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

 The Evil Entity of OCS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criminalization of parents

Exclusive: Stephen Baskerville slams 'government behemoth' destroying families

Published: 03/14/2008 at 12:00 AM
World Net Daily(WND)

The California appeals court decision criminalizing parents who homeschool their children is only the tip of an iceberg. Nationwide, parents are already being criminalized in huge numbers, and it is not limited to homeschoolers.

During the Clinton years, the trend toward turning children into tools for expanding government power increased rapidly. Otherwise indefensible programs and regulations are now rationalized as “for the children.”
As a result, government now has so many ways to incarcerate parents that hardly a family in America has not been touched. The criminalization of parents is highly bureaucratic, effected through a bureaucratic judiciary and supported by a vast “social services” machinery that few understand until it strikes them. They then find themselves against a faceless government behemoth from which they are powerless to protect their children or defend themselves.

Homeschoolers are usually accused of “educational neglect,” a form of child abuse. Like other child abuse accusations, it does not usually involve a formal charge, uniformed police, or a jury trial. Instead the accusations are leveled by social workers, whose subjective judgment is minimally restrained by due-process protections. As Susan Orr, head of the federal Children’s Bureau points out, these social workers are in effect plainclothes police – but they are not trained or restricted like regular police.

Homeschoolers are not alone. Any parents can be charged with “child abuse” on the flimsiest of pretexts, because child abuse has no definition. Because of our presumption of innocence, crimes are generally defined as they are adjudicated: A crime has been committed if a jury convicts. But the roughly 1 million cases of child abuse annually (out of 3 million accusations) are “confirmed” or “substantiated” not by jury trials but by social workers or (sometimes) judges. Most such parents are not imprisoned. They merely lose their children.

Virtually every American can now tell of a relative or friend visited by the feared Child Protective Services because of a playground injury or a routine bruise. Too many dismiss these frightening ordeals as aberrations. In fact, they proceed from a bureaucratic logic that is driven by federal funding. The more “abuse” the social workers find, the more money they get to combat it.

But serious as this is, it is still mild compared to the largest sector of semi-criminalized parents: the involuntarily divorced. The moment one parent files for divorce, even when no grounds are evinced, the government automatically and immediately seizes control of the children, who become effectively wards of the state. Astoundingly, they are then almost always placed in the “custody” of the parent that initiates the divorce, placing the divorcing parent and the state in collusion against the parent that is faithful to the marriage and family. The non-divorcing parent, even if legally unimpeachable, can then be arrested for unauthorized contact with his or her own children. Here too abuse accusations can be readily fabricated out of thin air, further criminalizing the innocent parent. He (it is usually, though not always, the father) can then be arrested, even without a shred of evidence that any abuse has occurred. He can also be arrested if he cannot pay child support that may consume most or even all his income. He can even be arrested for not paying a lawyer or psychotherapist he has not hired.

But what is most striking here – in contrast to homeschoolers – is the absence of opposition. The genius of the feminists is to vilify fathers in terms designed to incur the revulsion of decent people – “pedophiles,” “batterers,” “deadbeat dads” – and too many conservatives and Christians are fooled.
In fact, the social science data are clear that these alleged malefactors are rare among biological fathers and almost entirely the creation of feminist propaganda. Accused fathers are no more likely to be criminals or child abusers than are homeschooling parents. They have merely fallen into the clutches of another sector of the child exploitation bureaucracy.

Indeed, it is well-known among scholars that true child abuse takes place overwhelmingly in single parent homes – homes without fathers. By removing fathers under trumped-up abuse accusations, the child abuse apparatchiks create the environment for real abuse, further expanding their business.

 Campaigns against homeschoolers and fathers are only the extreme manifestations of the larger attack on all parents. They indicate where we all may be headed if we do not take a united stand for parental rights against a judicial-bureaucratic machine that is not only destroying families but justifying its own expansion in the process.

