Alex Jones discusses Secret Society depopulation scheme with Jesse Ventura
‘Conspiracy Theory’ authority Alex Jones explains the motives for and inner-workings towards a depopulation scheme that aims to eliminate some 80%+ of the current human population. Powerful globalists inside the Bilderberg group, along with the Big Pharma, Big Agra and vaccine cartels are working towards lowering sterility and attacking the immune system…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/alex-jones-appearance-on-the-excellent-secret-societies-episode-of-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory
Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory
By jayita, Gaea News NetworkDecember 31st, 2009
LOS ANGELES (GaeaTimes.com) — On Wednesday night, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura featured the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, conference, consisting of 130 invited guests. The guests include only great personalities from the field of politics, banking, business and media. They discuss about wars, oil prices, economic downturns, etc.
Each year the group meets secretly in a hotel under intense security. The meeting took place twice in Europe, followed by Canada and Chantilly,Virginia. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting was held in Athens, Greece.
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
- BBC News reported.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is alleging that the Bilderberg Group (along with seven masterminds above them) wants to wipe out much of humanity through poisoned vaccines (like H1N1) and food additives (like Aspartame).
What do you think are they really powerful to control lots of big issues of our small world?
http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/12/31/bildeburgers-group-and-jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theory-75622/
By jayita, Gaea News NetworkDecember 31st, 2009
LOS ANGELES (GaeaTimes.com) — On Wednesday night, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura featured the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, conference, consisting of 130 invited guests. The guests include only great personalities from the field of politics, banking, business and media. They discuss about wars, oil prices, economic downturns, etc.
Each year the group meets secretly in a hotel under intense security. The meeting took place twice in Europe, followed by Canada and Chantilly,Virginia. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting was held in Athens, Greece.
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
- BBC News reported.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is alleging that the Bilderberg Group (along with seven masterminds above them) wants to wipe out much of humanity through poisoned vaccines (like H1N1) and food additives (like Aspartame).
What do you think are they really powerful to control lots of big issues of our small world?
http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/12/31/bildeburgers-group-and-jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theory-75622/
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
Share this storyBuzz up! Share THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am
Recommend (5)A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.
Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.
The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing so.
Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap” investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s important to find out, fast, what’s going on.
Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example, frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact, mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence that a crime has been committed.
The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child. Great idea.
One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims from talking about their abuse.
In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory – an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a “special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon abuse case.
There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home. Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and fast. (I don't agree with this statement. Parents and childrens constitutional rights are violated every day by CPS and the courts)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html
Share this storyBuzz up! Share THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am
Recommend (5)A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.
Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.
The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing so.
Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap” investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s important to find out, fast, what’s going on.
Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example, frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact, mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence that a crime has been committed.
The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child. Great idea.
One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims from talking about their abuse.
In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory – an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a “special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon abuse case.
There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home. Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and fast. (I don't agree with this statement. Parents and childrens constitutional rights are violated every day by CPS and the courts)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Adoption is legalized child trafficking
Adoption is legalized child trafficking
Tue, 2009-12-22 15:36 - Niels
Iris Pronk/Trouw
December 22, 2009
Translated from original Dutch article
Adoption is legalized child trafficking, say Roelie Post and Arun Dohle. Together they founded Against Child Trafficking. If it is up to them, inter-country adoption disappears in five years time.
On the wall of their office in Brussels is a large world map with green, red and blue dots. Green for the 'open' adoption countries, red for the countries that closed the doors. And blue ones representing the regions which Roelie Post (49) and Arun Dohle (36) have so far examined: Malawi, Ethiopia, China, Peru and India.
Their goal is a "red world": five years from now inter-country adoptions should have been stopped. According to them, it is "legalized trade of children”, where vulnerable children are exchanged for large sums of money. Their description of adoption has, John Le Carré-like features: stolen babies, unscrupulous traders, cheating orphanage directors and forged adoption procedures. This is, as they say, the rule.
To make this "commerce" visible and to frustrate it, Post and Dohle, together founded Against Child Trafficking (ACT). In their office, located in Post's basement, the two make long days: "And often the phone rings here at three at night”.
The researchers collected information about bad or dubious adoption cases, partially through the Internet. Their database is growing day by day: "We talk to adoptive parents, adoptees, lawyers and professors from around the world." When they stumble upon a case of kidnapped children or other doubtful cases, they inform the adoption agencies and ministries.
That hasn't made them popular in the inner circles of adoption. Bertie Treur, Director of Stichting Kind en Toekomst, heaves a sigh at the sound of the names 'Post' and 'Dohle'. "We are very committed to ethical adoptions, "she says. "These people are looking for evil. I think it troubling that they assume that adoption agencies act randomly."
In turn, Post and Dohle hold little regard of the agencies, which cooperate in a system they have experienced as sick and corrupt. They see most governments in a negative light too, because time and again, they succumb to the powerful lobby of (prospective) adoptive parents. Their desire to have children is leading, say the two, not the interests of the child.
Against those powerful forces, they conduct their guerrilla fight. Post devotes her time to policy and children's rights, while Dohle is the researcher in the field. With a suitcase full of dossiers, he regularly gets on a plain, for example to Ethiopia or India to check the background of adoptees. It is not like the "Spoorloos Method”, says Post. "That TV program brings biological and adoptive parents children back together and that's that. While we think justice must prevail."
Dohle was closely involved in some of the recent high-profile adoption incidents. He worked on the Netwerk broadcast on 'Rahul', the boy who was stolen from his Indian parents at eighteen month, and who is possibly adoption by a Dutch family. Dohle brought the biological parents in contact with a lawyer, whom has for years requested the Dutch adoptive parents for a DNA test, so far unsuccessfully.
Dohle and Post, in collaboration with a local human rights organization, also managed to thwart Madonna. The Court of Malawi first refused her adoption of Chifundo 'Mercy' James, because she is not a resident of Malawi, as the law demands. The Judge based his decision on knowledge provided by Dohle, he says. In second instance the U.S. megastar could eventually got the girl. Post laments: "That´s how adoption works. It's all about money, money, money."
Then there was the recent revelation of adoption agency Wereldkinderen that Ethiopian 'orphans', adopted by Dutch parents, appear to have Ethiopian parents that are very much alive. The agency based its conclusions upon a study done by ACT. As a result Wereldkinderen temporarily stopped adoptions from Ethiopia.
Dohle and Post's indignation is great, their position clear: Inter-country adoption is not a "last resort" for children in the need, but a lucrative market that serves involuntarily childless couples. Adoption has little to do with 'child protection', they say. Those really wanting to help, should invest in a local child protection, and provide care to poor parents, to prevent relinquishment of children.
Recent cases of child trafficking for adoption are not incidents, the two claim. But can they prove that?
Yes, say Post and Dohle: they have so far investigated over one hundred adoption cases and found irregularities in all of them, ranging form abduction of children to wrong files, based on which local judges approved an adoption. "It is a crime to dis-inform the court."
And sometimes the paper work is correct, but mothers didn't know what they signed for. Dohle: "They do not understand what it means to waive their parental rights. They think they can take their child back in their arms, when it reaches age 18"
But: over one hundred acts of wrong-doing, does not show that the approximately 36,000 inter-country adoptions per year are not done well. They do not provide evidence of large-scale corruption and crime. Post sighs deeply at this conclusion: "How much more evidence do you need?" She calls it turning the world upside down: "The adoption agencies should provide evidence that their adoptions are ethical. But that they can and will not do. These agencies stay inactive, they don't investigate anything. Their records are often so vague, you wouldn't buy a second hand car based upon them."
But a messy file does not yet indicate child trafficking or unethical adoption? Post: "The biggest problem is that parents who consider relinquishing their child, for example because they have no money for food, usually don't receive any alternative help. No coaching, no loan, no other recourse but relinquishment and adoption. Adoption Agencies have all sorts of aid projects, but those are intended for other families, not for parents that potentially relinquish. "
Doesn't the evil Dohle and Post are convinced of, not color their perception? "If only that were true," says Post. "We are not against adoption, but against child trafficking. Unfortunately those two can not be distinguished from one another."
Who are the adoption fighters?
Roelie Post acquired her knowledge about adoption in Romania, where she worked on behalf of the European Commission, for many years. She saw crowded orphanages and aggressive foreign adoption agencies running their "Legalized child trafficking". "The supply was made to match the high demand," Post says. In her book "Romania. For export only. The untold story of the Romanian orphans' (2007) she reports about her experiences.
Together with the Romanian authorities, the European Commission, closed the major children's homes and established a system of child protection, that takes care of Romanian children in their own country. But an active lobby kept pressing for the 'export' of Romanian children, which Post strongly opposes.
That lobby made her work for the European Commission impossible Post said. She was finally seconded to Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organization she founded herself. "I've seen children get sucked into the system, instead of helping them," she says. "I must share my knowledge about adoption, that is my social responsibility. Nobody else comes up for these children."
Post found a supporter: Arun Dohle, an Indian who was adopted by German parents. Dohle has been doing research into his own roots from India, for years. He suspects that he is an illegitimate child of a member of the famous Pawar family. Before the court of Bombay, Dohle demanded the identity of his mother to be revealed, but the case so far is hindered by "the power of the family". His quest became a true Indian media hype. "Son of Pawar wants to know who his mother is," the newspapers headlined.
"I discovered my adoption is complete shit, the paperwork is nothing but a bunch of lies," says Dohle. "Nowhere in my file is a waiver of parental rights, signed by my mother. I think they took me away from her under duress." Dohle also examined some hundred adoption files from other adoptees, which according to him, all contain irregularities.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/41521
Tue, 2009-12-22 15:36 - Niels
Iris Pronk/Trouw
December 22, 2009
Translated from original Dutch article
Adoption is legalized child trafficking, say Roelie Post and Arun Dohle. Together they founded Against Child Trafficking. If it is up to them, inter-country adoption disappears in five years time.
On the wall of their office in Brussels is a large world map with green, red and blue dots. Green for the 'open' adoption countries, red for the countries that closed the doors. And blue ones representing the regions which Roelie Post (49) and Arun Dohle (36) have so far examined: Malawi, Ethiopia, China, Peru and India.
Their goal is a "red world": five years from now inter-country adoptions should have been stopped. According to them, it is "legalized trade of children”, where vulnerable children are exchanged for large sums of money. Their description of adoption has, John Le Carré-like features: stolen babies, unscrupulous traders, cheating orphanage directors and forged adoption procedures. This is, as they say, the rule.
To make this "commerce" visible and to frustrate it, Post and Dohle, together founded Against Child Trafficking (ACT). In their office, located in Post's basement, the two make long days: "And often the phone rings here at three at night”.
The researchers collected information about bad or dubious adoption cases, partially through the Internet. Their database is growing day by day: "We talk to adoptive parents, adoptees, lawyers and professors from around the world." When they stumble upon a case of kidnapped children or other doubtful cases, they inform the adoption agencies and ministries.
That hasn't made them popular in the inner circles of adoption. Bertie Treur, Director of Stichting Kind en Toekomst, heaves a sigh at the sound of the names 'Post' and 'Dohle'. "We are very committed to ethical adoptions, "she says. "These people are looking for evil. I think it troubling that they assume that adoption agencies act randomly."
In turn, Post and Dohle hold little regard of the agencies, which cooperate in a system they have experienced as sick and corrupt. They see most governments in a negative light too, because time and again, they succumb to the powerful lobby of (prospective) adoptive parents. Their desire to have children is leading, say the two, not the interests of the child.
Against those powerful forces, they conduct their guerrilla fight. Post devotes her time to policy and children's rights, while Dohle is the researcher in the field. With a suitcase full of dossiers, he regularly gets on a plain, for example to Ethiopia or India to check the background of adoptees. It is not like the "Spoorloos Method”, says Post. "That TV program brings biological and adoptive parents children back together and that's that. While we think justice must prevail."
Dohle was closely involved in some of the recent high-profile adoption incidents. He worked on the Netwerk broadcast on 'Rahul', the boy who was stolen from his Indian parents at eighteen month, and who is possibly adoption by a Dutch family. Dohle brought the biological parents in contact with a lawyer, whom has for years requested the Dutch adoptive parents for a DNA test, so far unsuccessfully.
Dohle and Post, in collaboration with a local human rights organization, also managed to thwart Madonna. The Court of Malawi first refused her adoption of Chifundo 'Mercy' James, because she is not a resident of Malawi, as the law demands. The Judge based his decision on knowledge provided by Dohle, he says. In second instance the U.S. megastar could eventually got the girl. Post laments: "That´s how adoption works. It's all about money, money, money."
Then there was the recent revelation of adoption agency Wereldkinderen that Ethiopian 'orphans', adopted by Dutch parents, appear to have Ethiopian parents that are very much alive. The agency based its conclusions upon a study done by ACT. As a result Wereldkinderen temporarily stopped adoptions from Ethiopia.
Dohle and Post's indignation is great, their position clear: Inter-country adoption is not a "last resort" for children in the need, but a lucrative market that serves involuntarily childless couples. Adoption has little to do with 'child protection', they say. Those really wanting to help, should invest in a local child protection, and provide care to poor parents, to prevent relinquishment of children.
Recent cases of child trafficking for adoption are not incidents, the two claim. But can they prove that?
Yes, say Post and Dohle: they have so far investigated over one hundred adoption cases and found irregularities in all of them, ranging form abduction of children to wrong files, based on which local judges approved an adoption. "It is a crime to dis-inform the court."
And sometimes the paper work is correct, but mothers didn't know what they signed for. Dohle: "They do not understand what it means to waive their parental rights. They think they can take their child back in their arms, when it reaches age 18"
But: over one hundred acts of wrong-doing, does not show that the approximately 36,000 inter-country adoptions per year are not done well. They do not provide evidence of large-scale corruption and crime. Post sighs deeply at this conclusion: "How much more evidence do you need?" She calls it turning the world upside down: "The adoption agencies should provide evidence that their adoptions are ethical. But that they can and will not do. These agencies stay inactive, they don't investigate anything. Their records are often so vague, you wouldn't buy a second hand car based upon them."
But a messy file does not yet indicate child trafficking or unethical adoption? Post: "The biggest problem is that parents who consider relinquishing their child, for example because they have no money for food, usually don't receive any alternative help. No coaching, no loan, no other recourse but relinquishment and adoption. Adoption Agencies have all sorts of aid projects, but those are intended for other families, not for parents that potentially relinquish. "
Doesn't the evil Dohle and Post are convinced of, not color their perception? "If only that were true," says Post. "We are not against adoption, but against child trafficking. Unfortunately those two can not be distinguished from one another."
