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 foster care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foster care. Show all posts

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Title IV Funding The Root Cause of Problems in the Child Abuse Industry


 Published on Mar 2, 2015

"...  I was just at the Tennessee State Capital with our group and we were speaking about the Foster Care system and what many people don't realize is how easy it is for a child to be placed into foster care. Sadly, it comes down to numbers and what is truly best for a child falls second to those numbers. I don't know why but the image of a child who has been taken from home with belongings in garbage bag, whether the child was removed needlessly or justifiably, is heartbreaking. After all, the entire thing is heartbreaking but that plastic garbage bag just screams "you don't matter". But people also need to know that because of the secrecy involved with removal of children the general public is unaware of high rate of wrongful removal of children from good, loving, non-abusive homes is reported in some reports as high as 17 out of 18 removals being from non-offending, non-abusive, loving homes. Let that number sink in, 17 out of 18. In my home state, approximately 22 children are removed daily and placed into foster care. And those are just the foster care numbers. Data from the Casey Foundation clearly demonstrates that there is quota being maintained to maintain the Federal Title IV E-F funding received by states for placement of children into foster care. These federal programs are a use it or lose funding, meaning if the state doesn't have the appropriate number of foster children and label the children appropriately, well, they lose the funding. The trauma for removal of a child is known and well founded in the healthcare industry. The statistics on dozens of studies demonstrate that children are far more likely to suffer abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and death - up to 12 times more likely. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over (Albert Einstein). If these research projects are correct then we are creating a generation of very emotionally damaged children that will have everlasting effects into adulthood and a big impact on society. Basically, a very flawed system has evolved from a Federal program that was intended to help but because of how it was written has actually promoted systemic failure whereby Child Protective Service Agencies are putting funding statistics over the needs and well being of children and families. It further decays the process for truly needy and abused children to get the help they desperately need. The future impact on this nation will be devastating as these numbers are maintained by states each year. You may not be affected directly today but the future? The future of your children? Your grandchildren? Direct or indirect through a dating choice made by a child or grandchild. The parents who win against the system spend in the tens of thousands of dollars on brief cases and in many cases over one hundred thousand dollars. If you earn more than poverty level in your area then you won't be able to get the mostly ineffective court appointed representation, if you are fortunate to have a few thousands dollars extra per month to pay a private attorney and you are smart enough to choose the right one then you might survive an allegation from Child Protective Services, but if you are like the average American and earning enough to live but not having a lot extra at the end of the month then you better hope Child Protective Services never gets an anonymous call about your parenting because you might just find your child on the receiving end of services from all the Child Abuse Industry businesses (like for profit Foster Care and Adoption Agencies). Family placement? Not usually because the Federal Funding is meant for foster placement. Food for thought. Just the same, the children in foster care now that were simply part of the state's net to maintain their foster placement quota deserve as much love and advantage as they can get. The black garbage, forever a symbol of what was taken from them and that simply breaks my heart. ..."

Source: https://youtu.be/mgLo7AtKPAM 
FamilyForwardProject


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

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

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

Thursday, June 6, 2013

WND EXCLUSIVE Child 'protectors' accused of destroying families. Statewide audit launched in response to deaths, tales of abuse.


