The oxymoron of The Adoption and Safe Families Act

Title IV-E, The Adoption and Safe Families Act authorized by then President Clinton is the act that pays social workers from your Social Security for every kid they take FROM THE HOME and foster out and adopted. Helping the families is not the incentive.

This incentive was reauthorized in 2014 by piggy backing it into: 

H.R.4980 - Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act113th Congress (2013-2014)

 Title IV-E (The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997) needs to be dumped like a hot potato and rebuilt so it actually does help strengthen families unlike now where it gives every incentive not to. Instead, it is hidden and passed with other programs. Thus making it the oxymoron it is. This makes me wonder if President Trump and the First Lady know about this yet.


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

Native American groups ask for child welfare probe

 From: Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Gosia Wozniacka / Associated Press | Posted: Monday, February 3, 2014 12:47 pm 
 

PORTLAND, Ore. - Four national Native American organizations on Monday asked the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the treatment of American Indian and Alaska Native children in the private adoption and public child welfare systems, saying civil rights violations there are "well-known and commonplace."
The groups also called for the federal government to take a stronger role in enforcing compliance of the Indian Child Welfare Act. They said in a letter to DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Jocelyn Samuels that there is "minimal federal oversight over the implementation of, and compliance with" the law.
The letter follows a recent high-profile custody battle over a Cherokee girl known as Baby Veronica who eventually was adopted by a white South Carolina couple. And it comes amid lawsuits alleging violations of federal law governing foster care and adoptions in some states.
The organizations, which included the Portland-based National Indian Child Welfare Association, also alleged in their letter that some guardians appointed by the court mock Native culture; state workers put down traditional ways of parenting; and children are placed in white homes when Indian relatives and Native foster care homes are available.
"These stories highlight patterns of behavior that are, at best, unethical and, at worst, unlawful," the letter states. "Although these civil rights violations are well-known and commonplace, they continue to go unchecked and unexamined."
The federal government had no an immediate response to the investigation request.
Native children are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system nationwide, especially in foster care.
Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 after finding very high numbers of Indian children being removed from their homes by public and private agencies and placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions.
Federal law now requires that additional services be provided to Native families to prevent unwarranted removal. And it requires that Indian children who are removed be placed whenever possible with relatives or with other Native Americans, in a way that preserves their connection with their tribe, community and relatives.
While Native groups agree that the Indian Child Welfare Act has been effective in slowing the removal of Indian children from their families, major challenges remain.
The letter cites problems such as adoption agencies disregarding children's tribal affiliation and failing to provide notice to a tribe when a child is taken into custody, transporting Indian children across state lines to sidestep the law, adoption attorneys encouraging circumvention of the law, and judges denying tribes a presence during child custody proceedings, among others.
Another problem, according to Craig Dorsay, an Oregon lawyer who works on many Native child welfare cases, are inconsistencies in identifying who is an Indian child and who is not - and whether the law applies to families who are deemed not Indian enough in the eyes of a court.
In Oregon, Dorsay said, the overall relationship between tribes and counties is good when it comes to applying the law. But statistics continue to show the disproportionate removal of Native children from their families.
Native American children in Oregon are more likely to be placed in foster care than white children, according to research from Portland State University. And they're more likely to exit care by adoption. That, despite the fact that the abuse rate among Natives is the same as for white families.
Researchers found that suspected abuse or neglect involving Native American families was reported to child protective services at a higher rate than the group's representation in the general population.

[I will follow up with this as I receive more info]

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

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness

[This article is not dated, but I see that it matters not, as the information is still pertinent. ]

DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News
Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. 
The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody. 
In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back. 
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children. 
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." 
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves. 
Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting… 
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children. 
Where to Find the Children
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right? 
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen. 
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned. 
The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us. 
How DSS Is Helped
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. 
For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000. 
But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights." 
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits. 
A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe." 
If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees. 
Benefits for Foster Parents
That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized. 
After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can. 
According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.] 
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check. 
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] 
The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." 
I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society. 
That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

  MassNews.com- Masschusett's Conservative Voice.