Who are the adoption fighters?
Roelie Post acquired her knowledge about adoption in Romania, where she worked on behalf of the European Commission, for many years. She saw crowded orphanages and aggressive foreign adoption agencies running their "Legalized child trafficking". "The supply was made to match the high demand," Post says. In her book "Romania. For export only. The untold story of the Romanian orphans' (2007) she reports about her experiences.
Together with the Romanian authorities, the European Commission, closed the major children's homes and established a system of child protection, that takes care of Romanian children in their own country. But an active lobby kept pressing for the 'export' of Romanian children, which Post strongly opposes.
That lobby made her work for the European Commission impossible Post said. She was finally seconded to Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organization she founded herself. "I've seen children get sucked into the system, instead of helping them," she says. "I must share my knowledge about adoption, that is my social responsibility. Nobody else comes up for these children."
Post found a supporter: Arun Dohle, an Indian who was adopted by German parents. Dohle has been doing research into his own roots from India, for years. He suspects that he is an illegitimate child of a member of the famous Pawar family. Before the court of Bombay, Dohle demanded the identity of his mother to be revealed, but the case so far is hindered by "the power of the family". His quest became a true Indian media hype. "Son of Pawar wants to know who his mother is," the newspapers headlined.
"I discovered my adoption is complete shit, the paperwork is nothing but a bunch of lies," says Dohle. "Nowhere in my file is a waiver of parental rights, signed by my mother. I think they took me away from her under duress." Dohle also examined some hundred adoption files from other adoptees, which according to him, all contain irregularities.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/41521
Separation Anxiety Disorder:
Separation Anxiety Disorder: Diagnosis of the Week
By Brittany • Dec 28th, 2009 • Category: Psychology Diagnosis of the Week
Separation Anxiety Disorder is a mental health disorder that afflicts 4- 5% of children and adolescents. Separation anxiety is a normal part of childhood development, but by the age of 4 most children are able to maintain a sense of independence. Separation Anxiety Disorder is marked by excessive anxiety caused by the temporary separation from parents or other adult caregivers. It can be found in children between the ages of 4 and 18, but it generally begins in children between 7 to 9 years of age.
Normal childhood development
Anxiety caused by the approach of strangers or by separation from caregivers is a normal stage in the development of children. Once an infant learns to identify caregivers, the approach of an unfamiliar person can cause anxiety. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, stranger anxiety is common in infants from 8 months to 2 years of age.
At about 7 months, infants usually learn that caretakers still exist even when they are out of sight. If they do not learn this, it may lead to an attachment to these adults and can cause anxiety. Separation Anxiety is usually strongest between 10 and 18 months of age and generally subsides by 3 years of age. It can manifest at bedtime or when leaving the child with other caretakers, and can cause the child to becomes anxious, cry or refuse to be separated from parents.
Factors that can influence the length and intensity of this stage may include the child’s personality, the routine parents and children go through as they separate and reunite and the parent’s personality. Anxiety in parents tends to be transmitted to their children.
Diagnosis of Separation Anxiety Disorder
If a child fails to pass beyond the separation anxiety stage by the age of 4, this may indicate Separation Anxiety Disorder. To qualify for this diagnosis, three of the following symptoms must be present for more than a month, causing significant stress and problems:
• Excessive anxiety about loss of a loved one.
• Excessive concern about getting lost or kidnapped.
• Repeated refusal to go to school or to be otherwise separated from a loved one.
• Constant fear of going to sleep, unless in the physical presence of caregivers.
• Persistent nightmares about loss or separation from loved ones.
• Physical complaints at the prospect of separation.
Certain other anxiety disorders can also display some of these symptoms so evaluation by health care professionals is important to eliminate the possibility of other underlying causes, such as schizophrenia and ADHD. Diagnosis and treatment is also important as Separation Anxiety Disorder can lead to other, lasting mental health problems later in life, including depression, anxiety and personality disorders.
Treatment of Separation Anxiety Disorder
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health demonstrated that cognitive behavioral therapy and the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were both effective treatments. NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. commented that, “This study provides strong evidence and reassurance to parents that a well-designed, two-pronged treatment approach is the gold standard, while a single line of treatment is still effective.”
Helping Psychology is brought to you by Argosy University, where getting a degree is one thing. Succeeding, quite another.
http://helpingpsychology.com/separation-anxiety-disorder-diagnosis-of-the-week
By Brittany • Dec 28th, 2009 • Category: Psychology Diagnosis of the Week
Separation Anxiety Disorder is a mental health disorder that afflicts 4- 5% of children and adolescents. Separation anxiety is a normal part of childhood development, but by the age of 4 most children are able to maintain a sense of independence. Separation Anxiety Disorder is marked by excessive anxiety caused by the temporary separation from parents or other adult caregivers. It can be found in children between the ages of 4 and 18, but it generally begins in children between 7 to 9 years of age.
Normal childhood development
Anxiety caused by the approach of strangers or by separation from caregivers is a normal stage in the development of children. Once an infant learns to identify caregivers, the approach of an unfamiliar person can cause anxiety. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, stranger anxiety is common in infants from 8 months to 2 years of age.
At about 7 months, infants usually learn that caretakers still exist even when they are out of sight. If they do not learn this, it may lead to an attachment to these adults and can cause anxiety. Separation Anxiety is usually strongest between 10 and 18 months of age and generally subsides by 3 years of age. It can manifest at bedtime or when leaving the child with other caretakers, and can cause the child to becomes anxious, cry or refuse to be separated from parents.
Factors that can influence the length and intensity of this stage may include the child’s personality, the routine parents and children go through as they separate and reunite and the parent’s personality. Anxiety in parents tends to be transmitted to their children.
Diagnosis of Separation Anxiety Disorder
If a child fails to pass beyond the separation anxiety stage by the age of 4, this may indicate Separation Anxiety Disorder. To qualify for this diagnosis, three of the following symptoms must be present for more than a month, causing significant stress and problems:
• Excessive anxiety about loss of a loved one.
• Excessive concern about getting lost or kidnapped.
• Repeated refusal to go to school or to be otherwise separated from a loved one.
• Constant fear of going to sleep, unless in the physical presence of caregivers.
• Persistent nightmares about loss or separation from loved ones.
• Physical complaints at the prospect of separation.
Certain other anxiety disorders can also display some of these symptoms so evaluation by health care professionals is important to eliminate the possibility of other underlying causes, such as schizophrenia and ADHD. Diagnosis and treatment is also important as Separation Anxiety Disorder can lead to other, lasting mental health problems later in life, including depression, anxiety and personality disorders.
Treatment of Separation Anxiety Disorder
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health demonstrated that cognitive behavioral therapy and the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were both effective treatments. NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. commented that, “This study provides strong evidence and reassurance to parents that a well-designed, two-pronged treatment approach is the gold standard, while a single line of treatment is still effective.”
Helping Psychology is brought to you by Argosy University, where getting a degree is one thing. Succeeding, quite another.
http://helpingpsychology.com/separation-anxiety-disorder-diagnosis-of-the-week
State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics
State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics
By Tracy Vedder
StoryVideoPrintTwitterFacebook Summary
Last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington are dying at an alarming rate. Key lawmakers plan to use the data uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
Story Published: Dec 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM PST
Story Updated: Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM PST
Comments (29)OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A ground-breaking problem solver investigation is firing up state lawmakers.
Late last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington state are dying at an alarming rate.
Key lawmakers plan to use the information uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
"Am I fired up for this? you're darn right!" said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.
KOMO News spent more than two years analyzing the death reports of children who had had some contact with the state's children's administration. The investigation uncovered startling and disturbing numbers.
Since 2002, the state ruled 121 children died of abuse or neglect. That's more than one child dying every single month.
Michael Ravenell's son, Kekoa, was one of those children. Ravenell called Child Protective Services several times, concerned his son was being abused.
"Bottom line: the system failed me," said Ravenell. "I wish he was still with us here."
Both state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Armstrong were shocked by what KOMO's investigation revealed.
"My fire has just grown as I watched, as I watched your show and your presentation," Armstrong said. "I got emotional the first time I saw it."
Armstrong will push the Legislature in January to break apart the Department of Social and Health Services and make children's administration a separate agency.
Currently DSHS dwarfs all other state agencies with a nearly $20 billion budget and 19,000 employees.
"Everybody that works at DSHS considers their agency to be an agency, within an agency, within an agency," said Armstrong.
Stevens has worked for years to improve the system but says she's never been able to get hard numbers from the state. Those are the startling numbers of child fatalities that KOMO News compiled.
"(I've asked myself) 'Why are they doing this?Is it deliberate?' And I've come to the conclusion, 'oh, amen, it is deliberate.'"
Susan Dreyfus, the new secretary of DSHS, promises both accountability and transparency.
"We have to be accountable," she said. "There is no worse day in this state when a child's not safe in their own home. I mean, it is of urgent importance."
But both Armstrong and Stevens say while they respect Dreyfus' commitment, no one person can handle such a large agency.
"I have reached my limit - my patience - children are dying," Stevens said.
And while both Stevens and Armstrong are Republicans, they're adamant that protecting children isn't partisan. In fact, nearly as many Democrats as Republicans have signed onto Armstrong's bill.
"Somebody's gotta be fighting for these kids," said Armstrong.
But Armstrong is also realistic. January will be just a short legislative session, and the state is facing major budget shortfalls.
So Armstrong plans to use KOMO's investigation to push the issue this session, get other legislators on board and build up steam for 2011.
The state children's administration disputes the problem solvers numbers, saying only 105 children died of abuse or neglect since 2002. The agency claims "any death of a child is tragic" and "they continue to learn from these tragedies."
KOMO News stands by all of the information uncovered during the investigation
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80246122.html
By Tracy Vedder
StoryVideoPrintTwitterFacebook Summary
Last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington are dying at an alarming rate. Key lawmakers plan to use the data uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
Story Published: Dec 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM PST
Story Updated: Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM PST
Comments (29)OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A ground-breaking problem solver investigation is firing up state lawmakers.
Late last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington state are dying at an alarming rate.
Key lawmakers plan to use the information uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
"Am I fired up for this? you're darn right!" said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.
KOMO News spent more than two years analyzing the death reports of children who had had some contact with the state's children's administration. The investigation uncovered startling and disturbing numbers.
Since 2002, the state ruled 121 children died of abuse or neglect. That's more than one child dying every single month.
Michael Ravenell's son, Kekoa, was one of those children. Ravenell called Child Protective Services several times, concerned his son was being abused.
"Bottom line: the system failed me," said Ravenell. "I wish he was still with us here."
Both state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Armstrong were shocked by what KOMO's investigation revealed.
"My fire has just grown as I watched, as I watched your show and your presentation," Armstrong said. "I got emotional the first time I saw it."
Armstrong will push the Legislature in January to break apart the Department of Social and Health Services and make children's administration a separate agency.
Currently DSHS dwarfs all other state agencies with a nearly $20 billion budget and 19,000 employees.
"Everybody that works at DSHS considers their agency to be an agency, within an agency, within an agency," said Armstrong.
Stevens has worked for years to improve the system but says she's never been able to get hard numbers from the state. Those are the startling numbers of child fatalities that KOMO News compiled.
"(I've asked myself) 'Why are they doing this?Is it deliberate?' And I've come to the conclusion, 'oh, amen, it is deliberate.'"
Susan Dreyfus, the new secretary of DSHS, promises both accountability and transparency.
"We have to be accountable," she said. "There is no worse day in this state when a child's not safe in their own home. I mean, it is of urgent importance."
But both Armstrong and Stevens say while they respect Dreyfus' commitment, no one person can handle such a large agency.
"I have reached my limit - my patience - children are dying," Stevens said.
And while both Stevens and Armstrong are Republicans, they're adamant that protecting children isn't partisan. In fact, nearly as many Democrats as Republicans have signed onto Armstrong's bill.
"Somebody's gotta be fighting for these kids," said Armstrong.
But Armstrong is also realistic. January will be just a short legislative session, and the state is facing major budget shortfalls.
So Armstrong plans to use KOMO's investigation to push the issue this session, get other legislators on board and build up steam for 2011.
The state children's administration disputes the problem solvers numbers, saying only 105 children died of abuse or neglect since 2002. The agency claims "any death of a child is tragic" and "they continue to learn from these tragedies."
KOMO News stands by all of the information uncovered during the investigation
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80246122.html
Sunday, December 27, 2009
NH Supreme Court Appeal to Return Austin Knightly to His Grandparents
Another Christmas has passed and still no Austin. We have a Supreme Court appeal pending for Austin's return. Will the NH Supreme Court do right by Austin and return him to us, the grandparents he long's for? Will they do the right thing and hold Nashua DCYF accountable for all the illegal practices they've used on Austin and his family? If there is any Justice in the State of NH, they will. Otherwise the corruption within DCYF will still go on until someone finally steps up and put's a stop to it.
I thought we were all set. The Attorney General's Office had ten days to file an objection. It never came, that is until yesterday. Ten days later than the time allotted by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court deny the objection, like they do with the citizens of NH? Or will the AG's office get away with their untimely filing? Like I said before, if there is any Justice, the AG's objection will be denied.
The AG's office claim I have NO Standing. They state the issue of Austin's illegal removal from my home was never brought up in Court and that I never filed anything to fight the removal. It was brought up in District Court and Probate Court. I am just a grandmother. A grandmother who knew nothing about the corruption within DCYF and knew nothing about the law. A grandmother who trusted her Government and it's State agencies. I alway's believed our Government was working for "We the People." Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought our own Government would treat it's own citizens in such an ungodly manner. The people we trusted. The people we voted into office, to work for us, not against us.
We were finally afforded a Home study in June of 2008, after the orphanage found a pre-adoptive home for Austin, but the people backed out. Austin know's what he want's and will never be a normal child as long as he is not with us. The people he cares about most in this world.He is now in a pre-adoptive home. The home of the first foster strangers where he tried to hang himself. The home where he was fed pretzels and water and lost three clothes sizes. The home where Anna the homewrecker told Austin not to tell his mother, but he did anyway and then Anna confirmed it.
Austin was scheduled to be adopted this month. He may already have been, since I filed a Stay to stop the adoption and was denied. No surprise. Every motion, petition and appeal I've filed has been denied. The State of NH doesn't treat Pro-Se litigants fairly. If you don't have a bundle of money to pay a Lawyer, your screwed every time.
At the time of the Home Study we were told by three caseworker's not to worry. That they were advocating for placement of Austin with us. We trusted them. Little did we know that their Supervisor and the Director had already set us up from the start, with no inclination to place Austin in our home. We bought him a bed and set up his bedroom with all his favorite toys and pictures. We even set up a Christmas tree, which we haven't done since he was taken. We no longer celebrate holidays. What's a holiday without a child? Losing children is worse than death.