California lawmakers have voted unanimously to order an audit of the state’s powerful Department of Child Protective Services after testimony from parents who stunned their representatives with testimony of atrocities.
“It’s the most helpless feeling in the world when this happens to you. It feels like there is no hope left. I have not seen my daughter since December… she doesn’t even look like the same child any more. There is nothing in her eyes. She looks hopeless and there is just nothing I can do…”
That was from Dr. Ruby Dillon, whose daughter, Alexis, was removed from her family 16 months ago.
The audit plan passed the committee unanimously, and now the California state auditor, who has subpoena powers, will investigate CPS.
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who sponsored the bill and organized parents to speak about their experiences, said it’s a good step forward.
“Now we are going to be able to pull back the veil and see what happened, what went wrong so that we can then gather data on how to fix it.”
Donnelly says a lot has gone wrong.
Child Protective Services is supposed to help children and families overcome stressful events in life, and stay together and healthy. But there are families who say that CPS does anything but that.
Family members testified before the legislative hearing that CPS actually has worked to destroy, not restore, their families. And others suggested there was a profit motive in the situation.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law that prompts most state and local legislation and funding for child protective services.
CAPTA was a federal mandate enacted in 1988. It directed that Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs. It mandated that states implement child abuse laws on their own, in order to qualify for massive funding and federal grants that will match and reward those on the state level.
This experimental federal mandate, backed by significant funding, was intended to keep more families together. However, the National Coalition for Child Protection (NCCPR) reports that the results of CAPTA are quite different than the original intention. NCCPR says that CAPTA, in fact, disrupted more families, and has made life for children in this experimental government program much, much worse.
NCCPR says that the failings of today’s child welfare system “can be summed up by the very rationalization often used to justify the way it works today, an approach that can be boiled down to ‘take the child and run.’”
The parental rights group says that foster care is a bad answer to the suspicion of a problem. Their studies indicate that abuse in foster care is “far higher than generally realized and far higher than in the general population.”
They say orphanage abuse rates are even higher, so that is not the answer, either. NCCPR maintains that its research indicates that in most, but not 100 percent of cases, the best scenario is that the family remains intact until “due process” takes place.
That is not the way states are handling many cases today. One recent example is the Nikolayev case that has made national headlines.
On April 24, Alex and Anna Nikolayev took their young child, Sammy, to Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento, Calif., with flu-like symptoms. Baby Sammy was born with a heart condition, and they knew he would need surgery eventually.
While he was there, the Nikolayevs witnessed a nurse giving him antibiotics – something doctors later confirmed should not have happened.
Shortly afterward, they were told Sammy needed immediate open-heart surgery. Already questioning the treatment their son was receiving, they decided to seek a second opinion before putting their child through such a risky procedure.
They were told, “You can leave the hospital, but your baby cannot.”
The Nikolayevs decided to take Sammy to another hospital, despite the hospital saying they could not do so. Police and CPS agents showed up at the second hospital under the belief that Sammy was in danger. After seeing that the mother was pursuing medical care for her son, they concluded that the child was not in danger.
But that would not be the last the Nikolayevs heard of CPS.
The next day, Child Protective Services showed up at the Nikolayev home with five armed police officers. The mother, a German immigrant, was skeptical of government and captured the incident on video.
One officer can be heard saying, “I’m going to grab your baby, and don’t resist, and don’t fight me, okay?”
Donnelly said he felt compelled to act, as a father, and as a legislator.
“The footage is frightening for parents everywhere to think that your children might be confiscated should CPS disagree with your parental instincts. It’s chilling to think that a government agency can take your child right back to a hospital that you as a parent have lost faith in, but it happened.”
Donnelly began demanding answers. In a letter, he asked Sheri Heller, director of California’s Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees CPS, to account for how this was allowed to happen.
Heller responded that she couldn’t share that information with an assemblyman, unless a judge ordered her to do so. Donnelly responded, “It has become clear that CPS answers to no one, but this abuse of power cannot be tolerated.”
