Reeves]?
A. Yes, I did turn down money from [Reeves]. I’m not sure when it was. It was one time that he offered me copy00.
Q. Okay.
A. And I didn’t accept if from him because [Nightlight and Godwin] told me not to.
Initially, the lower courts in South Carolina vacated that adoption and granted Reeves custody of his child, which he maintained for 14 months. The State Supreme Court reversed and ordered the child back to its adoptive parents based solely on the financial requirements for unmarried birth fathers under South Carolina state statutes. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear that case and the lower court ruling was allowed to stand.
But during that same time period, the issue again arose in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Citing state law requiring prenatal financial support, Godwin argued that Dusten Brown failed to provide any support to Veronica's birth mother, Christy Maldonado. Brown and his mother, however, testified in family court that they attempted numerous times to help Maldonado, but that she "willfully" cut off contact and especially refused to the financial support that both he and his family offered to her during her pregnancy.
Like Reeves, it was Brown’s "failure to provide any material or financial support" to Maldonado that formed the basis for the termination of his parental rights under South Carolina law. After he fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court to enforce his parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices reinforced the state's draconian statute, which legal observers say gives no weight whatsoever to visitation and "non-financial support." Siding with the Capobiancos, the justices remanded the case back to South Carolina for "further review." But the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier position and ruled in favor of the adoptive parents—again using the prenatal financial requirement to sever Brown's parental rights. Veronica was returned to the Capobiancos in September after living two years with her biological father.
RELATED: Cherokee Nation Mourns as Veronica Is Returned to Adoptive Family
Now, Simmons, like Reeves and Brown, is also in danger of having his parental rights terminated because of his apparent lack of prenatal support. Simmons has said that the birth mother, Crystal Tarbox, refused any contact or financial support from him during his pregnancy, which he also flatly denies. Tarbox's family said she told them that she was also instructed by Godwin to sever all contact and refuse money from Simmons.
“The only thing the Baby Veronica case did was give these adoption attorneys and their minions the greenlight to push as many adoptions of Indian kids as they can get their hands on,” said Don Mason, attorney for Jeremy Simmons, Deseray's birth father. “They are just consumed with greed and making money off these adoptions, and they don't care how they do it.”
Charles Tripp, a Cherokee Nation tribal member and managing partner of Oklahoma-based Legal Advocate for Indian Country law firm, is representing the Absentee Shawnee in Oklahoma in their quest to have Deseray returned to Oklahoma.
“[Adoption agencies] have turned toward Indian country because many of their former feeder markets have cut off American adoptions,” said Tripp recently. “When Russia and these other eastern European countries cut you off from their kids, something's wrong. Because they don't exactly have a great history with their own orphanages and so forth. But that just tells you how jaded these other countries have become toward the American adoption industry.”
In the meantime, another child sits in limbo in South Carolina awaiting her fate on Monday. Her adoptive parents, Bobby Bixler, 64, and Diane Bixler, 60, have been accused of being unfit and emotionally and physically abusive by two of their adult children, who adamantly oppose this adoption.
RELATED: Adult Son of Couple Adopting Deseray Says They Were Abusive Parents

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/25/oklahoma-adoption-attorney-approves-baby-deseray-removal-friend-151918


 
MEDIA NETWORK
Serving The Nations | Celebrating The People



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

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Alaska Citizen Review Panel (of OCS) 2012 Annual Report

 The newest citizen review panel for 2012 is out. It can be viewed, printed or downloaded from the right hand column of this page. It is listed in "My Library of Publications" to the right and down.

 MISSION
The Alaska Citizen Review Panel (CRP) is committed to reviewing and evaluating the
practices and procedures of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) and in making
recommendations relative to its findings to ensure the safety and the well‐being of the
children of Alaska.
The CRP will achieve this commitment by examining the policies and procedures of the
Office of Children’s Services, and collecting feedback from collaborating agencies;
examining, where appropriate, specific cases; evaluating the extent to which the agency
is carrying out its child protection responsibilities; and preparing and making available to
the public an annual report.
MANDATE FOR THE GROUP
The Citizens' Review Panel (CRP) is federally mandated through the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA); Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.
The CRP is also mandated through Alaska Statute Sec. 47.14.205. 
“By allowing the Panels to have complete access to child protection cases, by requiring
Panels to publicize their findings, and by requiring states to respond to criticisms and
recommendations of the Panels, the Committee intends to subject states to public
criticism and political repercussion if they fail to protect children.” (United States Congress, House Report 104‐081, 1995, p.1)

Here are the two recommendations made suggesting what the Office Of Children's Service should do;

Recommendation 1: That OCS take aggressive action to reduce staff turn‐over.

The Panel has suggested that funding be allocated so that OCS may offer decent housing
as a recruiting and retention tool in rural communities where housing is a challenge. 
[Maybe it's me, but I read Free Housing. Just another perk for the industry.]


 Recommendation 2:  That OCS establish deadlines that require non‐emergency
petitions to be filed allowing for supervision of the family by the continuum of legal
parties without necessitating the removal of the child.

Currently, when OCS has safety concerns about a child which are too great to screen out
but require some intervention on the part of the agency, the family is referred to the “in
home” designation. A social worker is required to work with the parents on the safety
issues, make referrals for services, and visit the home to check on the child. The parents’
participation with OCS is voluntary.
 OCS does not have legal or physical custody and no
other legal parties are involved.
 We are recommending that in these instances, OCS file non‐emergency petitions which
give OCS legal custody
 but allow the child to remain at home with the parents who
retain physical custody. This allows for court oversight, the parents are able to have an
attorney appointed to represent them, the Tribe (in an ICWA case) is a party, and a
guardian ad litem is appointed for the children. The result is more support and
involvement of the parents while protecting the legal rights of the parents, the children,
and if applicable, the Tribe.

 [The way I read it: far too much money is slipping through ocs's hands. Getting legal custody is the only way ocs is not working for nothing. No matter what they say... once the courts are involved, they start making money. Once in the system, more and more kids will end up in foster care where bonuses kick in.]

Who is on the Citizen Review Panel you ask?

Membership and Staff Support
Required membership The Panel shall be composed of volunteer members who are
broadly representative of the state, including members who have expertise in the
prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.
Current membership
Susan Heuer, Chair, Anchorage
Dana W. Hallett, Haines
Pat Hefley, Juneau
Kristin Hull, Wasilla
Steve McComb, Palmer
Stella Schuchardt, Fairbanks
Diwakar Vadapalli, Anchorage

 Every one of them make their living from the "children" related business.

There are no gas station attendants, store clerks, homemakers, dog mushers or any other non-child related "citizens" on this panel. I hate to call this a "good ol' boys club", but I guess I would have to.

The complete CRP Report can be read, printed or downloaded from the box on the right of this page or from the web at http://www.hss.state.ak.us/ocs/Publications/pdf/2012_CRP.pdf . Read it for your self. 


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