We waited to hear something, constantly calling DCYF. We even asked if we could take Austin for Christmas. It never happened.
One of the Directors claimed the Home Study was done to show us why we couldn't have Austin. If we knew their deceitful plan, we never would have set up a bedroom for him. We were told Austin would be placed with us, so what were we supposed to think?
Were we denied because they had the first foster strangers to fall back on? The foster strangers who told his mother they wanted to adopt him way back when he was first placed?
Is there any justice in this God Forsaken state? Will the Supreme Court rule with fairness this once? Will this corruption end and DCYF be held accountable for their illegal practices? Will our Government bring back our trust? Isn't this America?
Parents Rights 2-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
HomeSubscribeAbout NancyNews & IssuesNancy Schaefer's ArticlesParents' Rights
Child Protective ServicesGeorgia Eagle Forum ResourcesPhyllis Schlafly's Reports"Georgia Insights"/Legislation
Sue Ella DeadwylerU.S. Congressional and
Federal InformationGeorgia State and
Local Government Make Checks Payable to:
Eagle Forum of Georgia, Inc.
458 Yates Circle
Clakesville, Georgia 30523
Nancy Schaefer
Former State Senator of Georgia
President, Eagle Forum of Georgia
Eagle Forum National Chairman of Parents' Rights
Contact information
458 Yates Circle
Clarkesville, GA 30523
Phone: (706) 754-8321
Fax: (706) 754-1803
Website: EagleForumOfGeorgia.org
Email: nancy.schaefer@nancyschaefer.com
Parents' Rights
+ Review other Parents' Rights Articles
09-03-2009 Hear Nancy Schaefer's speech in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8-16-098-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families8-08-2009 Nancy Schaefer goes to Amsterdam7-18-2009 Texas Senate Bill 1440 to increase power to Child Protective Services was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.3-19-2009 What Happened to SB 4159-26-2008 Nancy Schaefer speaks on Child Protective Services at the Eagle Forum National Conference on September 26, 2008 in Washington, D.C.UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES2-18-2008 SB 415 - Senator Schaefer introduces legislation to protect children in government care2-18-2009 Senate Press Release on SB 41512-20-2007 The Mental Heath Screening of Children3-09-2007 - SB 278 - A Bill relating to Family Court and Juvenile Proceedings
8-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Schaefer
President of Eagle Forum of Georgia Nancy Schaefer
August 27, 2009
Nancy Schaefer, President of Eagle Forum of Georgia and Eagle Forum's National Chairman for Parents' Rights, spoke at the World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009.
Pro-family leaders and groups from 63 nations attended the World Congress of Families V. 900 delegates were Dutch and other nations represented included, United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, the U.K., Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Moldavia, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, the Democratic Republic, of Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, and the Philippines. More than 3,000 people around the world watched the live telecast via the Internet.
On August 16th, Schaefer delivered, via cyber space, her speech to the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) in Gothenburg, Sweden on the protection of Family Rights in Nordic countries.
Schaefer spoke on "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" (CPS).
She told her audience "children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to federal aid created in 1974 entitled "The Adoption and Safe Families Act." It offers financial incentives to the States that increase adoption numbers. To receive the 'adoption incentives' or 'bonuses', local CPS must have more children. They must have merchandise that sells… this is an abuse of power. It is lack of accountability and it is a growing criminal/political phenomenon spreading around the globe."
To hear the entire speech click here.
Nancy Schaefer wrote a scathing report on "The Corruption of Child Protective Services" while serving as a State Senator of Georgia.
To read or to get a copy of Schaefer's "Report" or her speech in Amsterdam, please visit the Eagle Forum of Georgia website at www.eagleforumofgeorgia.org
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”
Psalm 33:12
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Phone: 706-754-8321
http://www.eagleforumofga.org/parents_rights_child_protective_services.php?filter=10
Child Protective ServicesGeorgia Eagle Forum ResourcesPhyllis Schlafly's Reports"Georgia Insights"/Legislation
Sue Ella DeadwylerU.S. Congressional and
Federal InformationGeorgia State and
Local Government Make Checks Payable to:
Eagle Forum of Georgia, Inc.
458 Yates Circle
Clakesville, Georgia 30523
Nancy Schaefer
Former State Senator of Georgia
President, Eagle Forum of Georgia
Eagle Forum National Chairman of Parents' Rights
Contact information
458 Yates Circle
Clarkesville, GA 30523
Phone: (706) 754-8321
Fax: (706) 754-1803
Website: EagleForumOfGeorgia.org
Email: nancy.schaefer@nancyschaefer.com
Parents' Rights
+ Review other Parents' Rights Articles
09-03-2009 Hear Nancy Schaefer's speech in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8-16-098-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families8-08-2009 Nancy Schaefer goes to Amsterdam7-18-2009 Texas Senate Bill 1440 to increase power to Child Protective Services was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.3-19-2009 What Happened to SB 4159-26-2008 Nancy Schaefer speaks on Child Protective Services at the Eagle Forum National Conference on September 26, 2008 in Washington, D.C.UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES2-18-2008 SB 415 - Senator Schaefer introduces legislation to protect children in government care2-18-2009 Senate Press Release on SB 41512-20-2007 The Mental Heath Screening of Children3-09-2007 - SB 278 - A Bill relating to Family Court and Juvenile Proceedings
8-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Schaefer
President of Eagle Forum of Georgia Nancy Schaefer
August 27, 2009
Nancy Schaefer, President of Eagle Forum of Georgia and Eagle Forum's National Chairman for Parents' Rights, spoke at the World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009.
Pro-family leaders and groups from 63 nations attended the World Congress of Families V. 900 delegates were Dutch and other nations represented included, United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, the U.K., Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Moldavia, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, the Democratic Republic, of Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, and the Philippines. More than 3,000 people around the world watched the live telecast via the Internet.
On August 16th, Schaefer delivered, via cyber space, her speech to the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) in Gothenburg, Sweden on the protection of Family Rights in Nordic countries.
Schaefer spoke on "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" (CPS).
She told her audience "children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to federal aid created in 1974 entitled "The Adoption and Safe Families Act." It offers financial incentives to the States that increase adoption numbers. To receive the 'adoption incentives' or 'bonuses', local CPS must have more children. They must have merchandise that sells… this is an abuse of power. It is lack of accountability and it is a growing criminal/political phenomenon spreading around the globe."
To hear the entire speech click here.
Nancy Schaefer wrote a scathing report on "The Corruption of Child Protective Services" while serving as a State Senator of Georgia.
To read or to get a copy of Schaefer's "Report" or her speech in Amsterdam, please visit the Eagle Forum of Georgia website at www.eagleforumofgeorgia.org
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”
Psalm 33:12
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Phone: 706-754-8321
http://www.eagleforumofga.org/parents_rights_child_protective_services.php?filter=10
Cut the Power of the Family Courts
Cut the Power of the Family Courts
by Phyllis Schlafly December 25, 2009
Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.
Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.
As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.
Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.
In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."
Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."
This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.
When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.
The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.
The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.
Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."
Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.
Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.
Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/dec09/09-12-25.html
by Phyllis Schlafly December 25, 2009
Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.
Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.
As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.
Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.
In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."
Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."
This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.
When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.
The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.
The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.
Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."
Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.
Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.
Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/dec09/09-12-25.html
Saturday, December 26, 2009
DHS balks at disclosing more records (What aboud court recordings proving perjury by DCYF Lawyer's?)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
DHS balks at disclosing more records
The plaintiffs say the records might show improper practices in the placing of children.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 12/25/2009 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 12/25/2009 4:29 AM
The plaintiffs' attorneys in a lawsuit that seeks top-to-bottom reform in the state's child-welfare system say the disclosure of additional records is needed to "ascertain the full extent of the deficiencies" at the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
However, lawyers for the state counter that the plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to engage in a "fishing expedition" for information, even after they have already received about 600,000 pages of materials related to the case from the defense.
It's the latest dispute in a lawsuit that was filed in February 2008 in federal court in Tulsa. The lawsuit named various DHS officials as defendants and alleged that the agency routinely places children who are in state custody in unsafe situations in which many suffer further abuse and even death.
The original plaintiffs were nine children — who ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years when the complaint was filed — whom the lawsuit alleges suffered in DHS placements.
In May, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell granted the plaintiffs' request to make the lawsuit a class-action case, which expanded the number of potential plaintiffs to about 10,000 children.
Frizzell's ruling was appealed by the defendants to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering the issue after hearing oral arguments in Denver last month.
On July 8, Frizzell ended classwide pretrial "discovery" — or exchange of evidence between the parties — while the appeal of his ruling
was pending.
The move allowed disclosure of relevant information concerning the original plaintiffs.
The defense claimed in a recent filing that on July 15, "as a gesture of good faith," it produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents it had "tediously collected and reviewed."
However, the plaintiffs claimed in a Nov. 11 motion that the defense has "refused to provide discovery concerning the improper practices and deficiencies to which the named plaintiffs have been subjected."
Accompanying the plaintiffs' motion were two expert reports. Included in those filings were reports of children in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services who reportedly were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree switches and belts, and hit in the mouth.
In its response, the defense claims that the November filings by the plaintiffs had "nothing to do with the production of documents and everything to do with creating a media blitz."
The defense claims that the inclusion of the expert reports, which reinforce some of the broader claims in the lawsuit, was a "charade" meant to confuse the court and that the motion itself was an attempt to prematurely begin expensive class-wide discovery at state expense.
The DHS defendants claimed in their response that "the discovery material plaintiffs seek through their motion to compel has already been provided to them."
The plaintiffs countered in their recent reply that what they seek now is relevant to the scope of the danger that the plaintiffs are now facing and also to the issue of whether the defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to that alleged peril.
"It is precisely because additional records are required to make these determinations that the named plaintiffs seek, and are entitled to, the records in question," the plaintiffs' reply claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091225_11_A13_Thepla330141
DHS balks at disclosing more records
The plaintiffs say the records might show improper practices in the placing of children.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 12/25/2009 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 12/25/2009 4:29 AM
The plaintiffs' attorneys in a lawsuit that seeks top-to-bottom reform in the state's child-welfare system say the disclosure of additional records is needed to "ascertain the full extent of the deficiencies" at the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
However, lawyers for the state counter that the plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to engage in a "fishing expedition" for information, even after they have already received about 600,000 pages of materials related to the case from the defense.
It's the latest dispute in a lawsuit that was filed in February 2008 in federal court in Tulsa. The lawsuit named various DHS officials as defendants and alleged that the agency routinely places children who are in state custody in unsafe situations in which many suffer further abuse and even death.
The original plaintiffs were nine children — who ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years when the complaint was filed — whom the lawsuit alleges suffered in DHS placements.
In May, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell granted the plaintiffs' request to make the lawsuit a class-action case, which expanded the number of potential plaintiffs to about 10,000 children.
Frizzell's ruling was appealed by the defendants to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering the issue after hearing oral arguments in Denver last month.
On July 8, Frizzell ended classwide pretrial "discovery" — or exchange of evidence between the parties — while the appeal of his ruling
was pending.
The move allowed disclosure of relevant information concerning the original plaintiffs.
The defense claimed in a recent filing that on July 15, "as a gesture of good faith," it produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents it had "tediously collected and reviewed."
However, the plaintiffs claimed in a Nov. 11 motion that the defense has "refused to provide discovery concerning the improper practices and deficiencies to which the named plaintiffs have been subjected."
Accompanying the plaintiffs' motion were two expert reports. Included in those filings were reports of children in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services who reportedly were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree switches and belts, and hit in the mouth.
In its response, the defense claims that the November filings by the plaintiffs had "nothing to do with the production of documents and everything to do with creating a media blitz."
The defense claims that the inclusion of the expert reports, which reinforce some of the broader claims in the lawsuit, was a "charade" meant to confuse the court and that the motion itself was an attempt to prematurely begin expensive class-wide discovery at state expense.
The DHS defendants claimed in their response that "the discovery material plaintiffs seek through their motion to compel has already been provided to them."
The plaintiffs countered in their recent reply that what they seek now is relevant to the scope of the danger that the plaintiffs are now facing and also to the issue of whether the defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to that alleged peril.
"It is precisely because additional records are required to make these determinations that the named plaintiffs seek, and are entitled to, the records in question," the plaintiffs' reply claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091225_11_A13_Thepla330141
Fictitious Mens Rights Terminated in N.H.
This is a follow-up to the article I posted concerning the illegal adoption of children without the consent of their father's.
My grandson, Austin's father's rigths were illegally terminated by the Nashua Probate Court Judge. Austin's father was out of the country and knew nothing pertaining to the State of NH taking custody of his son. Nashua DCYF was given his father's name, address, phone number, date of birth and social security number.The state found a man in Nashua, with the same name and twenty years younger and terminated his rights instead of Austin's father's. When we read the court paperwork showing the date of birth for the man, we immediately told the caseworker they had the wrong man. She was told this was not the man on Austin's birth certificate.The caseworker's response,"No big deal. It doesn't matter." It most certainly does matter. How many more father's have to suffer this abuse by the state? Home many more families have to suffer? Austin is now up for adoption or may have already been adopted as his adoption was planned for this month. His adoption WILL be illegal!
The father of my granddaughter Isabella's rights were terminated illegally also. His name was given to Nashua DCYF, yet the caseworker gave a fictitious name to the court.If anyone had bothered to look through my daughter's medical file, they would have seen his name there also. But they couldn't have, or they did and just didn't care.
I tried to find Isabella's father myself. I contacted his relatives and friends to let him know Isabella was indeed his daughter and that the state put her in fostercare. Nobody knew where he was.
By the time I finally found him, a fictitious mans rights had been terminated, even after my daughter submitted a signed affidavit to the court giving his name as the father of her daughter. Isabella was illegally adopted, but it was not yet final. Her father filed a motion with the court for custody and a paternity test and was denied. The Judge's response stated Isabella's father's rights were terminated and a notice had been published in the Nashua Telegraph with the date published. I obtained a copy of the the publication and saw it was the wrong man's name. The Judge also stated the court never received my daughter's signed affidavit, yet a copy of the affidavit was in an objection from the AG's office to a Supreme Court appeal I filed month's earlier. Therefore the Judge knew all along and granted the adoption of Isabella illegally, knowing Isabella's father's rights were NOT terminated.
Isabella's father filed a motion to reconsider and was again denied. No surprise!