“I’m hearing all kinds of stories about children being horribly abused,” said Donnelly, “and CPS does not rescue the child from that imminent danger, which is why they have this immense power in the first place.”
The mother in the case, Anna Nikolayev, told WND that since that day, Sammy had a doctor’s appointment and is doing very well.
“He is gaining, weight,” she giggled, “he is even getting a little bit chubby!”
But in her case, a hearing has been delayed for 60 days, and she worries.
“The fear is that they might walk in my house and ask questions again to try to prove their case…(to make them) look good.”
She said that the worst thing that could happen is that “in 60 days (if) he hasn’t gained weight, they could say, ‘oh, she’s probably not holding him the right way, not feeding him correctly…’”
She said that she and her husband “always, always worry about that.”
Her hope is for quick resolution, but the court has ordered eight more visits, inside and outside of their home, before CPS makes a decision whether or not to continue their investigation of the family.
Orange County CPS spokesperson Ann Broussard said that she had “no comment” on the Baby Sammy Nikolayev case. But she described the scenario whereby CPS says it is entitled to take children without a warrant:
“We regularly bring police. Sometimes police call us. The term is exigent. If there is imminent danger to the child we do have the legal right, if it is deemed. There would be a social worker on site; they would consult with their supervisors, and the authorities. Often we are called by a hospital. They are mandated reporters. So is a school district.”
Such cases are not isolated. Another, making headlines in Orange County, contends that CPS testified in defense of the abuser.
There, Ruby Dillon’s 7 year-old daughter was removed from her family due to a custody battle, and has been held for 15 months.
Dillon accuses the father of sexual abuse that she says she has on tape. Bryan Claypool, her attorney in the case (who is suing CPS for $1 million per month), contends that CPS does not want the custody battle between the estranged spouses to end because it wants to profit off of the case.
According to a local CBS affiliate, Claypool commented that, “Simply put, the more children that are removed from a household (whether lawfully or not) the more money that flows to CPS through state and federal funding.”
Claypool further alleged that CPS is more motivated to protect its $2.2 billion budget than it is focused on child safety and adoption efforts. He calls it a “legal kidnapping.”
Claypool told WND the institutionalized corruption goes much deeper, and farther than the cases he represents. “Every word we have said we can back up,” he said.
CPS declined to comment on the case.
And yet another case alleged that two young girls were taken away from their mother based on a social worker’s fabricated story.
Deanna Fogarty won a $4.9 million judgment against Orange County, which ultimately paid $11 million after losing appeals all the way up to U.S. Supreme Court.
Orange County has never admitted to any wrongdoing although the court found the social worker involved had filed false reports and suppressed evidence that would have cleared Fogarty. That same employee was later promoted to supervisor in charge of training other social workers.
Appeals court justice William Bedsworth wrote in his opinion, “the evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident.”
Fogarty told WND the case destroyed her life, and that no amount of money changes that. She has become a volunteer spokesperson for the cause, because she says that “child abuse has become an industry that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption.”
She continued, “Counties can bring in big dollars for each child in foster care. Lack of accountability allows unbridled access to this revenue creating more incentive to remove children from their families.”
She notes that these kinds of profits are hard to resist for these CPS workers, and also the foster parents.
Broussard declined comment on the case.
Fogarty warned other parents that something as minor as a trip to the ER, or a scrape that a school finds suspicious, can mean the family devastation that she endured.
“The minute CPS is involved or the second the EMTs are called, parents are already labeled as child abusers,” said Fogarty.
“Can you believed this happened in America?” Donnelly said.
“Instead of protecting kids at risk,” Donnelly says that, “CPS has become a rogue agency that is stealing kids away from good parents and returning them to bad ones and needs to be investigated and reformed. We cannot allow a government agency to exercise unlimited power in complete secrecy.”
He said the heart of the dispute really is “who is … in control of your child’s health care? If you don’t like a doctor’s decision, and seek a second opinion, could this nightmare happen to you? I’m afraid this is a foreshadowing of things to come as the government becomes more involved in health care.”
He said the problem in nationwide, too.
In Connecticut, he said, judges and court workers are accused of setting up businesses, then ordering children before the court to patronize those vendors, and families are ordered to participate in organizations where judges sit on the board of directors.


