Kidnapping: CPS’s billion dollar industry

Kidnapping: CPS’s billion dollar industry
Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
July 25, 2013

Shaymus Crow’s film is an excellent overview of the treacherous acts committed by the government funded program known as Child Protective Services (CPS).
Social welfare-agencies have been allowed the right to remove neglected and abused children from the care of their families since the early 1800s.
A report by John E.B. Meyers describes the birth of the first governmental agency supposedly created to protect children. The agency, born in New York in 1875 was called the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC).
According to Meyers’ report, by 1922 over 300 nongovernmental child protection societies were existing across America, the creation of  the juvenile court soon followed which was first established 1899 in Chicago. By 1919, most states had juvenile courts.
In 1825, the Humane Society, a group dedicated to curbing violence against animals and humans, founded the National Federation of Child Rescue agency which was aimed at conducting investigations on child abuse.
The Humane Society, which branched off of the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), pushed forward private child protection agencies modeled after “existing animal protection organizations.”
While the federal Children’s Bureau was first introduced in 1912, it didn’t receive mandatory funding until an amendment was made in 1958 which required the state to begin funding the agency.
In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was introduced to provide “financial assistance for a demonstration program for the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse and neglect.”
According to Meyers’, “Prior to 1974, the federal government played a useful but minor role in child protection. The Children’s Bureau paid little to no attention to child abuse until the 1960s.”
The Social Security Act of 1935 was amended in 1962 to “provide money to expand child welfare services.”  However, in 1973 U.S. Senator Walter Mondale wrote, “Nowhere in the Federal Government could we find one official assigned full time to the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect.”
It was Mondale’s interest and persuasion in the matter that influenced Congress to “assume a leadership role with the passage of” CAPTA.
CAPTA allocated funds for “training, regional multidisciplinary centers focused on child abuse and neglect, and demonstration projects.”
Meyers’ report states, “CAPTA played a major role in shaping the nationwide system of governmental CPS” that’s in place today.
The video’s narrator quotes Mondale stating that after the bill passed it would turn “child protection into a child snatching business.”
The legislation soon turned the operation into a $12 billion a year business.
In 1997, President Clinton passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was intended to “promote the adoption of children in foster care.”
ABC News aired an exclusive segment that featured interviews of foster children describing the various kinds of prescription drugs they were given under the state’s care.
Instead of finding a solution to prevent this future for children, the segment publicized the need for more state funding and further promoted the myth that children are institutionalized because of the abundance of bad parents.
Legislation that was originally created for the purpose of helping children, has transformed into a financial operation aimed at kidnapping children for the financial benefit of the state.
The more children removed, the more money that’s made. The children while under the state’s care are prescribed an average of seven medications in an attempt to keep them chained to the system for a lifetime.
The business is so lucrative that advocates like Nancy Schaefer, who aggressively took action against CPS exposing their crimes, were subsequently removed.   The media reported that Nancy Schaefer’s husband, troubled by financial problems, shot his wife to death while she slept before turning the gun on himself in 2010.
A report by Infowars.com speculated on the circumstances surrounding the couple’s death, finding it odd that a suicide victim would shoot them self in the chest.
The report read, “Even before a GBI investigation could be initiated, media outlets began pronouncing that their death was a ‘murder-suicide’ and shut off most public comment posting on their web sites.”
Most disturbing is that, not unlike many other evil government programs, the atrocities are directly funded by the taxpayer.  In essence, citizen are paying for programs that could potentially remove their own children.




*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

A reporters moral struggle over Child Protective Services

 A reporters moral struggle over Child Protective Services

 Posted: November 25, 2012 | Author: donnellyjustice | Filed under: CPS corruption

 http://donnellyjustice.me/2012/11/25/a-reporters-struggle-moral-struggle-over-child-protective-services/

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

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