Father's as well as mother's and grandparents are being screwed over by DCYF and the Court's. When will this corruption end? By rights, neither of these children were freed for adoption, but finding anyone to hold these people accountable is another story in itself. But the fight goes on. More people are speaking up and fighting back. This is a fight to the finish!
My grandson, Austin's father's rigths were illegally terminated by the Nashua Probate Court Judge. Austin's father was out of the country and knew nothing pertaining to the State of NH taking custody of his son. Nashua DCYF was given his father's name, address, phone number, date of birth and social security number.The state found a man in Nashua, with the same name and twenty years younger and terminated his rights instead of Austin's father's. When we read the court paperwork showing the date of birth for the man, we immediately told the caseworker they had the wrong man. She was told this was not the man on Austin's birth certificate.The caseworker's response,"No big deal. It doesn't matter." It most certainly does matter. How many more father's have to suffer this abuse by the state? Home many more families have to suffer? Austin is now up for adoption or may have already been adopted as his adoption was planned for this month. His adoption WILL be illegal!
The father of my granddaughter Isabella's rights were terminated illegally also. His name was given to Nashua DCYF, yet the caseworker gave a fictitious name to the court.If anyone had bothered to look through my daughter's medical file, they would have seen his name there also. But they couldn't have, or they did and just didn't care.
I tried to find Isabella's father myself. I contacted his relatives and friends to let him know Isabella was indeed his daughter and that the state put her in fostercare. Nobody knew where he was.
By the time I finally found him, a fictitious mans rights had been terminated, even after my daughter submitted a signed affidavit to the court giving his name as the father of her daughter. Isabella was illegally adopted, but it was not yet final. Her father filed a motion with the court for custody and a paternity test and was denied. The Judge's response stated Isabella's father's rights were terminated and a notice had been published in the Nashua Telegraph with the date published. I obtained a copy of the the publication and saw it was the wrong man's name. The Judge also stated the court never received my daughter's signed affidavit, yet a copy of the affidavit was in an objection from the AG's office to a Supreme Court appeal I filed month's earlier. Therefore the Judge knew all along and granted the adoption of Isabella illegally, knowing Isabella's father's rights were NOT terminated.
Isabella's father filed a motion to reconsider and was again denied. No surprise!
Father's as well as mother's and grandparents are being screwed over by DCYF and the Court's. When will this corruption end? By rights, neither of these children were freed for adoption, but finding anyone to hold these people accountable is another story in itself. But the fight goes on. More people are speaking up and fighting back. This is a fight to the finish!
Peyton's Story Adoption Without The Father’s Consent
Peyton's Story
A father's quest to re-unite with his daughter.HomeWhat Is Peyton’s StoryAdoption Without The Father’s Consent
December 26th, 2009
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever think that something like this would happen to me. I didn’t think that it really happened to any father who wanted to raise their child. When my daughter Peyton was adopted without my consent I went through a roller coaster ride of emotions and still do to this day. I felt hopeless, helpless, and still have a lot of hatred towards her mother for doing this.
Lawyers that I’ve spoken to haven’t been able to offer much guidance and don’t seem to know just how to handle this situation any more than I do. Not that I have the resources to hire an attorney for a lengthy legal battle, but I’d at least like to know what possible options that I do have, and how to proceed from here. I’ve thought that maybe I could do some of the work myself, but still don’t quite know what to do or who to talk to.
One of the things that has been the most surprising to me is how common this exact scenario is. After doing some research online I discovered that there are many other men out there that have lost all rights to their child unwillingly and with no consent given. The road to reunification seems nearly impossible without truckloads of money for legal fees. I even read about a man who took his custody case the whole way to the supreme court and lost. What the HELL? I have yet to read about a man who’s child has been placed for adoption without his consent and has re-gained custody.
So I decided to start this thread to gain your experience. What’s your story? How have you been affected? What did you do?
http://peytons-story.com/
A father's quest to re-unite with his daughter.HomeWhat Is Peyton’s StoryAdoption Without The Father’s Consent
December 26th, 2009
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever think that something like this would happen to me. I didn’t think that it really happened to any father who wanted to raise their child. When my daughter Peyton was adopted without my consent I went through a roller coaster ride of emotions and still do to this day. I felt hopeless, helpless, and still have a lot of hatred towards her mother for doing this.
Lawyers that I’ve spoken to haven’t been able to offer much guidance and don’t seem to know just how to handle this situation any more than I do. Not that I have the resources to hire an attorney for a lengthy legal battle, but I’d at least like to know what possible options that I do have, and how to proceed from here. I’ve thought that maybe I could do some of the work myself, but still don’t quite know what to do or who to talk to.
One of the things that has been the most surprising to me is how common this exact scenario is. After doing some research online I discovered that there are many other men out there that have lost all rights to their child unwillingly and with no consent given. The road to reunification seems nearly impossible without truckloads of money for legal fees. I even read about a man who took his custody case the whole way to the supreme court and lost. What the HELL? I have yet to read about a man who’s child has been placed for adoption without his consent and has re-gained custody.
So I decided to start this thread to gain your experience. What’s your story? How have you been affected? What did you do?
http://peytons-story.com/
RE:Can Unwed Fathers Block Adoptions? Reply from a Screwed Over Father
I am posting a message I received from a father in New Jersey, who's baby was adopted out by his ex-girlfriend without his consent. This is happening in all states, not just New Jersy. I am also posting my own story about my two grandchildrens father's, who's rights were terminated illegally. Actually, two fictitious mans rights were terminated by the state of NH.
RE:Can Unwed Fathers Block Adoptions? (What about a fictitious Mans Rights Being terminated?)
Reply |Anthony Jack to me
show details 9:56 PM (10 hours ago)
Ho Joanna, I enjoyed your post. I tried to comment but my comment was to long! could you please post my comment on your blog and check out my blog at the bottom.
I'm trying to reunite with my daughter.
Hi Joanna, thank you for this post. My name is Anthony. I see in your profile that it says that you're a fighter. I too have begun a fight of my own. I stumbled across this article while doing research for my own custody case involving my daughter Peyton. She was put up for adoption by her birth mother without my consent on January 13th 2009, the day that she was born.
I knew that she was conceived and had contact with her mother up until the last two months of the pregnancy when she disappeared. Her mother and I had lived together for about a year but I decided to move out because we both had problems with substance abuse. I decided that I wanted more out of life and got help for my issues.
Within about a week of moving out Inderia informed me that she thought that she was pregnant. I immediately went to the house armed with two pregnancy tests and both came up positive. At this point I had hoped that maybe she would decide to clean up her act but this was not the case. She kept insisting that I move back in with her so that we could raise the baby together. I knew that it wasn't a good idea to move back because then I'd be using again.
Since I didn't want to move back in she tried to talk me into paying for an abortion which I was very strongly opposed to in the begining. As a couple of months passed by I started to think that maybe it would be best to help her pay for an abortion considering that she was using heavily. I was very worried that the baby might be born severely disabled both physically and mentally.
However, she never followed through with the abortion because any money that she got went into her pipe instead. Part of me was relieved because I really wanted a child, but the other part of me was still very nervous about the baby's health.
I had contacted some agencies here in PA to see if I could have her committed on the grounds that she was hurting our unborn child, but was told that unborn children have no rights in PA. So I tried as best as I could to be there for her during the pregnancy and tried to encourage her to seek help without putting myself in harms way for fear of relapsing.
Around Mid November of 2008 I stopped hearing from Inderia, she was not at home and didn't call me at all. I had no idea where she was. Then in late December I ran into her sister. Her sister informed me that Inderia had "hooked up with an adoption agency that "helps" the mother out through the pregnancy, and for a year after". I could only assume that this meant that she was basically selling our baby. I was furious, depressed, a whole range of emotions.
Unfortunately I had no clue what I could do about it.
Then in mid February 2009 Inderia finally contacted me to let me know that our daughter Peyton was born on January 13th and that she'd been placed for adoption. It took everything in me to keep myself from killing her at this point.
She called because she said that she had some pictures that I could see. I refrained from erupting on her over the phone so that I could at least get some pictures and try to find out some mor einfo on the adoption.
When I met up with her she explained to me that it was an open adoption and that she could re-gain custody of Peyton. However she would only do that if I agreed to get back together with her. I have never hated someone so much in my life but contained myself and went along with it so that I could hopefully see my daughter.
This little charade continued for about three months. During this time she had told me on several occasions that she would be having a visit with peyton on this date or that date. Inevitably every time one of those dates came around she would disappear. I knew that I was being played but continued to put up with it for the occasional pictures that the adoptive couple would send and the hope of some more information that would help me down the road.
As my anger towards Inderia grew, I knew that it was time to end this little game. I let her know exactly what I think of her and haven't contacted her since. To this day she still prank calls me, but I haven't talked to her.
The good news is that the misery I went through with her for those few months actually paid off. I was able to learn the first names of the two men that adopted Peyton as well as the state that they live in. I also obtained seven pictures of her. The adoptive couple are pictured in two of them.
I tried talking to many legal services and never got anywhere with it. I started to get so upset about the whole situation that i tried to forget about it. It was just to painful. I felt totally helpless and hopeless.
One morning in November 2009 I woke up even more depressed than usuall. I started talking to my roomate about it and she had asked if Inderia had a Facebook account. I didn't see how thsi would help but it sparked the idea to try and search for the couple online. I had tried before without success.
Today was different. After being glued to the computer for about nine hours I found one of their Myspace Profiles!!! This told me the exact town that they live in.
With this information I was able to find everything out about them including last names, address, telephone number. I even found more pictures of Peyton. I was so excited that I burst into tears. I literally couldn't sleep for three days. I kept imagining what it would be like to have her back.
I was afraid of contacting them online because I didn't want to scare them off and have them disappear. So I started talking to lawyers, and I figured that since I had done all of the "impossible" work that I'd be able to find someone to help me gain custody. This has not been the case.
Everyday I look at their profile pics and I want to message them so badly but I'm afraid to chase them off and lose my opportunity forever. The thought of seeing her oneday is what keeps me going.
Not knowing what else to do I started a blog to accomplish a few things.
1.) Write letters to my daughter, hopefully she'll find them someday.
2.) Provide a place for others affected by adoption to post their stories.
3.) Hopefully find the help that i so desperately need in getting Peyton back.
Thank you for reading my comment.
Please visit Peyton's Story
http://www.peytons-story.com
RE:Can Unwed Fathers Block Adoptions? (What about a fictitious Mans Rights Being terminated?)
Reply |Anthony Jack to me
show details 9:56 PM (10 hours ago)
Ho Joanna, I enjoyed your post. I tried to comment but my comment was to long! could you please post my comment on your blog and check out my blog at the bottom.
I'm trying to reunite with my daughter.
Hi Joanna, thank you for this post. My name is Anthony. I see in your profile that it says that you're a fighter. I too have begun a fight of my own. I stumbled across this article while doing research for my own custody case involving my daughter Peyton. She was put up for adoption by her birth mother without my consent on January 13th 2009, the day that she was born.
I knew that she was conceived and had contact with her mother up until the last two months of the pregnancy when she disappeared. Her mother and I had lived together for about a year but I decided to move out because we both had problems with substance abuse. I decided that I wanted more out of life and got help for my issues.
Within about a week of moving out Inderia informed me that she thought that she was pregnant. I immediately went to the house armed with two pregnancy tests and both came up positive. At this point I had hoped that maybe she would decide to clean up her act but this was not the case. She kept insisting that I move back in with her so that we could raise the baby together. I knew that it wasn't a good idea to move back because then I'd be using again.
Since I didn't want to move back in she tried to talk me into paying for an abortion which I was very strongly opposed to in the begining. As a couple of months passed by I started to think that maybe it would be best to help her pay for an abortion considering that she was using heavily. I was very worried that the baby might be born severely disabled both physically and mentally.
However, she never followed through with the abortion because any money that she got went into her pipe instead. Part of me was relieved because I really wanted a child, but the other part of me was still very nervous about the baby's health.
I had contacted some agencies here in PA to see if I could have her committed on the grounds that she was hurting our unborn child, but was told that unborn children have no rights in PA. So I tried as best as I could to be there for her during the pregnancy and tried to encourage her to seek help without putting myself in harms way for fear of relapsing.
Around Mid November of 2008 I stopped hearing from Inderia, she was not at home and didn't call me at all. I had no idea where she was. Then in late December I ran into her sister. Her sister informed me that Inderia had "hooked up with an adoption agency that "helps" the mother out through the pregnancy, and for a year after". I could only assume that this meant that she was basically selling our baby. I was furious, depressed, a whole range of emotions.
Unfortunately I had no clue what I could do about it.
Then in mid February 2009 Inderia finally contacted me to let me know that our daughter Peyton was born on January 13th and that she'd been placed for adoption. It took everything in me to keep myself from killing her at this point.
She called because she said that she had some pictures that I could see. I refrained from erupting on her over the phone so that I could at least get some pictures and try to find out some mor einfo on the adoption.
When I met up with her she explained to me that it was an open adoption and that she could re-gain custody of Peyton. However she would only do that if I agreed to get back together with her. I have never hated someone so much in my life but contained myself and went along with it so that I could hopefully see my daughter.
This little charade continued for about three months. During this time she had told me on several occasions that she would be having a visit with peyton on this date or that date. Inevitably every time one of those dates came around she would disappear. I knew that I was being played but continued to put up with it for the occasional pictures that the adoptive couple would send and the hope of some more information that would help me down the road.
As my anger towards Inderia grew, I knew that it was time to end this little game. I let her know exactly what I think of her and haven't contacted her since. To this day she still prank calls me, but I haven't talked to her.
The good news is that the misery I went through with her for those few months actually paid off. I was able to learn the first names of the two men that adopted Peyton as well as the state that they live in. I also obtained seven pictures of her. The adoptive couple are pictured in two of them.
I tried talking to many legal services and never got anywhere with it. I started to get so upset about the whole situation that i tried to forget about it. It was just to painful. I felt totally helpless and hopeless.
One morning in November 2009 I woke up even more depressed than usuall. I started talking to my roomate about it and she had asked if Inderia had a Facebook account. I didn't see how thsi would help but it sparked the idea to try and search for the couple online. I had tried before without success.
Today was different. After being glued to the computer for about nine hours I found one of their Myspace Profiles!!! This told me the exact town that they live in.
With this information I was able to find everything out about them including last names, address, telephone number. I even found more pictures of Peyton. I was so excited that I burst into tears. I literally couldn't sleep for three days. I kept imagining what it would be like to have her back.
I was afraid of contacting them online because I didn't want to scare them off and have them disappear. So I started talking to lawyers, and I figured that since I had done all of the "impossible" work that I'd be able to find someone to help me gain custody. This has not been the case.