WND EXCLUSIVE

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

Thursday, May 16, 2013

3-year-old prescribed six psychotropic drugs in CPS' care




Published on May 24, 2012
HOUSTON (FOX 26) -
Updated: May 16, 2012 9:39 PM CDT
Randy Wallace, Investigative Reporter
Here's 4-year-old Rachel Harrison before Child Protective Services took her away from her parents.

Once CPS takes over, you can see the drastic changes for yourself.

"And as a parent it's very hard to deal with because your baby's in trouble and you can't do anything to help," said Rachel's mother Christina Harrison.

Watch as the bubbly little girl starts looking more like some neglected waif while under CPS's care.

"She was never abused or neglected in any way except by CPS," said Debbie Flores, Rachel's grandmother.

In numerous court hearings CPS caseworkers would admit they had no reason to think Rachel's parents ever neglected or abused her.

The only reason CPS took custody was the young parent's recreational drug use.

Something they admitted to and lived to regret.

But ironically Rachel would be the one hooked on drugs while under CPS's watch including Risperdal, a drug used to treat Schizophrenia and Bi-Polar disorder and according to the FDA, should not be given to a child under 10.

"3-years-old, given psychotropic drugs, there's no reason for it none at all," said David Harrison, Rachel's father.

It was 2007 when CPS first entered the family's life.

The state agency took Rachel into protective custody soon after her birth because her mom tested positive for marijuana.

This 2007 home video shows a horrific case of diaper rash Rachel had while in foster care. The baby's awful condition is pointed out to 2 CPS caseworkers but neither decides to seek immediate medical attention.

Even after a judge ordered the foster mom to get Rachel to a doctor A.S.A.P., CPS failed to make sure that happened. Later CPS admitted to making big mistakes.

Fast forward to July 2010.

"I went to the hospital to get my appendix out and tested positive for cocaine," Rachel's mother said.

That was enough for CPS to take Rachel again and spend over a year trying to terminate David and Christina's parental rights.

CPS wouldn't allow the family to see Rachel for two months. What they say they saw was a drooling, lethargic emaciated looking little girl who wanted to play a very strange game.

"She was also writing prescriptions, Rachel which is not normal," her mother said. "They might play doctor but she was writing prescriptions on paper, here take your medicine."

The family spent months asking CPS if Rachel was on drugs.

"We kept asking but they kept denying," Christina Harrison said.

"You could just tell there was a physical change between when she was with us and the time they had her at that point." David Harrison said.

CPS's own policy dictates parents must be told within 24 hours about their child needing or receiving medical treatment.

But these parents didn't know for 6 months until it finally came out in a court hearing.

"You're completely powerless," Rachel's mother said.

You're powerless against these people, they hold all the cards and do whatever they want," said Rachel's father.

After the judge started questioning CPS about the little girl's declining condition, CPS gave up trying to terminate the couple's parental right's and gave them their daughter back.

According to court testimony Dr. Owen Osagie is the psychiatrist who prescribed psychotropic drugs to a then 3-year-old.

"He testified he had seen Rachel for approximately 15 minutes," Flores said.

According to the Texas Medical Board, Dr. Osagie prescribed Clonidine to Rachel in excess of the dosing guidelines, while simultaneously increasing her dose of Risperdal, then failed to properly monitor the little girl.

"There's paperwork saying she was screaming for mommy and daddy," Rachel's mother said.

"And the easiest way to handle her acting up was to medicate her," said Rachel's father.

Osagie ignored our attempts to contact him for a response.

According to an agreed order with the medical board Osagie must complete at least 24 hours of continuing medical education and pay a 5 thousand dollar administrative fee.

"I know a lot of other families and a lot of other parents who are going through the same thing," said Rachel's grandmother.

Late last year the United States Government Accountability Office reported these disturbing findings:

"Texas is one of 5 states where children in foster care were prescribed psychotropic drugs 2.7 to 4.5 times more often than children who were not in foster care, with children in Texas foster care being the most likely to receive psychotropic drugs."

CPS wouldn't discuss the Rachael Harrison case with us. According to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Osagie has treated 755 children in CPS foster care and continues to do so.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/184...