Though conservatives often misuse the term, two features used by scholars to define totalitarian government were its highly bureaucratic methods and its willingness to invade and destroy the private sphere of life, particularly family life. Both these tendencies come together in the governmental leviathan that now administers our children: the education establishments, family courts, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, “human services” agencies, counseling services, domestic violence programs and much more.

The very idea that the criminal justice system has been diverted from its role of protecting society from dangerous criminals and instead used to threaten law-abiding parents with jail for educating or raising or simply being with their children should be seen by all Americans as a serious threat to our families and our freedom.

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

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

The Proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 
SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right. 

 SECTION 2

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.
  
SECTION 4

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Senate Sponsors

Below is a list of Senate cosponsors of SJRes42, the Parental Rights Amendment in the 112th Congress (2011-12).
If either of your Senators is on the list below, you may want to write a letter of thanks to him or her for supporting the Amendment in the Senate.
(For a list of Senate cosponsors in the 111th Congress (2009-10), click here.)
Find your Senators' contact information by clicking on your state on our States Watch page.

The following members of the U.S. Senate have sponsored the Parental Rights Amendment in the 112th Congress (2011-12): [As of this date]
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), lead sponsor.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
Sen. Mike Enzi (WY)
Sen. John Barasso (WY)
Sen. Charles Grassley (IA)
Sen. Roy Blunt (MO)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA)
Sen. James Risch (ID)
Sen. Mike Lee (UT)
Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)
Sen. John Boozman (AR)
Sen. Jerry Moran (KS)

Congressional Sponsors

Below is a list of Congressional cosponsors of HJRes110, the Parental Rights Amendment, in the 2011-12 Congress.
(To see a list of Congressional cosponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment in the 2009-10 Congress, click here.)
If your current Representative is on this list, you may want to email them and thank them for cosponsoring the Parental Rights Amendment.
Find your Congressman's contact information, or check for cosponsors by state, by clicking on your state from our States Watch page or the sidebar at right.

The following members of the 112th U.S. House of Representatives have sponsored the Parental Rights Amendment:
Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-2), lead sponsor. 

Rep. Todd Akin (MO-2)	Rep. Rodney Alexander (LA-5)	Rep. Spencer Bachus (AL-6)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)	Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-1)	Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-1)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-7)	Rep. Jo Bonner (AL-1)	Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-5)
Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10)	Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-13)	Rep. Dan Burton (IN-5)
Rep. Dave Camp (MI-4)	Rep. Francisco Canseco (TX-23)	Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA-6)
Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-6)	Rep. Chip Cravaack (MN-8)	Rep. Geoff Davis (KY-4)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-3)	Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-8)	Rep. John Fleming (LA-4)
Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-4)	Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1)	Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Rep. Elton Gallegley (CA-24)	Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11)	Rep. Robert Goodlatte (VA-6)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-1)	Rep. Gregg Harper (MS-3)	Rep. Andy Harris (MD-1)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-4)	Rep. Bill Huizinga (MI-2)	Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA-52)	Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-6)	Rep. Tim Johnson (IL-15)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-3)	Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-4)	Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-3)
Rep. Steve King (IA-5)	Rep. John Kline (MN-2)	Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Rep. Jeff Landry (LA-3)	Rep. Tom Latham (IA-4)	Rep. Robert Latta (OH-5)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY)	Rep. Donald Manzullo (IL-16)	Rep. Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-4)	Rep. Thad McCotter (MI-11)	Rep. Candice Miller (MI-10)
Rep. Jeff Miller (FL-1)	Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18)	Rep. Sue Myrick (NC-9)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)	Rep. Rich Nugent (FL-5)	Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-1)
Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22)	Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-4)	Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16)
Rep. Todd Platts (PA-19)	Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT)	Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5)
Rep. Mike D. Rogers (AL-3)	Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-5)	Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-6)
Rep. Dennis Ross (FL-12)	Rep. Ed Royce (CA-40)	Rep. David Schwiekert (AZ-5)
Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32)	Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-4)	Rep. Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
Rep. Fred Upton (MI-6)	Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-7)	Rep. Joe Walsh (IL-8)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3)	Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-2)	Rep. Rob Wittman (VA-1)
Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10)	Rep. Don Young (AK)