Everyday I look at their profile pics and I want to message them so badly but I'm afraid to chase them off and lose my opportunity forever. The thought of seeing her oneday is what keeps me going.
Not knowing what else to do I started a blog to accomplish a few things.
1.) Write letters to my daughter, hopefully she'll find them someday.
2.) Provide a place for others affected by adoption to post their stories.
3.) Hopefully find the help that i so desperately need in getting Peyton back.
Thank you for reading my comment.
Please visit Peyton's Story
http://www.peytons-story.com
Friday, December 25, 2009
Doctor alleges second person also changed patients' records in WDH privacy breach-NH
Doctor alleges second person also changed patients' records in WDH privacy breach
By Adam D. Krauss
akrauss@fosters.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DOVER — A doctor impacted by the privacy breach at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital says a second employee improperly accessed and changed patients' records but never lost her job. (If they look a little deeper, I'm sure they'll find this isn't the only hospital in NH where patients records have been accessed and changed.)
"There was another woman that's still working at the hospital," said Dr. Cheryl Moore, whose Piscataqua Pathology Associates group was contracted to run pathology lab at WDH. "She did the same thing as the first lady, but to a lesser degree."
Unlike the woman who lost her job, this employee escaped punishment because Gint Taoras, the lab director and a WDH employee, and Dalma Winkler, the hospital's privacy officer, halted a full audit of what she had done, Moore claims.
"They reviewed a few cases just to see they were ... looking at similar records," Moore said Tuesday, but the hospital didn't review more cases "because they didn't want to know that they had more trouble."
Moore and her partner, Dr. Glenn Littell, have said WDH administration resisted investigating the breach and retaliated against them by not renewing their contract after they pushed for disclosure — allegations rebuffed by WDH CEO and President Gregory Walker.
Moore's comments came after Foster's Daily Democrat received a community commentary written by her husband, Dr. Thomas Moore, a surgeon with courtesy privileges at WDH.
In the commentary, published in today's edition, he says "had the Hospital's administrators had their way, an investigation into this breach would never have taken place. This is highlighted by the fact that the person who committed this heinous act had an accomplice who was never investigated and never fired. This was a determination made by the Hospital."
WDH spokeswoman Noreen Biehl confirmed Tuesday only one person lost their job as a result of the breach but didn't immediately respond to the allegation of an "accomplice" or whether another employee was involved in some way.
The doctors have said the ex-employee altered records of some 1,100 patients after being transferred out of the lab, where she had worked for many years, after she was cited for poor performance. This second employee, Cheryl Moore said, "was friends with" the ex-employee "and she got transferred out around the same time."
In another development, a state investigator says he's reviewing information he didn't have when he determined Wentworth-Douglass Hospital didn't have to notify patients whose records were improperly viewed or altered in a 13-month privacy breach, which involved about 1,800 unauthorized patient record views from May 2006 to June 2007.
James Boffetti, who leads the Office of the Attorney General's consumer protection and antitrust bureau, said he's received images of computer screens that were viewed by the rogue employee — images an attorney for Moore and Littell says shows patients' Social Security numbers and sensitive insurance policy data were compromised.
"I will certainly review everything," said Boffetti, stressing that doesn't mean he's necessarily reopening his case file. "I want to have a chance to look at it more carefully."
Boffetti would not say if he would have liked to have the images at the time of his initial review.
Late last week, Charles Grau, a Concord attorney representing Moore and Littell, said the images could "significantly change" Boffetti's view of whether the breach impacted patients' personal information as defined by RSA 359-C: 19.
Boffetti had determined the breach did not meet the law and therefore the hospital did not need to notify the state or patients.
Boffetti said he never sought the images and he's "not alleging" the hospital withheld information. "The hospital has been cooperative," he said.
Biehl questioned why the pathologists didn't provide the state with the images when they reported the matter to several agencies.
"We were never interviewed," Grau said, noting he provided the information to Boffetti upon learning a decision was made after reading about in Foster's Daily Democrat.
Boffetti relied on an audit summary that was completed in May in carrying out his initial review. From that he knew patients' first names were changed, something state law says constitutes personal information. He would not explain Tuesday how such a change didn't fit the law's requirement.
Biehl said she is still waiting for a report from state health investigators who reviewed hospital and pathology lab operations at the direction of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The College of American Pathologists is also investigating.
Moore and Littell, whose group is running the lab until March, also brought the case to the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which enforces privacy laws, and DHHS' Office of Inspector General.
The Joint Commission, which accredits health care organizations, has determined the hospital satisfactorily addressed the situation.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/GJNEWS_01/712239922/-1/rss3&source=RSS
By Adam D. Krauss
akrauss@fosters.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DOVER — A doctor impacted by the privacy breach at Wentworth-Douglass Hospital says a second employee improperly accessed and changed patients' records but never lost her job. (If they look a little deeper, I'm sure they'll find this isn't the only hospital in NH where patients records have been accessed and changed.)
"There was another woman that's still working at the hospital," said Dr. Cheryl Moore, whose Piscataqua Pathology Associates group was contracted to run pathology lab at WDH. "She did the same thing as the first lady, but to a lesser degree."
Unlike the woman who lost her job, this employee escaped punishment because Gint Taoras, the lab director and a WDH employee, and Dalma Winkler, the hospital's privacy officer, halted a full audit of what she had done, Moore claims.
"They reviewed a few cases just to see they were ... looking at similar records," Moore said Tuesday, but the hospital didn't review more cases "because they didn't want to know that they had more trouble."
Moore and her partner, Dr. Glenn Littell, have said WDH administration resisted investigating the breach and retaliated against them by not renewing their contract after they pushed for disclosure — allegations rebuffed by WDH CEO and President Gregory Walker.
Moore's comments came after Foster's Daily Democrat received a community commentary written by her husband, Dr. Thomas Moore, a surgeon with courtesy privileges at WDH.
In the commentary, published in today's edition, he says "had the Hospital's administrators had their way, an investigation into this breach would never have taken place. This is highlighted by the fact that the person who committed this heinous act had an accomplice who was never investigated and never fired. This was a determination made by the Hospital."
WDH spokeswoman Noreen Biehl confirmed Tuesday only one person lost their job as a result of the breach but didn't immediately respond to the allegation of an "accomplice" or whether another employee was involved in some way.
The doctors have said the ex-employee altered records of some 1,100 patients after being transferred out of the lab, where she had worked for many years, after she was cited for poor performance. This second employee, Cheryl Moore said, "was friends with" the ex-employee "and she got transferred out around the same time."
In another development, a state investigator says he's reviewing information he didn't have when he determined Wentworth-Douglass Hospital didn't have to notify patients whose records were improperly viewed or altered in a 13-month privacy breach, which involved about 1,800 unauthorized patient record views from May 2006 to June 2007.
James Boffetti, who leads the Office of the Attorney General's consumer protection and antitrust bureau, said he's received images of computer screens that were viewed by the rogue employee — images an attorney for Moore and Littell says shows patients' Social Security numbers and sensitive insurance policy data were compromised.
"I will certainly review everything," said Boffetti, stressing that doesn't mean he's necessarily reopening his case file. "I want to have a chance to look at it more carefully."
Boffetti would not say if he would have liked to have the images at the time of his initial review.
Late last week, Charles Grau, a Concord attorney representing Moore and Littell, said the images could "significantly change" Boffetti's view of whether the breach impacted patients' personal information as defined by RSA 359-C: 19.
Boffetti had determined the breach did not meet the law and therefore the hospital did not need to notify the state or patients.
Boffetti said he never sought the images and he's "not alleging" the hospital withheld information. "The hospital has been cooperative," he said.
Biehl questioned why the pathologists didn't provide the state with the images when they reported the matter to several agencies.
"We were never interviewed," Grau said, noting he provided the information to Boffetti upon learning a decision was made after reading about in Foster's Daily Democrat.
Boffetti relied on an audit summary that was completed in May in carrying out his initial review. From that he knew patients' first names were changed, something state law says constitutes personal information. He would not explain Tuesday how such a change didn't fit the law's requirement.
Biehl said she is still waiting for a report from state health investigators who reviewed hospital and pathology lab operations at the direction of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The College of American Pathologists is also investigating.
Moore and Littell, whose group is running the lab until March, also brought the case to the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which enforces privacy laws, and DHHS' Office of Inspector General.
The Joint Commission, which accredits health care organizations, has determined the hospital satisfactorily addressed the situation.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/GJNEWS_01/712239922/-1/rss3&source=RSS
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Foster mother accused of beating child during potty training
Foster mother accused of beating child during potty training
Charmaine McCutchen, 44, is accused of striking her 4-year-old foster child in the abdomen
By Doug Page and Lucas Sullivan
Staff Writers
Updated 4:09 PM Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DAYTON — A Trotwood mother accused of severely beating her foster child while trying to potty train him was indicted and arrested Tuesday, Dec. 22, on a felony child endangering charge.
Charmaine McCutchen, 44, is accused of striking her 4-year-old foster child in the abdomen.
If convicted, McCutchen faces between two and eight years in prison.
The toddler, born with fetal alcohol syndrome and who has “developmental delays,” was taken to Dayton Children’s Medical Center on July 9 with severe abdominal pain and vomiting, Trotwood police said.
Emergency room doctors informed officers they suspected he might have been abused, authorities said.
The boy had emergency surgery the next day and spent two months in the hospital, Trotwood Detective Natalie Watson said.
The alleged assault occurred during toilet training, Watson said.
Police said the toddler initially indicated he had been hurt by “his mommy. He had two people he called his mommy so it was unclear what had happened,” Watson said.
The boy’s biological mother has supervised visitation rights, police said. McCutchen has two other biological sons of her own.
In later interviews, the child said, “Mommy with the two boys hurt me” and “Charmaine hit my tummy,” police said.
When police attempted several times to interview McCutchen, including a voice-stress test, “She backed out,” Detective Steve Derringer said.
Prosecutors approved the charge in October and sent it to a grand jury, which handed up the indictment Dec. 8.
It took authorities six months to get the indictment because of medical records and forensic evidence needed to secure charges, said Greg Flannagan, the county prosecutor’s office spokesman.
The boy had been in McCutchen’s care for almost two years, Watson said.
He has since been placed in a different foster home.
“He’s doing much better, putting on weight and thriving,” Watson said. “He’s a different kid.”
Montgomery County Children’s Services spokesman Tim Harshaw said McCutchen was contracted with another agency to house foster children.
The agency has no prior cases involving McCutchen’s biological children, but Harshaw said officials will do an assessment of her home in response to her arrest.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/foster-mother-accused-of-beating-child-during-potty-training-462430.html?imw=Y
Charmaine McCutchen, 44, is accused of striking her 4-year-old foster child in the abdomen
By Doug Page and Lucas Sullivan
Staff Writers
Updated 4:09 PM Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DAYTON — A Trotwood mother accused of severely beating her foster child while trying to potty train him was indicted and arrested Tuesday, Dec. 22, on a felony child endangering charge.
Charmaine McCutchen, 44, is accused of striking her 4-year-old foster child in the abdomen.
If convicted, McCutchen faces between two and eight years in prison.
The toddler, born with fetal alcohol syndrome and who has “developmental delays,” was taken to Dayton Children’s Medical Center on July 9 with severe abdominal pain and vomiting, Trotwood police said.
Emergency room doctors informed officers they suspected he might have been abused, authorities said.
The boy had emergency surgery the next day and spent two months in the hospital, Trotwood Detective Natalie Watson said.
The alleged assault occurred during toilet training, Watson said.
Police said the toddler initially indicated he had been hurt by “his mommy. He had two people he called his mommy so it was unclear what had happened,” Watson said.
The boy’s biological mother has supervised visitation rights, police said. McCutchen has two other biological sons of her own.
In later interviews, the child said, “Mommy with the two boys hurt me” and “Charmaine hit my tummy,” police said.
When police attempted several times to interview McCutchen, including a voice-stress test, “She backed out,” Detective Steve Derringer said.
Prosecutors approved the charge in October and sent it to a grand jury, which handed up the indictment Dec. 8.
It took authorities six months to get the indictment because of medical records and forensic evidence needed to secure charges, said Greg Flannagan, the county prosecutor’s office spokesman.
The boy had been in McCutchen’s care for almost two years, Watson said.
He has since been placed in a different foster home.
“He’s doing much better, putting on weight and thriving,” Watson said. “He’s a different kid.”
Montgomery County Children’s Services spokesman Tim Harshaw said McCutchen was contracted with another agency to house foster children.
The agency has no prior cases involving McCutchen’s biological children, but Harshaw said officials will do an assessment of her home in response to her arrest.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/foster-mother-accused-of-beating-child-during-potty-training-462430.html?imw=Y
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Glen C Schulz Author of Unlawful Flight, a Parental Kidnapping
Arrested by the FBI and the U.S.Marshal's and charged with Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution and kidnapping for taking his own children, the author of "Unlawful Flight" is now a father's rights activist and speaker. He dedicates his book to our school teachers. Glen says that "they do so much for so many and get so little thanks."
Where authors and readers come together! Ten days after Glens book was featured on the Dr.Phil show (10/3/2008), Trancas Films International ( www.trancasfilms.com ) optioned the film rights to his book !! Read more in the news area.
When his estranged wife began emotionally abusing their children and alienating them from him, Glen C. Schulz was faced with a dilemma and left with no choice but to abduct them and go on the run. He did something that he believes was "legally wrong and yet morally right!" His story is one of triumph for any father who loves his children and is willing to do anything for them ...
As many as 350,000 Children are Abducted Each Year by a Parent or Family Member!
That's 1,000 kids every day & 46% are abducted by their father
In this case abduction was the only answer!
This is one father's touching story.
If you were in his place, what would you do?
[Houston, TX - July 20, 2007] According to the National Incidence Studies on Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway children (NISMART), as many as 350,000 children are abducted each year by a parent or family member. Of these, 54% are by the mother and 46% are by the father. Statistics also dictate that about 16% of these children (56,000) suffer from post traumatic stress and mental anguish.
UNLAWFUL FLIGHT is one man's story about the abduction of his children and the lessons he learned along the way. You will be touched by Glen, Brian and Melissa's struggles and the inseparable bond they developed as they dealt with life on the run and in hiding. Their plight opened up the hearts and pocketbooks of total strangers who came to their aid and assisted them on their amazing journey.
It's an all too common story! After kicking Glen out of the home so she could pursue a new life, Sandy alienated him from his children. She told them lies, accused him of sexual abuse, and drove a wedge between him and his two children.