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

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Safe Families for Children makes a difference

The Picayune Item

April 30, 2011

Safe Families for Children makes a difference

Dr. Stanley Watson, Syndicated columnist
The Picayune Item
PICAYUNE — I recently heard about a new program that is bound to be a godsend for families in trouble. Social worker Lynne Sabin gave this example of a family caught in a short term crisis:

Picture a dad with a wife, two kids under 5, and a minimum wage job that is barely meeting their needs, but dad is hanging in there and working hard. Now picture the mom with acute appendicitis and needing surgery... While mom is in the hospital, who is caring for the kids? There is no extended family and no other support system, so the only alternative is for dad to miss work to care for the children ... until now! Mississippi's new Safe Families for Children movement offers parents a safe, temporary place for their child without losing custody.

Lynne went on to tell how Safe Families For Children is currently enlisting volunteers through the churches to help families in crisis. It is not foster care; there is no government involvement and no family court making decisions about custody. This movement is set up to keep families together and out of the nation's child protection systems.

In other words, Safe Families for Children in South Mississippi matches those who volunteer to take the children into their homes with families who are in a crisis situation and need their help.

Lynne Sabin's job is to recruit and train the Host Families; she also enlists and trains Family Friends, Resource Families and Mentors. All of this is volunteer and without pay:

·Host Families invite children from a family in crisis to come live with them while their parents work through their difficulties. Host families provide for the children's needs and incorporate them into every aspect of their lives such as carpooling, play dates, church activities and sports events. Of course host families must be willing to accept criminal background checks, references and home visits.

·Family Friends provide Host Families with assistance with carpooling, respite care, friendship and support. They must also submit to background checks.

·Resource Families offer goods and services to children in Safe Family care. This could include money for the movement, bringing food to the Host Family, or doctors and dentists who contribute their services.

·Mentors come alongside the birth parents to provide friendship, encouragement and support.

This ministry returns the church to the forefront of caring for families in trouble and Safe Families succeeds only when it is embraced and adopted by local churches. In fact it has become a successful alternative to the state child welfare system.

When Lynne began to describe this program it must have sounded familiar to the old timers who remember when Christian folks, without calling on the government or expecting payment, went out of their way to help families in trouble. My parents often took in boys who needed a place to stay; (never girls because the guests had to share limited space with me and my two brothers.)

Among the several boys who passed through our home, I remember two in particular. One was a huge 14-year-old that Dad picked up off the street one chilly Saturday evening. Bruce had on an old, torn sheep skin coat but was barefooted. Dad bought him a cheap pair of work shoes and the store owner donated a pair of work pants. Bruce even went to church with us on Sunday morning wearing one of Dad's dress shirts and his new pants and shoes.

He got a lot of attention during the congregational singing. Never having been in church before, he did not know the songs but knew how to whistle-not an ordinary whistle but the loud kind where you place your upper teeth over your lower lip and let fly. Everybody turned to stare and frown when he overwhelmed the combined efforts of the congregation including the pianist. Dad grabbed him by the shoulder and whispered into his ear until he got him bulldogged and under control. When Bro. McClung got up to preach he never mentioned it-just pretended it never happened.

Another boy was a dark haired, dark complexioned kid named Billy. He was friendly and obedient. My only problem with him was that he had some sort of a sinus or adenoid defect that caused him to constantly clear his throat, snort, and generally express his discomfort. At night he snored. Billy was placed in the home of a childless couple-a minister and his wife-and became a radio announcer when he grew up. He must have found a cure for his condition.

I'm sure my folks made a great contribution to the lives of the boys who passed through our home and I am also sure they could have done better and done more if Safe Families had been there to support and guide them. Now, if your family should volunteer to care for children from families in crisis you can expect some new and interesting experiences and God will smile with you.