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

Comprehensive Outline of the Systemic Process of Abuse for Profit Called “Child Protection Agencies” in America Today

Comprehensive Outline of the Systemic Process of Abuse for Profit Called “Child Protection Agencies” in America Today
as re posted from the website of the American Family Rights Association

"When the Adoption and Safe Families Act was passed in 1997, it was meant to create loving homes for children who had been “languishing” in foster care over a long period of time, some children had been in foster care for years, others had been bouncing around from one foster home to another with no hope of the security that an established home with a permanent family could offer.

Another seemingly good idea at the time, was the creation of the adoption bonuses for the state child protective system’s caseworkers, this idea was implemented for the sole purpose of creating a “get the job done” incentive for the case workers, to do something for the children, other than shuffling paper work and filing reports on these “shelved” children.

As these children were being adopted and began to leave the foster care system, the bonuses began to filter into the child protective systems around the nation. There were an overwhelming amount of couples, being enticed by the many different monetary conveniences of not having to support the children out of their own pocket, the foster care money would take care of that burden, on top of which there were offers from the government for tax credits and bonuses, to adopt these unwanted children. It wasn’t long before the demand for adoptions outweighed the supply of children in foster care.

The waiting list for an adoption could be years, the majority of waiting couples were not favorably receptive to the thought of waiting for years to adopt a child, so they took the required training to become foster parents, because as sanctioned foster parents, they were guaranteed a child within weeks. They would have a child placed with them, then subsequently adopt the child within 15 -22 months, after which these “foster parents” would disappear from the system after their need for a child had been met.

In some cases the child is adopted within a year, because the permanency hearing is to be scheduled within one year of the foster care placement, leaving precious little time for the natural parents to raise funds for the hiring of attorneys, file motions, petitions and/or appeals.

The majority of these parents are from the poor or middle working-class, and cannot afford the attorney fees, which have become unreasonably high over the years. One very well known child custody attorney asked for $12,000 down payment to take a case!

What would happen, I wonder, if ALL of these people were to strike in protest of their children being confiscated?

This country would stand still.

Now the legislators are wondering why all the GOOD foster parents are leaving the system? Because there are no such kind of people as “FOSTER” parents, they’re potential adopters, finding their incentive on the internet to adopt a child via foster care.

Foster CARE was meant to be temporary--NOT the foster parents.

After these foster parents are gone, the need for more foster parents increase. With all their false allegations, DFS is slowly obliterating ANY people who would make good potential foster parents.

There are even those instances when DFS will file false allegations of abuse against the adoptive or foster parents themselves....when DFS can find no more children to take, they just “repossess” children which have been previously adopted or placed into foster care.

At this point in time, there are NO foster parents, there are only adoptive parents in disguise....”When in Rome”...as the saying goes.

The case workers, in charge of these cases, became so intent on proving the unfitness of the biological parents, and creating false allegations to assure the termination of parental rights, that they lost all concern and common reason to prove the FITNESS of the ADOPTIVE parents, resulting in the problem that we now have.......children being abused and murdered in foster care and adoption.

According to the federal mandates of the Social Security Act, which governs the placement of a child into foster care, a child had to be “languishing” in foster care PRIOR to adoption, to guarantee that the state would receive the adoption bonus, when the child was finally adopted.

When the supply of children in foster care began to dwindle, there was a chance that the DFS agency would not get their bonus. That was when many rogue case workers and county DFS directors began to lodge false allegations of abuse against innocent parents, thereby creating an unlimited supply of children into foster care to meet the demand of adoptive couples who were disguised as “Foster Parents” and waiting in line for the children that were being taken into custody by DFS.

The children were, and still are, being taken into custody by DFS at an alarming rate, and immediately placed into foster care, sometimes within an hour, and with the sole intention to adopt.

Adoption became the only option, in order to receive the cash bonuses. Most of the adoption petitions in Lawrence County, Missouri, are filed before the child is even available for adoption, prior to evidence being heard at the permanency hearing.