Glen Schulz truly loved his wife, but when she packed his bags and said "leave," he felt his life was over, and his world began to crumble. In a downward spiral of drinking and drugs, he attempted suicide. While recovering behind locked doors, he quickly realized that nothing mattered more than his children, and he knew that for their well-being he had to get them away from their mother.
After his estranged wife had no choice but to drop the abuse charges, Schulz and his children were finally given a long-awaited weekend visitation. Little did Sandy know, but that would be the last time she would see her children for nearly two years.
UNLAWFUL FLIGHT is a wake-up call for all parents about the priority children should be in our lives, and how total strangers will always be supportive when love and sacrifice outweighs all obstacles.
Birth Place: Erie, PA
Accomplishments: My children tell me that I'm the best father that ever was, but watching my son with his children shows me that he is a much better father than I ! Publishing my book "Unlawful Flight" was a big achievement for me, even bigger than jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, which my daughter and I do whenever we can. My motto is never ever take no for an answer, especially when it comes to reaching for your dream! Reaching for your dream and not getting it is far better than having never tried.
Books
Unlawful Flight, a parental kidnapping. by Glen C Schulz
Where authors and readers come together! Ten days after Glens book was featured on the Dr.Phil show (10/3/2008), Trancas Films International ( www.trancasfilms.com ) optioned the film rights to his book !! Read more in the news area.
When his estranged wife began emotionally abusing their children and alienating them from him, Glen C. Schulz was faced with a dilemma and left with no choice but to abduct them and go on the run. He did something that he believes was "legally wrong and yet morally right!" His story is one of triumph for any father who loves his children and is willing to do anything for them ...
As many as 350,000 Children are Abducted Each Year by a Parent or Family Member!
That's 1,000 kids every day & 46% are abducted by their father
In this case abduction was the only answer!
This is one father's touching story.
If you were in his place, what would you do?
[Houston, TX - July 20, 2007] According to the National Incidence Studies on Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway children (NISMART), as many as 350,000 children are abducted each year by a parent or family member. Of these, 54% are by the mother and 46% are by the father. Statistics also dictate that about 16% of these children (56,000) suffer from post traumatic stress and mental anguish.
UNLAWFUL FLIGHT is one man's story about the abduction of his children and the lessons he learned along the way. You will be touched by Glen, Brian and Melissa's struggles and the inseparable bond they developed as they dealt with life on the run and in hiding. Their plight opened up the hearts and pocketbooks of total strangers who came to their aid and assisted them on their amazing journey.
It's an all too common story! After kicking Glen out of the home so she could pursue a new life, Sandy alienated him from his children. She told them lies, accused him of sexual abuse, and drove a wedge between him and his two children.
Glen Schulz truly loved his wife, but when she packed his bags and said "leave," he felt his life was over, and his world began to crumble. In a downward spiral of drinking and drugs, he attempted suicide. While recovering behind locked doors, he quickly realized that nothing mattered more than his children, and he knew that for their well-being he had to get them away from their mother.
After his estranged wife had no choice but to drop the abuse charges, Schulz and his children were finally given a long-awaited weekend visitation. Little did Sandy know, but that would be the last time she would see her children for nearly two years.
UNLAWFUL FLIGHT is a wake-up call for all parents about the priority children should be in our lives, and how total strangers will always be supportive when love and sacrifice outweighs all obstacles.
Birth Place: Erie, PA
Accomplishments: My children tell me that I'm the best father that ever was, but watching my son with his children shows me that he is a much better father than I ! Publishing my book "Unlawful Flight" was a big achievement for me, even bigger than jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, which my daughter and I do whenever we can. My motto is never ever take no for an answer, especially when it comes to reaching for your dream! Reaching for your dream and not getting it is far better than having never tried.
Books
Unlawful Flight, a parental kidnapping. by Glen C Schulz
Daddy, why did you go?
Daddy, why did you go?
by Glen C Schulz
Dad, we saw you drive by the house today, Mom had made us go out and play.She's been mad at us lately but why I can't say. Daddy, why did you go away?
My son, I love you with all of my heart and being away just tears me apart. Waving was all I could do as I drove by, I was trying so hard not to cry.
But Dad, I heard Mom tell someone that we're in her way; could you please come home and stay? I promise that we won't be mad, if you will just come back to us Dad.
My dearest child, it was your Mother that sent me away; Oh Jesus Christ, just what should I say? Your Mother loves you and it will all be okay, she's just confused and won't let me come home to stay.
But Dad, each night you read us a story and tucked us in; last night we watched Mom drink from a bottle of gin. Dad please come home, we promise that we'll be good. We are both so very sad, Mom told us you left 'cause we were bad. We're sorry Dad.
Son, you're not the reason that I went away and if I was allowed, I'd come home today. You've done nothing wrong and I'm so sorry to see, the hurt in your eyes because you miss me.
Honey, my child, my reason to be, Your Mother loves you, can't you see? Of that you can be sure, you don't need to worry. And if she would let me I'd be home in a hurry. Please give Mommy some time and give her some space, and please take care of your sister. I miss you all so very much, but please... don't tell Mommy I miss her.
She will say I'm using you to cause and stir up trouble, and she'll go file another false charge; she'll do it on the double. My son, let things calm down and you both be good, right now things are in tatters. If we give Mommy time and give her some space, she may realize what matters.
I love you both more than life itself. Daddy
by Glen C Schulz
Dad, we saw you drive by the house today, Mom had made us go out and play.She's been mad at us lately but why I can't say. Daddy, why did you go away?
My son, I love you with all of my heart and being away just tears me apart. Waving was all I could do as I drove by, I was trying so hard not to cry.
But Dad, I heard Mom tell someone that we're in her way; could you please come home and stay? I promise that we won't be mad, if you will just come back to us Dad.
My dearest child, it was your Mother that sent me away; Oh Jesus Christ, just what should I say? Your Mother loves you and it will all be okay, she's just confused and won't let me come home to stay.
But Dad, each night you read us a story and tucked us in; last night we watched Mom drink from a bottle of gin. Dad please come home, we promise that we'll be good. We are both so very sad, Mom told us you left 'cause we were bad. We're sorry Dad.
Son, you're not the reason that I went away and if I was allowed, I'd come home today. You've done nothing wrong and I'm so sorry to see, the hurt in your eyes because you miss me.
Honey, my child, my reason to be, Your Mother loves you, can't you see? Of that you can be sure, you don't need to worry. And if she would let me I'd be home in a hurry. Please give Mommy some time and give her some space, and please take care of your sister. I miss you all so very much, but please... don't tell Mommy I miss her.
She will say I'm using you to cause and stir up trouble, and she'll go file another false charge; she'll do it on the double. My son, let things calm down and you both be good, right now things are in tatters. If we give Mommy time and give her some space, she may realize what matters.
I love you both more than life itself. Daddy
Screaming in silence-For all of the mothers and fathers that for whatever reason don't get to see their children this Christmas.
Screaming in silence.
by Glen C Schulz
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Rated "G" by the Author.
For all of the mothers and fathers that for whatever reason don't get to see their children this Christmas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screaming in silence.
As some sing along to Christmas carols and others go on a shopping spree,
There are those who are the actors, alone and screaming silently.
While we laugh and tease the children asking if they've been bad or good,
There are many parents that are alone, in empty solitude.
At work they seem to be just fine and they will laugh and play,
But inside they know that they will be alone on one more Christmas day.
All they want for Christmas is to see their kids again,
for some it's been so very long they can't remember when.
And so they lie and weave a web of how busy they will be,
but they won't bother to decorate, or even buy a tree.
Another Christmas and the gifts are sent and yet again they will not see,
the happy faces of their kids, nor the gifts under the tree.
by Glen C Schulz
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Rated "G" by the Author.
For all of the mothers and fathers that for whatever reason don't get to see their children this Christmas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screaming in silence.
As some sing along to Christmas carols and others go on a shopping spree,
There are those who are the actors, alone and screaming silently.
While we laugh and tease the children asking if they've been bad or good,
There are many parents that are alone, in empty solitude.
At work they seem to be just fine and they will laugh and play,
But inside they know that they will be alone on one more Christmas day.
All they want for Christmas is to see their kids again,
for some it's been so very long they can't remember when.
And so they lie and weave a web of how busy they will be,
but they won't bother to decorate, or even buy a tree.
Another Christmas and the gifts are sent and yet again they will not see,
the happy faces of their kids, nor the gifts under the tree.
Parental Rights too Easily Revoked
Wednesday, December 23, 2009 Parental rights too easily revoked
I am writing in response to David Johnson’s letter to the editor as to bills filed to remove a judge and a marital master.
Johnson was quite correct in his letter and many of the citizens of New Hampshire, as well as people from other states, are quite happy to see our Legislature is working toward helping families torn apart by the corruption of DCYF and our judicial system.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe from this corruption. Our children and families lives are at stake. It’s about time someone within our government held DCYF and judges accountable for the illegal practices used against families in the taking of their children.
There is no judicial accountability or lawyer accountability in this state. Judges and lawyers side with their own, as well as DCYF.
My grandson has been placed in a pre-adoptive home, scheduled to be adopted in December. From what I’ve been told, he’s in the same foster home where he was first placed. He’s been put on Adderall since then to calm down his newly found violent behavior.
The administrator in Concord stated in an e-mail to the Administrative Appeals unit that my grandson’s name has been changed. To change a child’s name before he’s adopted is illegal, yet when does DCYF follow the law? They don’t and neither do the probate court judges.
The judges write the opposite of testimony heard in court in their decisions and the Supreme Court goes right along with them, separating children from their families forever. I know this for a fact.
A DCYF worker told my husband and I that parental rights terminations in New Hampshire are never reversed. I myself haven’t seen this happen. She also told us our government gave them the power to do whatever they want to do, no matter how many children they traumatize and families they tear apart.
Do the Supreme Court judges really believe that these probate judges or even District Court judges are perfect? That they are always right? Or is it just a matter of siding with their own?
Something is definitely wrong with the judicial system. I don’t understand how our government can stand by and let this happen to its own people – the people who voted them into office.
I pray the petitions filed can straighten out this mess.
Dorothy Knightly
Nashua
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/letters/496741-263/parental-rightstoo-easily-revoked.html
I am writing in response to David Johnson’s letter to the editor as to bills filed to remove a judge and a marital master.
Johnson was quite correct in his letter and many of the citizens of New Hampshire, as well as people from other states, are quite happy to see our Legislature is working toward helping families torn apart by the corruption of DCYF and our judicial system.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe from this corruption. Our children and families lives are at stake. It’s about time someone within our government held DCYF and judges accountable for the illegal practices used against families in the taking of their children.
There is no judicial accountability or lawyer accountability in this state. Judges and lawyers side with their own, as well as DCYF.
My grandson has been placed in a pre-adoptive home, scheduled to be adopted in December. From what I’ve been told, he’s in the same foster home where he was first placed. He’s been put on Adderall since then to calm down his newly found violent behavior.
The administrator in Concord stated in an e-mail to the Administrative Appeals unit that my grandson’s name has been changed. To change a child’s name before he’s adopted is illegal, yet when does DCYF follow the law? They don’t and neither do the probate court judges.
The judges write the opposite of testimony heard in court in their decisions and the Supreme Court goes right along with them, separating children from their families forever. I know this for a fact.
A DCYF worker told my husband and I that parental rights terminations in New Hampshire are never reversed. I myself haven’t seen this happen. She also told us our government gave them the power to do whatever they want to do, no matter how many children they traumatize and families they tear apart.
Do the Supreme Court judges really believe that these probate judges or even District Court judges are perfect? That they are always right? Or is it just a matter of siding with their own?
Something is definitely wrong with the judicial system. I don’t understand how our government can stand by and let this happen to its own people – the people who voted them into office.
I pray the petitions filed can straighten out this mess.
Dorothy Knightly
Nashua
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/letters/496741-263/parental-rightstoo-easily-revoked.html
State investigates mental health policy
State investigates mental health policy
The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 2009 - 12:00 am
The Department of Health and Human Services has finished investigating a policy that allows young children with mental illnesses to be transferred to a state hospital unit that serves teenagers and adults.
Advocates for children have questioned whether the policy harmed two boys ages 6 and 12 who spent parts of two nights in the adult unit last week under a policy that allows such transfers if the number of patients at the Philbrook Center for children drops below four.
Health and Human Services Commissioner Nick Toumpas told New Hampshire Public Radio that he didn't know anything about the transfer until he read about it in the newspaper. He says he will review the investigation next week and work with those involved to decide what the policy should be going forward.
This article is: 3 days old.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091220/NEWS01/912200364
The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 2009 - 12:00 am
The Department of Health and Human Services has finished investigating a policy that allows young children with mental illnesses to be transferred to a state hospital unit that serves teenagers and adults.
Advocates for children have questioned whether the policy harmed two boys ages 6 and 12 who spent parts of two nights in the adult unit last week under a policy that allows such transfers if the number of patients at the Philbrook Center for children drops below four.
Health and Human Services Commissioner Nick Toumpas told New Hampshire Public Radio that he didn't know anything about the transfer until he read about it in the newspaper. He says he will review the investigation next week and work with those involved to decide what the policy should be going forward.
This article is: 3 days old.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091220/NEWS01/912200364
Rights group questions children's care (NH)
Rights group questions children's care
12-, 6-year-old kept with adults, teens
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 2009 - 12:00 am
The state hospital is temporarily housing its youngest mentally disabled students with adult and adolescent patients because there are too few kids to justify keeping them in their own quarters at the Anna Philbrook Center for Children, a hospital official said yesterday.
The decision prompted the Disability Rights Center to contact the New Hampshire Hospital yesterday with concerns about the children's well-being and care, said Richard Cohen, the DRC's executive director.
Philbrook is a school and therapeutic center on the state hospital grounds for kids between 4 and 14 years old who have moderate to severe mental disabilities. There is room for 25 kids, but yesterday there were just two, said Jamie Dall, director of financial and support services. One is 6 years old, the other about 12.
The hospital has a policy based on nursing standards, Dall said, to relocate the Philbrook kids to the other unit when enrollment falls below four students. That way, the staff typically assigned to Philbrook can be reassigned to other shifts in the hospital, he said.
This week, the two kids assigned to Philbrook have spent their days at the center, taking classes, meeting with their families and participating in counseling, Dall said. In the early evening, they go to the adolescent and adult unit of the hospital and remain there under close supervision until morning, he said.
When the hospital admits two more children, Philbrook will return to its normal schedule, Dall said. "There is no plan to close Philbrook," he added.
In the meantime, the Disability Rights Center has asked the hospital for the names of the children's parents or guardians to make sure the two kids there now are not being neglected or harmed by sharing space with adolescent and adult patients, Cohen said.