Editor's note: If you are interested in this ministry you may contact Lynne Sabin at lsabin@bethany.org or visit the Safe Families for Children website at www.safe-families.org.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Psychiatrists Unsealed: Defendents Listed

Examiner.com
January 26, 2010 By: Deborah Dupre
 A major Medicaid Fraud lawsuit by Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights®) against psychiatrists, their employers, pharmacies, state officials, and a medical education-publishing company for their roles in fraudulent claims to Medicaid to drug mainly disadvantaged children and youth was unsealed, revealing a long list of defendants.
The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) is a non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) public interest law firm whose mission is to mount a  strategic legal campaign against horrors of forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock in the U.S. akin to what Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP mounted in the 40's and 50's on behalf of African American civil rights. 
The public mental health system is creating a huge class of chronic mental patients through forcing them to take ineffective, yet extremely harmful drugs according to PsychRights.
"The massive psychiatric drugging of America's children, particularly poor, disadvantaged children & youth through Medicaid and in foster care is an unfolding public health catastrophe of massive proportions," states attorney Jim Gottstien, PsychRights director.
Defendants
The defendants in this case are:
* Osamu H. Matsutani, M.D.
* William Hogan, Commissioner Of the Alaska Department Of Health And Social Services
* Tammy Sandoval, Director Of The Alaska Office Of Children's, Services
* Steve McComb, Director Of The Alaska Division Of Juvenile Justice
* William Streur, Director Of The Alaska Division Of Health Care Services

* Juneau Youth Services, Inc.
* Providence Health & Services,
* Elizabeth Baisi, M.D.
* Ruth Dukoff, M.D.
* Charter North Star Behavioral Health System
* Kerry Ozer, M.D.
* Claudia Phillips, M.D.
* Southcentral Foundation
* Sheila Clark, M.D.
* Hugh Starks, M.D.
* Lina Judith Bautista, M.D.
* Heidi F. Lopez-Coonjohn, M.D.
* Robert D. Schults, M.D.
* Mark H. Stauffer, M.D.
* Ronald A. Martino, M.D.
* Irvin Rothrock, M.D.
* Jan Kiele, M.D.
* Alternatives Community Mental Health Services, D/B/A Denali
Family Services
* Anchorage Community
Mental Health Services
* Lucy Curtis, M.D.
* Fairbanks Psychiatric And Neurologic Clinic, Pc
* Peninsula Community Health Services Of Alaska, Inc.
* Bartlett Regional Hospital Foundation, Inc.
* Thomson Reuters (Healthcare), Inc.
* Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
* Safeway, Inc.
* Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.

Law Project for Psychiatric Rights v. Matsutani, et al., United States District Court, District of Alaska, Case No. 3:09-cv-0080-TMB.
The lawsuit, filed on April 27, 2009 and required to be kept under seal (secret) until now, is brought under the federal False Claims Act, which authorizes private parties to bring fraud actions on behalf of the Government.
These cases are also called "whistleblower suits" or "qui tam," actions, and those who file them are entitled to a share in the recovery, if any.
Each offending prescription carries a minimum penalty of $5,500.
The Complaint walks through the lack of science supporting the practice and the methods used by the pharmaceutical industry to induce psychiatrists to improperly prescribe these drugs.
"Even though the drug companies have been using these methods to induce psychiatrists to prescribe these drugs, it is the psychiatrists' responsibility to base their decisions on the facts, not drug company marketing," said Mr. Gottstein, continuing, "the uncritical acceptance of pharmaceutical company hype represents a massive betrayal of trust by the psychiatrists prescribing these drugs to children and youth."
PsychRights has developed a streamlined model Qui Tam Complaint for use around the country. (See, PsychRights Launches Campaign Against Medicaid Fraud With Model Lawsuit, July 27, 2009)
The model Qui Tam Complaint is drafted for former foster youth to bring the lawsuits and receive the whistleblower's share of the recoverey, but anyone with knowledge of specific offending prescriptions, such as parents and mental health workers, can bring these suits.
Last fall, Mr. Gottstein gave talks at two national conferences, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy (NARPA), and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), where he presented how to bring and conduct these cases. Mr. Gottstein is also giving a presentation in New York City, February 2nd, following oral argument in Lilly v. Gottstein.
Mr. Gottstein indicates a number of these cases are percolating around the country. In one that is not as far along as some others, Ted Chabasinski, a Berkeley, California, lawyer, is seeking a former foster youth as a client to bring such a lawsuit in the Bay Area. Any former foster youth in the Bay Area who was given psychiatric drugs within the last 6 years can call Mr. Chabasinski at (510) 843-6372 to talk to him about bringing such a case.
"Foster children are singled out for psychiatric drugging because they and their foster parents have almost no legal protections and no way they can refuse these damaging drugs," says Mr. Chabasinski, who as a foster child, was electroshocked at the age of six as part of an experiment involving hundreds of foster children.
While PsychRights and Mr. Chabasinski are not bringing these cases for the money, such cases represent a tremendous financial opportunity for attorneys to do well by doing good.
"These are about as open and shut as cases can get," said Mr. Gottstein.
"It is Medicaid fraud to cause or submit prescriptions to Medicaid for reimbursement if they are not for a medically accepted indication. End of story."
PsychRights has developed a Medically Accepted Indications Chart showing what is allowable for common psychiatric drugs. Every other use of these drugs in children and youth and submitted to Medicaid is fraudulent. http://psychrights.org/Education/ModelQuiTam/PediatricPsychotropicMedicallyAcceptedIndications.pdf PsychRights conservatively estimates that at least half of psychotropic drug prescriptions to children and youth submitted to Medicaid are not for medically accepted indications and therefore fraudulent.