The government funds for reunification and family preservation, has been used for other services to speed up the termination of parental rights. Therefore, the state stands guilty of adoption and foster care fraud, they obtained the money by violating the federal mandates.

Most parents are unaware of the fact that they are protected by these mandates, and can actually retrieve their children if an honest, intelligent attorney were on the case. The key word here for their protection is “Languishing” in foster care. The “languishing” pertains to the 15-22 month period following the day that Social Services places the child into foster care, but a hearing is available within 30 days........so forget the term “languishing.”

The termination of parental rights, cannot be filed until 15 months and 60 days from the date, that the child has been taken from the home. In some cases the GAL’s do not wait for the allotted time to pass, and will file prematurely for TPR.

The governor of each state, is compelled to sign an oath when he/she takes office, to uphold and protect those mandates, otherwise the governor can be held accountable for failing the child and the federal government, whenever those mandates are violated for the purpose of receiving the federal grants being paid for foster care. Social Services MUST obey those Federal Mandates to the letter, in order to receive the grants. Before placing a child into foster care, the case worker handling the case, must prove that every reasonable effort has been met to seek out and locate a fit and willing relative placement. An adult relative takes precedence and first consideration over an outside care giver, in the interest of family preservation and reunification of the family, which is in the best interest of the child.

This mandate is being ignored by poorly trained social workers who take children on “probable cause”, and yet this agency will never file criminal charges against the parents to prove guilt.

Why?

Kinship care is never considered a reasonable option by Social Services. Kinship care does not allow the state to collect federal monies for foster care/adoptions, so when the case worker takes the child, the paper work will be marked “NO RELATIVES” even though there are grandparents and other relatives available to take the child. Missouri DFS never seeks out those relatives.

This would save the state an exorbitant amount of money, and as of now Missouri is going bankrupt, due to the unnecessary overspending of DFS for foster care, adoption bonuses, attorney’s fees, Guardians ad Litem, contracted therapists, and medicaid.

In many cases the children are said to have been sexually molested, but the parent or perpetrator is rarely, if ever, formally charged and brought into a court of law, because in most of these cases, DFS hasn’t one shred of proof against the accused parent other than their own allegations on paper.

But innocent parents are still losing their parental rights in the end, due to ineffective judges who do little more than warm the bench, and do nothing to make the DSS provide proof of the allegations and their reasonable efforts to place the child with relatives.

It seems to be a “hate crime” and discrimination against parents who are poor. They are easy marks for DSS and cannot fight a system with a money tree such as the one backing DSS. Martha Stewart and Mario Lanza both came from underprivileged households. They went very far in the world.

When it is said that a child has been sexually abused, it would become medicaid fraud if these sexual abuse assessments and treatments are charged to medicaid, which is quite often the case.

This type of assessment and treatment, is to be paid by the Children’s Treatment Fund, but there is documentation that Medicaid is picking up the tab.

The CTF investigates each case quite thoroughly to determine if sexual abuse has actually occurred, and DFS does NOT want these investigations to bring the truth to the surface. So they send the bills to medicaid for payment, (I have one of those billings, and the assessment signed by a Missouri state contracted therapist.)

After the placement of the child into the foster care system, Missouri DFS then applies for the foster care grants, while at the same time forcing the parents to also pay for the foster care, under the term “Current Child Support.” This is also illegal on the part of DSS, who never uses the parent locator system to find a missing or absent parent.

If they actually find the absent or missing parent, there is a chance the child will be placed into the custody of that parent and not be available for adoption at a later date, therefore they allow a child support bill to accrue into the thousands of dollars, until it becomes FELONY NON-SUPPORT, damaging any chance of custody being won by that missing or absent parent.

The parents are also to provide medical insurance for the children. BUT....the premiums on this health insurance is unreasonably high. The father of a child in foster care, called one of the country’s leading insurance companies, and asked the representative WHY the premium was so expensive....the representative’s answer was, “A child in foster care is considered to be very high risk!”