"We are concerned," he said. "We are looking to determine whether or not this is based on clinical needs or budgetary or administrative needs. This is unusual for Philbrook to be closed down. And it's very unusual for young children to be placed in an adolescent-adult unit at the hospital."
Dall said the hospital did not merge the young kids with the adolescent-adult unit to save money. The hospital still heats the Philbrook Center, and the staff still reports to work, Dall said. But there is a savings: With the young kids relocated for the evening, the hospital can use the Philbrook staff to fill shift vacancies elsewhere in the hospital, Dall said.
Children are admitted to the Philbrook Center voluntarily or by a court-ordered involuntary admission. And it's unusual for Philbrook to have so few students, Dall said.
Two weekends ago, there were 15 students at Philbrook. Last week, there were 11, he said. But at day's end on Friday, there was no one due to spend the night at the center, he said.
There was an attempted admission of a 6-year-old over the weekend, but due to "confusion," that admission did not happen, Dall said. He did not know the specifics. The parents of that child brought the child in Monday, and the child remained there as of yesterday, Dall said.
"As a general rule, we have to staff for the worst because we don't know who is going to come in at 2 or 3 in the morning," he said.
Dall said the two children who are spending the evenings and nights with the older patients are being kept at the far end of the adolescent wing, with close supervision.
The adolescent and adult wings are connected, but there is a nursing desk where they intersect, and the populations are kept apart, he said.
This article is: 7 days old.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091216/FRONTPAGE/912160301
12-, 6-year-old kept with adults, teens
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 2009 - 12:00 am
The state hospital is temporarily housing its youngest mentally disabled students with adult and adolescent patients because there are too few kids to justify keeping them in their own quarters at the Anna Philbrook Center for Children, a hospital official said yesterday.
The decision prompted the Disability Rights Center to contact the New Hampshire Hospital yesterday with concerns about the children's well-being and care, said Richard Cohen, the DRC's executive director.
Philbrook is a school and therapeutic center on the state hospital grounds for kids between 4 and 14 years old who have moderate to severe mental disabilities. There is room for 25 kids, but yesterday there were just two, said Jamie Dall, director of financial and support services. One is 6 years old, the other about 12.
The hospital has a policy based on nursing standards, Dall said, to relocate the Philbrook kids to the other unit when enrollment falls below four students. That way, the staff typically assigned to Philbrook can be reassigned to other shifts in the hospital, he said.
This week, the two kids assigned to Philbrook have spent their days at the center, taking classes, meeting with their families and participating in counseling, Dall said. In the early evening, they go to the adolescent and adult unit of the hospital and remain there under close supervision until morning, he said.
When the hospital admits two more children, Philbrook will return to its normal schedule, Dall said. "There is no plan to close Philbrook," he added.
In the meantime, the Disability Rights Center has asked the hospital for the names of the children's parents or guardians to make sure the two kids there now are not being neglected or harmed by sharing space with adolescent and adult patients, Cohen said.
"We are concerned," he said. "We are looking to determine whether or not this is based on clinical needs or budgetary or administrative needs. This is unusual for Philbrook to be closed down. And it's very unusual for young children to be placed in an adolescent-adult unit at the hospital."
Dall said the hospital did not merge the young kids with the adolescent-adult unit to save money. The hospital still heats the Philbrook Center, and the staff still reports to work, Dall said. But there is a savings: With the young kids relocated for the evening, the hospital can use the Philbrook staff to fill shift vacancies elsewhere in the hospital, Dall said.
Children are admitted to the Philbrook Center voluntarily or by a court-ordered involuntary admission. And it's unusual for Philbrook to have so few students, Dall said.
Two weekends ago, there were 15 students at Philbrook. Last week, there were 11, he said. But at day's end on Friday, there was no one due to spend the night at the center, he said.
There was an attempted admission of a 6-year-old over the weekend, but due to "confusion," that admission did not happen, Dall said. He did not know the specifics. The parents of that child brought the child in Monday, and the child remained there as of yesterday, Dall said.
"As a general rule, we have to staff for the worst because we don't know who is going to come in at 2 or 3 in the morning," he said.
Dall said the two children who are spending the evenings and nights with the older patients are being kept at the far end of the adolescent wing, with close supervision.
The adolescent and adult wings are connected, but there is a nursing desk where they intersect, and the populations are kept apart, he said.
This article is: 7 days old.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091216/FRONTPAGE/912160301
Officials study children's stay at adult psychiatric unit
Officials study children's stay at adult psychiatric unit
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
6 hours, 50 minutes ago
CONCORD – A report on how two children were sent to an adult psychiatric unit two weeks ago has yet to make it to the desk of Health and Human Services Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas.
HHS spokesman Kris Neilsen said yesterday a report has been completed, but Toumpas has not yet seen it. A short-lived policy that called for children to be moved from a children's facility when patient count was low has been rescinded.
"He plans to take a good hard look at the report when he gets it," Neilsen said.
She said the delay does not indicate a lack of interest on Toumpas's part.
"He has a lot of on his plate. This issue is a priority and he wants to give it the time it deserves, once he has an opportunity to review it in depth," she said.
On the weekend of Dec. 12, children aged 6 and 12 were transferred for two nights from the Philbrook Center, which is meant to handle children with severe emotional and behavioral disturbances.
They were placed on a ward at New Hampshire Hospital meant for adolescents and young adults. Each was accompanied by a mental health worker for the entire time they were at the hospital, HHS has said. They were at the hospital overnight, but returned to Philbrook for day programs.
HHS has said the children were kept apart from other patients at the adult facility, known as the F Unit. Their transfer was made based on a decision, made just days before, to empty the Philbrook Center when the number of patients there dropped to three, according to HHS officials. Philbrook can handle up to 20 children. HHS stopped the practice when the children's transfers became public.
The incident has drawn the attention of Richard Cohen, director of the Disabilities Rights Center, and Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua, the chairman of the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee.
Cohen said he doesn't know how it could be considered appropriate to have a child on an adult ward for psychiatric patients. He said he is waiting to read through the HHS report before deciding his next step.
"We're going to do a full investigation," he said. "We'll review their report and see if we think this needs further inquiry."
Cohen said he suggested to Toumpas and his staff areas that the report ought to cover. He said they include a description of the process that led to the decision to make the transfers, the names of officials involved, "and other legitimate questions any good investigation should cover."
Rosenwald said she, too, is waiting to see the finished report. At this point, she said she's confident the review will be thorough.
"I have spoken with the department and the department is, I think, diligently looking into it," she said. "I think they've been responsive. I think they were wise to rescind the practice even though they hadn't finished the review."
Rosenwald said she has been told that a treatment team that included a psychiatrist made the decision to move the two youngsters.
Rosenwald said that since Philbrook staffers accompanied the two children throughout their stay at the hospital, it may not have saved any money.
"I don't see what the benefit to doing it was in the first place," she said.
© 2009, Union Leader Corporation. All rights reserved.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2009.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Officials+study+children%27s+stay+at+adult+psychiatric+unit&articleId=f23ffc9d-77d8-4b9a-9128-dd8625bc07bb
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
6 hours, 50 minutes ago
CONCORD – A report on how two children were sent to an adult psychiatric unit two weeks ago has yet to make it to the desk of Health and Human Services Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas.
HHS spokesman Kris Neilsen said yesterday a report has been completed, but Toumpas has not yet seen it. A short-lived policy that called for children to be moved from a children's facility when patient count was low has been rescinded.
"He plans to take a good hard look at the report when he gets it," Neilsen said.
She said the delay does not indicate a lack of interest on Toumpas's part.
"He has a lot of on his plate. This issue is a priority and he wants to give it the time it deserves, once he has an opportunity to review it in depth," she said.
On the weekend of Dec. 12, children aged 6 and 12 were transferred for two nights from the Philbrook Center, which is meant to handle children with severe emotional and behavioral disturbances.
They were placed on a ward at New Hampshire Hospital meant for adolescents and young adults. Each was accompanied by a mental health worker for the entire time they were at the hospital, HHS has said. They were at the hospital overnight, but returned to Philbrook for day programs.
HHS has said the children were kept apart from other patients at the adult facility, known as the F Unit. Their transfer was made based on a decision, made just days before, to empty the Philbrook Center when the number of patients there dropped to three, according to HHS officials. Philbrook can handle up to 20 children. HHS stopped the practice when the children's transfers became public.
The incident has drawn the attention of Richard Cohen, director of the Disabilities Rights Center, and Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua, the chairman of the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee.
Cohen said he doesn't know how it could be considered appropriate to have a child on an adult ward for psychiatric patients. He said he is waiting to read through the HHS report before deciding his next step.
"We're going to do a full investigation," he said. "We'll review their report and see if we think this needs further inquiry."
Cohen said he suggested to Toumpas and his staff areas that the report ought to cover. He said they include a description of the process that led to the decision to make the transfers, the names of officials involved, "and other legitimate questions any good investigation should cover."
Rosenwald said she, too, is waiting to see the finished report. At this point, she said she's confident the review will be thorough.
"I have spoken with the department and the department is, I think, diligently looking into it," she said. "I think they've been responsive. I think they were wise to rescind the practice even though they hadn't finished the review."
Rosenwald said she has been told that a treatment team that included a psychiatrist made the decision to move the two youngsters.
Rosenwald said that since Philbrook staffers accompanied the two children throughout their stay at the hospital, it may not have saved any money.
"I don't see what the benefit to doing it was in the first place," she said.
© 2009, Union Leader Corporation. All rights reserved.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2009.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Officials+study+children%27s+stay+at+adult+psychiatric+unit&articleId=f23ffc9d-77d8-4b9a-9128-dd8625bc07bb
Can Unwed Fathers Block Adoptions? (What about a fictitious Mans Rights Being terminated?)
Can Unwed Fathers Block Adoptions? (Not in N.H., Rights are terminated to fictitious men and the real father's are not allowed custody or even paternity tests.)Navigating a Tricky Legal Terrain
By JOANNA L. GROSSMAN
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
When can an unwed father's biological child be adopted without his consent? In a recent ruling, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the state's statutory scheme for determining the rights of unwed fathers was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff before them – an unwed father who had not been adjudicated to be a legal father, but who had maintained a longstanding familial relationship with the child.
Unwed fathers in most states do not have the same rights as unwed mothers vis-à-vis their children. Their parental rights turn not just on biology, but also on whether they have carried out the obligations of fatherhood and, in some situations, whether they have complied with technical legal requirements necessary to establish their status. The Nebraska case, In re Corbin J., reveals the limitations of this approach to determining legal fatherhood.
In re Adoption of Corbin J.: The Facts
The recent Nebraska case involves a child, Corbin J., who was born to Rusti M. in 1999. John J. is named as the father on Corbin's birth certificate, and no one disputes that John J. is, indeed, the child's biological father. Rusti and John never married, but, for the first three years of Corbin's life, the three lived together as a family. In 2002, however, Rusti took Corbin and left the house, leaving no indication of their whereabouts.
Shortly after leaving, Rusti filed a court action seeking to establish John's paternity, to get full custody of Corbin, and to impose a child support order on John. The trial court issued a temporary order granting custody to her and visitation to John, and ordering John to pay child support. For a little more than a year, John exercised his visitation rights and paid child support. During that time, Rusti married another man, Ilja M.
In July 2003, the court dismissed Rusti's paternity action for lack of prosecution (Rusti, in other words, had not taken all the steps necessary to pursue the petition.) After that ruling, John stopped paying child support for Corbin, though he continued paying for Corbin's health insurance.
In September 2003, Rusti did not arrive at the time and location where John usually picked up Corbin for visitation. Moreover, John claims that Rusti's phone had been disconnected and he had no way of knowing how to track them down. For five years, John had no contact with Corbin. He says he could not find them; she says he knew the location and phone number of her family's ranch and could easily have found them.
John received a legal notice in September 2008 informing him that Ilja, Rusti's husband, was planning to file a petition to adopt Corbin. The lawyer representing Rusti and Ilja sent John the forms necessary to relinquish his parental rights and to make Corbin available for adoption by his stepfather. However, John did not sign the forms and filed a formal objection to the adoption once the petition was formally filed in January 2009.
Over John's objection, the adoption was granted.
Background on the Rights of Unwed Fathers
The issue on appeal before the Nebraska Supreme Court is whether the trial court correctly treated John as a "putative" father – one who was without standing to object to the adoption because he had failed to properly exercise his rights – or whether the Constitution requires that John's rights vis-à-vis Corbin be more robustly protected.
A little background on adoption law and unwed fathers' rights is necessary to understand the choice before the court:
As a general rule, a child is available for adoption when its biological parents have surrendered their parental rights or had them terminated. An adoption has the effect of severing the legal ties between the child and his biological parents, and establishing a new parent-child relationship with the adoptive parents.
In the context of a stepparent adoption, a child can retain legal ties to one biological parent, while being adopted by that parent's spouse. But here's the hitch: A child cannot have three legal parents, so, before a stepparent adoption can proceed, the child's other biological parent must be out of the picture, legally speaking. Stepparent adoptions can thus take place when the other legal parent has died, has had parental rights terminated, has relinquished parental rights, or, as allegedly occurred in this case, has failed to take the steps necessary to have legal rights as a father in the first place.
Children born out of wedlock were considered the "child of no one" in early American law; as a corollary to this principle, neither unwed mothers nor fathers were legally tied to the child. States changed that rule for mothers during the Nineteenth Century, assigning the same rights and obligations of motherhood regardless of legitimacy. But for unwed fathers, the law's shift was slower and, ultimately, the law stopped short of granting unwed fathers legal rights on par with those of unwed mothers.
By the early Twentieth Century, virtually every state imposed a duty of support on unwed fathers, enforceable through "bastardy" proceedings in civil or criminal court. But the obligation of support came with little or nothing in the way of parental rights for the fathers who desired them. Those rights came later, after a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning in the 1970's, that established constitutional protection for the rights of unwed fathers.
In the 1972 case of Stanley v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Illinois to remove three children from their father when their mother had died, simply because the couple had never married. The law in question presumed unwed fathers to be unfit, and relied upon that presumption to justify the placement of the children in foster care. But the Court said that this categorical denial of parental rights for unwed fathers violated the Due Process Clause, which had been interpreted to provide strong protection for the right of parents to control the care and upbringing of their children. In another case, Trimble v. Gordon, the Court struck down a law categorically denying illegitimate children the right to inherit from unwed fathers.
States responded to these cases by eliminating most of the categorical rules regarding unwed fathers. But rather than equalize the rights of unwed mothers (who were automatically given the full benefit of a parent-child relationship) and unwed fathers, most states adopted a compromise approach that gave full rights to unwed fathers only if they had satisfied certain criteria.