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

U.N. treaty threatens U.S. homeschoolers

As re-posted from :  WND Education

DeMint: U.N. treaty threatens U.S. homeschoolers

Republican defends against liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism

In the past few weeks, two proposed United Nations treaties failed to advance. The small-arms treaty failed at the U.N. while opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) amassed enough votes to block it in the U.S. Senate.
Now, Sen. Jim DeMint,R-S.C., says another U.N. treaty that threatens American sovereignty has been put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government. It’s called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion.
Proponents, including many Republicans, claim it will help to expand rights and opportunities for disabled people in all nations, but DeMint isn’t buying it.
“When you look at the language in the treaty you realize there are other things at stake here. A lot of language in there that has nothing to do with disabilities and that is likely to push the U.S. toward more international law,” DeMint told WND.
DeMint says the language of the treaty suggests it will promote abortion and chip away at parental rights — particularly the rights of homeschooling parents.
“Homeschoolers are up in arms. We already have some judges in our country that are using international law to change our laws.

“We’re afraid that if the language suggests that parental authority is not absolute, we’re going to have an international body telling our parents they can’t homeschool.”

The senator says the U.S. is by far the most accommodating nation in the world for people with disabilities and he sees no need to sign this or most other U.N.treaties because it can only erode American sovereignty.
“We’re well entangled at this point, we don’t need another treaty.”
DeMint explains what he thinks supporters of the treaty are missing and how he thinks a Senate vote on the treaty would go if it were held today.
“America needs to be the model of the world. We need to be the light rather than trying to submit ourselves to other nations.”

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

Mom booted from hospital as baby snatched. Now judge told to ignore med center behavior, social worker's 'patently false' claim

 Re-posted from WND

"A social worker who called police after apparently making up a story about a possible danger to a newborn, and the hospital that then gave a shot to the infant based on the social worker’s story, now want a federal court to ignore their actions.
According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, which brought a case against the Hershey Medical Center and social worker Angelica Lopez-Heagy on behalf of Scott and Jodi Ferris, the defendants have asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the claim.
HSLDA confirms it is working on a rebuttal to the request for dismissal.
“HSLDA is in the process of responding to these motions, ensuring that the Ferris family receives the justice they deserve,” the organization told WND today.
The hospital and social worker’s agency in Pennsylvania declined to respond to WND requests for comment, and the court said the case details were not available online. Dauphin County, where the incident took place, also declined to respond to a WND request for comment.
HSLDA said the defendants want the court to dismiss the case and ignore the fact that the social worker and hospital worked together to administer vaccinations to a newborn over the objections of the parents.
That’s not all.
According to the court filing and a report from Michael P. Farris, chairman of the HSLDA, the case developed this way:

The couple had been planning a home birth with a midwife, but the labor started earlier than expected, so the midwife encouraged them to go to the local hospital. Baby “Annie” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot.
While the hospital took charge of the newborn, Jodi began asking the nurses about her baby, and then the hospital staff gave her an injection without telling her what it was.
Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.)
But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”
Then, after several hours, another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation, explaining the law requires that. (There is no such law in Pennsylvania.)
Shortly later, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations, and the social worker refused to answer.
When Jodi questioned that, the social worker said, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.”
Jodi agreed to cooperate, but then the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing. Then the hospital demanded that they give Annie a shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing.