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

Monday, July 30, 2012

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

Saturday, March 31, 2012

DIRTY TRICK #10

DIRTY TRICK #10

When Child Protective Services takes your children they will do everything they can to keep them…be they biological or foster children already in the system. If they are foster children being moved from one home to another this is just one more disruption in the child’s life and one more reason for the children to add insecurity to their baggage. Once foster children are removed from a home they are not often returned. Social workers dilly-dally around and give one excuse after another to keep the children and these foster caretakers apart for an extended length of time. During this time they allow “no contact” between you and the children so it is natural that the children feel rejected and that you don’t care about them any longer. Then the caseworkers tell you that the child has formed a bond with the new foster caretakers and that your bond has been broken, so they have decided not to return the children to your home.
DCFS/CPS/DSS [OCS] can make a “ton of money” by keeping these children in the system as long as they can. Children whose parents rights have been terminated and have settled into a structured, secure life in a foster home are offered for adoption and quite often it is the foster caretakers who apply to adopt them. More often than not, this is when difficulties occur because the system stands to lose money once these children are adopted out. As long as they have these children in “captivity” they can leverage large amounts of state and federal cash from a number of different programs. Now, this author fully realizes that there are definitely those children out there that need the services of the Child Protective Services due to truly coming from an abusive, dangerous situation, but this is not always the case. Those children who truly need these services should receive any and all protection afforded them and they are the ones who need a new home and a loving family, but social services even fights to deny them this right. Frequently it is the foster/adopt family that faces these “false allegation” difficulties because the system fully realizes that once these children are adopted out of the system they will lose major funding and this could mean a loss of jobs or programs or worse. It has been documented that a truly needy child in the system can earn the system up to $250,000 a year in government money. Now answer me this…Who in their right mind would give up easy cash such as this?

 Source: http://www.nfpcar.org/References/DirtyTricks.htm

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

Friday, December 30, 2011

What if: ex parte?

What if:

What if the Fairbanks office of children's services had already kidnapped certain children with usual lies, false allegation for an order placement and pocket money. What if these kids had been shipped to North Carolina from Alaska to live in foster care with the order placer. What if the next step was to remove parental rights so the final step of adoption can happen. With annoying parents in the way, what if child services used taxpayer money to send the parents to North Carolina to "visit" their kidnapped kids. All the parents had to do was sign a paper authorizing the "tickets" (read: giving up parental rights). What if while the parents were gone and out of the way, a secret ex parte hearing was held without them? What if the excuse was "The parents were given notice, but chose to not be here".
What if we already KNOW child services uses ex parte to steal their way to the bank as they have already done it before. What if everyone knew it was about to happen before it happens?