These children are NOT “languishing” in foster care--they are placed into foster care, usually on the same day that they are taken into custody, and placed into foster care sometimes within an hour, for the express purpose of adoption, so that DFS can collect the adoption bonuses that each state will receive. The forget the children who have already been adopted and have aged out of the foster care system.

When a child resists bonding with the foster or adoptive parents, they are immediately admitted into therapy for psychological problems. And at times if the child becomes violent or combative, or prone to tantrums due to their anger of being the focal point of all the family destruction, they are placed into a mental health facility and subsequently started on medication known as “psychotropic” medication, or mind altering drugs to make them more docile, and easier to manage and control.

This is quite common in nursing homes for the elderly, if the patient is labeled as “combatant” or “combative.” I have seen the results of those types of “psychotropic”

drugs, and it is horrible. They rob the patient of any and all humane feelings.

Any child who has been deprived of what belongs to them by birth and nature, will invariably become combative at some stage during the transition of losing their own past lives, no matter how good or bad it may have been.

One child bit the finger off a school nurse as she was administering medication to him.

My own granddaughter, who was in foster care for 35 days, said it best, “They can’t bond with a stranger because they want their OWN parents, their OWN grandparents, their OWN room and their OWN stuff.”

That is the key word...... OWN! As in: that is MINE. I OWN that. It belongs to ME. It is MINE.

The obliteration of those personal things can destroy the child’s sense of belonging. How can one expect the child to accept anything new, if the feeling of belonging is deprived by the destruction of what had belonged to him/her to begin with?

That destruction of familiarity, will eventually bring about compulsive disorders, such as the need to clean or rearrange things, in an attempt to exercise control in their lives or numerous eating disorders.

We are becoming a nation which will lose the sanctity of home and family if we do not take a stand at the voting polls. Watch the reports of how your congressman and senators vote on bills. Then decide what you consider to be vitally important in a child’s life.

So think very hard and use common sense the next time you hear the term “Leave No Child Behind” this phrase has become quite unpopular with the common person, and has a more sinister meaning behind it, than one can imagine.

Stephen King has nothing on the creator of the “Adoption and Safe Families Act” of 1997.

It has been used to create a perpetual living nightmare for innocent parents, falsely accused by a system, in which greed has outgrown common decency, freedom and democracy. It has been used to create a living hell for the helpless children condemned to live within its dark boundaries, with no way out and no hope of rescue, and NO ONE asking them what their version of the truth is.

These children are the true victims.....and yet they are never asked about their own opinions and desires, by their GAL, nor their state contracted therapists, who are all being paid by the federal foster care grants, the foster parents are not going to relay what the child truly wants, the foster parents’ true goal is to adopt a tax dividend, at $10,000.00 a head!

The children in foster care are NOT being PROTECTED by foster care......they are being SILENCED!

Just try to get one of these children aside to speak with them, and you will have a dozen guns pointed at your head, that is the whole purpose behind “supervised visitation.”

But on the other side of the coin, there were 7 children who testified against a Lawrence County commissioner charged with sexual abuse. The charges were later reduced. Eventually in court, those charges were dropped, because one child recanted. In every other case where a child recants due to a false allegation being extracted from the child, there is no exoneration for the parent.

There are too many children in the world today that truly are suffering from abuse and neglect, but are being left to die. Why? Because the truly abused child is not a marketable commodity, they’re damaged goods. But if left to die at the hands of an abuser, these children are worth their weight in gold, and worth more dead than alive--so they are left behind, with their abusers, to do their part in the scheme of things.

They are not considered children; they are pawns, to be used for the benefit of DFS.

When a child dies of abuse, what is the first thing that one hears in the news media from Child Protective Services?

1.“We need more money to hire more workers; we are understaffed and under funded.”

2.“We need more power to take the children without warrants and having to PROVE abuse.”

3.“We need absolute immunity for anything that we do illegally.”

Far too many parents have been “railroaded” by the child protection system, but that train is slowly being derailed.

Think about It!! You, the people, gave them that power by believing their manipulatory lies."

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