Farris wrote: “Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.”
Jodi asked that the decision wait until her husband returned, and the social worker then produced a “safety plan” and demanded a signature.
When Jodi said she wanted her husband and an attorney to review the plan, the social worker “left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury – a patently false claim,” HSLDA said.
While the hospital administered the unauthorized Hepatitis B shot for the newborn, the police “made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance – they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the ‘safety plan,’” HSLDA reported.
Her husband was at the entrance, and both were escorted off the grounds – without their child. HSLDA reported the hospital allowed Jodi to return every few hours overnight to nurse the baby, so she was forced to spend the night in a car in a nearby parking lot.
“You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car,” HSLDA said.
When the issue went before a judge the next morning, the judge returned the child to the parents.
“It is not a crime to ask questions about the well-being of your child. It is not a crime to ask for testing to ensure that a procedure is needed before it is done. It is not a crime to be a protective mom,” HSLDA’s report said.
“It is a moral offense of the highest order to kick a mother out of a hospital and to seize her child on the day of her birth simply because a mom wanted to have her husband read a legal document before she signed.”
The HSLDA said it took on the case because of the significant parental-rights issues involved.
“We are tired of seeing the erosion of parental rights in virtually every area of life,” Farris said. “Parental rights in medical cases have an impact on broader parental rights, including education decisions. And the plain fact is this: If we don’t fight for parental rights, it is probable that our rights will be eroded bit by bit until there is nothing that remains.”
A special campaign has been assembled by HSLDA to fund the court case, since the organization will not bill its homeschooling constituents for such a case."



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

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

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

Parents all over America are losing their rights and don't even know it. If you care about your rights as a parent, please share this video with your family and friends. Featuring 3 reenactments based on real cases, "Overruled" is a shocking 35-minute docudrama that exposes how the rights of parents in America are being eroded and what you can do to turn the tide.



http://www.parentalrights.org/

The Proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2 Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

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

Parental Rights Systematically Eroded

The parental rights of the American family are being systematically eroded by a Child Protection System that has been put into place under the guise of public good - protecting our children. Apparently, there is a pair of stealth hands under a veil of confidentiality - one belonging to CPS and the other belonging to the Administrative or Family Courts to remove up to 3,000 children per day, nationwide. Since the passage of Mondale's Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 which spurred hysterical and slanted hearings, Child Protection or child welfare agencies have been empowered beyond comprehension with all three branches of government. They write their own laws, investigate any complaint from anonymous source and then adjudicate these alleged perpetrators with the subjective opinion of the employee of their agency who is considered not only the expert witness, but the original fact-finder by the family court administrative judge who hears the case. The judge is also a state employee and is supposed to be a neutral arbiter.
In Connecticut, there has been no case law that has been decided for a parent's rights except for Shay vs. Rossi in which the outcome was settlement.

(*These allegations and supporting facts may fairly be characterized as showing a state of consciousness regarding the consequences of the defendants' conduct that was more than negligence or gross negligence.   Their conduct, if proven, could be found to indicate a reckless disregard of the plaintiffs' rights to family privacy and integrity free of unwarranted interference by the state. It falls within the standard of highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger of unduly traumatizing the plaintiffs' family was apparent.)

However, if you look at the following link Connecticut Foster Care Statistics, you will notice that the majority of reasons that children are pulled in Connecticut are because of the vague category of neglect, medical needs not met, psychological abuse. In other words, because parents are poor. Once placed in the foster care system, in order for Connecticut to inherit their block grant and other bonuses, they must keep the child in the system for at least nine months. This leads to the next fleecing of parents which is "the best interests of the child" which empowers a judge to terminate the parental rights merely because of the amount of time the child has been, in many cases, wrongfully removed. Too many times, it is delayed by CPS itself so they can assure their monetary status quo. This termination can be done without any probable cause, without a trial by a jury of their peers, without the right to discovery to construct a defense. It, many times, is based on hearsay statements made by one social worker. A social worker who has pressure over their head to not be sued.
Not to make the appropriate decision but to protect their own head whether the child is truly in danger or not. Although this is called "erring on the side of the child" it becomes a license to destroy a happy, emotionally fit child into a damaged article, released into society with little or nothing after the abuses suffered in foster care.
We firmly believe that true child abuse needs to be addressed and that children need protection, but what we have here is a 12 billion dollar CP$ Industry that is used by our government to make money at the cost of any child in our state of Connecticut (or insert state here). The time to act to assert our Parental Rights has come. The American family is the rock on which all society is built. To begin to systematically destroy it will only bring the current societal ills we are beginning to see before us.

http://parentalrightscoalition.8m.com/positionpaper.html

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