Under a typical law, an unwed father could earn full parental rights through marriage to a child's mother, being named on a birth certificate, being adjudicated the biological father, or living openly with the child and its mother. Most states also set up a "putative father registry," which would permit men who registered to be notified of proposed adoptions or other actions regarding their children.
Can Unwed Fathers Refuse to Allow Their Children to be Adopted by Another Man?
In two subsequent cases, the Supreme Court addressed the specific right that is at issue in Corbin J. – the right of unwed fathers to veto a proposed adoption. In the 1979 case of Caban v. Mohammad, the Court struck down a New York law that gave unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, the right to consent to (or veto) an adoption of their child.
The trial court in that case had permitted two children to be adopted by their stepfather without the consent of their biological father. The children were 8 and 10 years old when the adoption was proposed and had lived with both biological parents during their early years of life.
The Court rejected the idea of "any universal difference between maternal and paternal relations at every phase of a child's development," insisting that unwed mothers and fathers be treated equally with regard to children with whom they had an existing relationship. However, it left open the question whether unwed mothers and fathers necessarily deserved equal treatment with respect to infants, with whom they had not yet developed a relationship.
In 1983, the Court answered that question in Lehr v. Robertson, a case also involving a proposed stepfather adoption. In that case, the child was born in New York, which maintained a putative father registry. The child's biological father, Jonathan, was not listed in the registry, but he filed an objection to the proposed adoption of his daughter by his stepdaughter once he learned of the proceedings. He argued that a putative father's "actual or potential relationship" with a non-marital child is protected by the Due Process Clause, and also challenged the statute for providing greater procedural rights to unwed mothers than unwed fathers.
The Court, however, upheld New York's statutory scheme and its bypassing of Jonathan's consent to the child's adoption. By not satisfying any of the statutory criteria for legal fatherhood, the Court reasoned, Jonathan had not earned full-blown protection of his parental rights. As the Court wrote, the biological tie "offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a state to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie."
The Nebraska Supreme Court's Ruling in In re Corbin J.
Like most states, Nebraska has a somewhat technical scheme for dealing with the rights of unwed fathers. An adjudicated father – one who has been determined to be the father by a court of law – must give his consent in order for an adoption to proceed. A mere "putative father," however, has less solid rights.
To have standing to object to an adoption, a putative father must file a "Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody" with the state's registry within five days of the child's birth or of receiving notice of a proposed adoption. The putative father's failure to do so entitles the mother to request a certificate of non-compliance; and that certificate eliminates the need for the father's consent to an adoption. A putative father, in other words, loses his standing to object to adoption unless he makes the timely filing required by the statute.
In the Nebraska Supreme Court case, John argued that he was an adjudicated father, but he lost on this claim. Although Rusti had brought a paternity action against him, the court had issued only a temporary order before the suit was dismissed for lack of prosecution. His paternity was therefore never "adjudicated" in a final court order.
As a putative father, John had to jump through an additional hoop in order to gain standing to object to the adoption. But he did not file the requisite "Notice of Objection" within five days of learning of the Ilja's proposed adoption of Corbin. He did make his objection clear, but not until the petition to adopt was actually filed, six months later, and not in the right technical form. Under the Nebraska code, his failure to make the appropriate filing in a timely manner means, ultimately, that his "consent shall not be required" for the proposed adoption.
The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, ruled that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as applied to John. The constitutional violation, in the court's view, arose from the fact that John both was Corbin's biological father and had "established a familial relationship" with him. These two factors, the court reasoned, were enough to trigger constitutional protection for John's parental rights – per the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents on unwed fathers' rights.
Those cases, discussed above, distinguish between biological fathers who have developed a parent-child relationship with the child at issue and those who have not. To the extent that the putative father laws do not reflect that distinction, the Nebraska court held, they cannot be constitutionally applied. Here, John's longstanding relationship with Corbin was disregarded completely in the Nebraska lower-court proceedings; his parental rights were effectively severed because of his mere failure to file a simple form, just as they would have been had he never laid eyes on Corbin.
The Right Ruling; Unwed Fathers Deserve Rights When they Shoulder Commitments
The court in Corbin J. was right to stand up for the rights of unwed fathers – or at least this particular one. The putative father registries, which determine rights for unwed fathers in many states, are seldom used. Thus, there may be many men like John who are both biological and functional fathers, and yet are deprived of parental rights by technicalities. Balancing the rights of unwed fathers with adoption procedures and their goals can be tricky, but the Nebraska court was right here to side with John. Although there may well be good reasons to distinguish legally between unwed fathers and mothers in some cases, men who, like John, have acted as a father – and carried out the concomitant obligations – ought to see the benefits of that status as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law and John DeWitt Gregory Research Scholar at Hofstra University. She is the coeditor of Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press 2009), an interdisciplinary collection that explores the gaps between formal commitments to gender equality and the reality of women's lives. Her columns on family law, trusts and estates, and discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment, may be found in the archive of her columns on this site.
..Ads by FindLaw
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20091222.html
By JOANNA L. GROSSMAN
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
When can an unwed father's biological child be adopted without his consent? In a recent ruling, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the state's statutory scheme for determining the rights of unwed fathers was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff before them – an unwed father who had not been adjudicated to be a legal father, but who had maintained a longstanding familial relationship with the child.
Unwed fathers in most states do not have the same rights as unwed mothers vis-à-vis their children. Their parental rights turn not just on biology, but also on whether they have carried out the obligations of fatherhood and, in some situations, whether they have complied with technical legal requirements necessary to establish their status. The Nebraska case, In re Corbin J., reveals the limitations of this approach to determining legal fatherhood.
In re Adoption of Corbin J.: The Facts
The recent Nebraska case involves a child, Corbin J., who was born to Rusti M. in 1999. John J. is named as the father on Corbin's birth certificate, and no one disputes that John J. is, indeed, the child's biological father. Rusti and John never married, but, for the first three years of Corbin's life, the three lived together as a family. In 2002, however, Rusti took Corbin and left the house, leaving no indication of their whereabouts.
Shortly after leaving, Rusti filed a court action seeking to establish John's paternity, to get full custody of Corbin, and to impose a child support order on John. The trial court issued a temporary order granting custody to her and visitation to John, and ordering John to pay child support. For a little more than a year, John exercised his visitation rights and paid child support. During that time, Rusti married another man, Ilja M.
In July 2003, the court dismissed Rusti's paternity action for lack of prosecution (Rusti, in other words, had not taken all the steps necessary to pursue the petition.) After that ruling, John stopped paying child support for Corbin, though he continued paying for Corbin's health insurance.
In September 2003, Rusti did not arrive at the time and location where John usually picked up Corbin for visitation. Moreover, John claims that Rusti's phone had been disconnected and he had no way of knowing how to track them down. For five years, John had no contact with Corbin. He says he could not find them; she says he knew the location and phone number of her family's ranch and could easily have found them.
John received a legal notice in September 2008 informing him that Ilja, Rusti's husband, was planning to file a petition to adopt Corbin. The lawyer representing Rusti and Ilja sent John the forms necessary to relinquish his parental rights and to make Corbin available for adoption by his stepfather. However, John did not sign the forms and filed a formal objection to the adoption once the petition was formally filed in January 2009.
Over John's objection, the adoption was granted.
Background on the Rights of Unwed Fathers
The issue on appeal before the Nebraska Supreme Court is whether the trial court correctly treated John as a "putative" father – one who was without standing to object to the adoption because he had failed to properly exercise his rights – or whether the Constitution requires that John's rights vis-à-vis Corbin be more robustly protected.
A little background on adoption law and unwed fathers' rights is necessary to understand the choice before the court:
As a general rule, a child is available for adoption when its biological parents have surrendered their parental rights or had them terminated. An adoption has the effect of severing the legal ties between the child and his biological parents, and establishing a new parent-child relationship with the adoptive parents.
In the context of a stepparent adoption, a child can retain legal ties to one biological parent, while being adopted by that parent's spouse. But here's the hitch: A child cannot have three legal parents, so, before a stepparent adoption can proceed, the child's other biological parent must be out of the picture, legally speaking. Stepparent adoptions can thus take place when the other legal parent has died, has had parental rights terminated, has relinquished parental rights, or, as allegedly occurred in this case, has failed to take the steps necessary to have legal rights as a father in the first place.
Children born out of wedlock were considered the "child of no one" in early American law; as a corollary to this principle, neither unwed mothers nor fathers were legally tied to the child. States changed that rule for mothers during the Nineteenth Century, assigning the same rights and obligations of motherhood regardless of legitimacy. But for unwed fathers, the law's shift was slower and, ultimately, the law stopped short of granting unwed fathers legal rights on par with those of unwed mothers.
By the early Twentieth Century, virtually every state imposed a duty of support on unwed fathers, enforceable through "bastardy" proceedings in civil or criminal court. But the obligation of support came with little or nothing in the way of parental rights for the fathers who desired them. Those rights came later, after a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning in the 1970's, that established constitutional protection for the rights of unwed fathers.
In the 1972 case of Stanley v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Illinois to remove three children from their father when their mother had died, simply because the couple had never married. The law in question presumed unwed fathers to be unfit, and relied upon that presumption to justify the placement of the children in foster care. But the Court said that this categorical denial of parental rights for unwed fathers violated the Due Process Clause, which had been interpreted to provide strong protection for the right of parents to control the care and upbringing of their children. In another case, Trimble v. Gordon, the Court struck down a law categorically denying illegitimate children the right to inherit from unwed fathers.
States responded to these cases by eliminating most of the categorical rules regarding unwed fathers. But rather than equalize the rights of unwed mothers (who were automatically given the full benefit of a parent-child relationship) and unwed fathers, most states adopted a compromise approach that gave full rights to unwed fathers only if they had satisfied certain criteria.
Under a typical law, an unwed father could earn full parental rights through marriage to a child's mother, being named on a birth certificate, being adjudicated the biological father, or living openly with the child and its mother. Most states also set up a "putative father registry," which would permit men who registered to be notified of proposed adoptions or other actions regarding their children.
Can Unwed Fathers Refuse to Allow Their Children to be Adopted by Another Man?
In two subsequent cases, the Supreme Court addressed the specific right that is at issue in Corbin J. – the right of unwed fathers to veto a proposed adoption. In the 1979 case of Caban v. Mohammad, the Court struck down a New York law that gave unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, the right to consent to (or veto) an adoption of their child.
The trial court in that case had permitted two children to be adopted by their stepfather without the consent of their biological father. The children were 8 and 10 years old when the adoption was proposed and had lived with both biological parents during their early years of life.
The Court rejected the idea of "any universal difference between maternal and paternal relations at every phase of a child's development," insisting that unwed mothers and fathers be treated equally with regard to children with whom they had an existing relationship. However, it left open the question whether unwed mothers and fathers necessarily deserved equal treatment with respect to infants, with whom they had not yet developed a relationship.
In 1983, the Court answered that question in Lehr v. Robertson, a case also involving a proposed stepfather adoption. In that case, the child was born in New York, which maintained a putative father registry. The child's biological father, Jonathan, was not listed in the registry, but he filed an objection to the proposed adoption of his daughter by his stepdaughter once he learned of the proceedings. He argued that a putative father's "actual or potential relationship" with a non-marital child is protected by the Due Process Clause, and also challenged the statute for providing greater procedural rights to unwed mothers than unwed fathers.
The Court, however, upheld New York's statutory scheme and its bypassing of Jonathan's consent to the child's adoption. By not satisfying any of the statutory criteria for legal fatherhood, the Court reasoned, Jonathan had not earned full-blown protection of his parental rights. As the Court wrote, the biological tie "offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a state to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie."
The Nebraska Supreme Court's Ruling in In re Corbin J.
Like most states, Nebraska has a somewhat technical scheme for dealing with the rights of unwed fathers. An adjudicated father – one who has been determined to be the father by a court of law – must give his consent in order for an adoption to proceed. A mere "putative father," however, has less solid rights.
To have standing to object to an adoption, a putative father must file a "Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody" with the state's registry within five days of the child's birth or of receiving notice of a proposed adoption. The putative father's failure to do so entitles the mother to request a certificate of non-compliance; and that certificate eliminates the need for the father's consent to an adoption. A putative father, in other words, loses his standing to object to adoption unless he makes the timely filing required by the statute.
In the Nebraska Supreme Court case, John argued that he was an adjudicated father, but he lost on this claim. Although Rusti had brought a paternity action against him, the court had issued only a temporary order before the suit was dismissed for lack of prosecution. His paternity was therefore never "adjudicated" in a final court order.
As a putative father, John had to jump through an additional hoop in order to gain standing to object to the adoption. But he did not file the requisite "Notice of Objection" within five days of learning of the Ilja's proposed adoption of Corbin. He did make his objection clear, but not until the petition to adopt was actually filed, six months later, and not in the right technical form. Under the Nebraska code, his failure to make the appropriate filing in a timely manner means, ultimately, that his "consent shall not be required" for the proposed adoption.
The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, ruled that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as applied to John. The constitutional violation, in the court's view, arose from the fact that John both was Corbin's biological father and had "established a familial relationship" with him. These two factors, the court reasoned, were enough to trigger constitutional protection for John's parental rights – per the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents on unwed fathers' rights.
Those cases, discussed above, distinguish between biological fathers who have developed a parent-child relationship with the child at issue and those who have not. To the extent that the putative father laws do not reflect that distinction, the Nebraska court held, they cannot be constitutionally applied. Here, John's longstanding relationship with Corbin was disregarded completely in the Nebraska lower-court proceedings; his parental rights were effectively severed because of his mere failure to file a simple form, just as they would have been had he never laid eyes on Corbin.
The Right Ruling; Unwed Fathers Deserve Rights When they Shoulder Commitments
The court in Corbin J. was right to stand up for the rights of unwed fathers – or at least this particular one. The putative father registries, which determine rights for unwed fathers in many states, are seldom used. Thus, there may be many men like John who are both biological and functional fathers, and yet are deprived of parental rights by technicalities. Balancing the rights of unwed fathers with adoption procedures and their goals can be tricky, but the Nebraska court was right here to side with John. Although there may well be good reasons to distinguish legally between unwed fathers and mothers in some cases, men who, like John, have acted as a father – and carried out the concomitant obligations – ought to see the benefits of that status as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law and John DeWitt Gregory Research Scholar at Hofstra University. She is the coeditor of Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press 2009), an interdisciplinary collection that explores the gaps between formal commitments to gender equality and the reality of women's lives. Her columns on family law, trusts and estates, and discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment, may be found in the archive of her columns on this site.
..Ads by FindLaw
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20091222.html