*One type of ex parte hearing is presided over by a judge at which all the parties are not present. The most common reason being a request for an emergency injunction of some sort. The most common of those requests are domestic matters such as requests for a temporary restraining orders or temporary custody. In the United States any orders issued at an ex parte hearing are temporary in nature so as not to deprive any party of due process. A full hearing on the matter will be scheduled where both parties are present. In this type of case no appeal is necessary since the order is temporary.

Another type of ex-parte proceeding is a proceeding in the case where only one party participates or appears in Court although the other party was given notice. In order for this type of an ex-parte hearing to be valid, it must be shown that the non-participant has been provided with proper notice of the proceedings. In spite of proper notice, if the non-participant chooses not to appear and contest the action, then it will result in an ex-parte decree against them.

A common claim in an appeal from an ex parte ruling is that the party didn't receive proper notice. In most jurisdictions that party can file an affidavit asking that the court vacate the order and grant a new trial. The time period for filing is brief and the affidavit must provide compelling evidence for the court to approve the request.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an_'ex_parte'_hearing#ixzz1i4tVHSXw



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

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Our post visit observations

As written word for word from Mary Ann's notes:

9/28 9-11 AM

"Went to OCS to have visitation with the grand kids. Each of them have all lost weight and none of them were their bubbly normal selves. [L] was so reserved. [M] was just NOT [M] and [A] was very quiet. None of them seemed to have any hope or aspirations. They were all destitute like they have all given up. [L] and [M] are in school, [allegedly] but not [A] whom I had registered to start head start is not going anywhere to school that I can see. They were not the same 3 children that left us on August 18th 2011!!"

[L] also kept telling Mary Ann that she wanted to come home to our house. [M] and [A] held my hand until we got outside. [M] started crying because he want to go in grampa's car to grampa's house.

We are no psychiatrists, but we are grand parents and we can tell you that these kids, especially [L] WILL NOT survive in foster care away from home.

[L's] right arm at the elbow was hurt. She would not tell us why. She also said her leg (did not specify which one) hurt and she either said she wanted to go to the doctor or that she had to go. She was reserved in her speech.

We can see that damage has already been done to these kids while with OCS. Our opinion.

Pictures have been removed due to OCS putting the kids in harms way.
[L] holding her arm.
Compare this picture with the ones on the main page. They were taken only about 1 1/2 to 2 months apart. You can see the weight loss.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Effects Of Removals On Children

From;

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform


Several expert witnesses, including Dr. Peter Wolf, plaintiffs’ expert, testified about the primacy of the parent-child bond and the effect on a child if he or she is separated from a parent. He averred that the attachment between parent and child forms the basis of who we are as humans and the continuity of that attachment is essential to a child’s natural development. See also, Joseph Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645, 649-50 (1977) (“No other animal is for so long after birth in so helpless a state that its survival depends on continuous nurture by an adult. Although breaking or weakening the ties to the responsible and responsive adults may have different consequences for children of different ages, there is little doubt that such breach in the familial bond will be detrimental to the child’s well-being.”).

Dr. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship may provoke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and self. He described the typical response of a child separated from his parent: “When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly, he or she shows distress…. At first, the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and angrily. Then he falls into a sense of despair, though still hypervigilant, looking, waiting, and hoping for her return ….” A child’s sense of time factors into the extent to which a separation impacts his or her emotional well-being. Thus, for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed, short periods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children.

Dr. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child [by] forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare, … is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound.”

Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of domestic violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes in New York City is double that in the general population. Tr. 1596; Ex. 122 at 3-4. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Ex. 122 at 6. Foster care placements can disrupt the child’s contact with community, school, and siblings. Ex. 122 at 8.