Unbiased Reporting

What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Fight For the Return of My Grandchildren KIDNAPPED by NH DCYF Goes On!

As I have stated since October 3rd, 2005, when my granddaughter Isabella was kidnapped by Nashua, NH DCYF, due to a young assessment worker, just out of college, who investigated nothing before filing a petition to kidnap my granddaughter, I will NOT give up on this fight for my grandchildren.This young, stupid assessment worker, who bragged she was the youngest person working for DCYF. What a thing to brag about. She should have been holding her head down in shame. She was too lazy to do a real investigation, so she spoke to an old witch at the methadone clinic, who she didn't have permission to talk to. The old witch that forges signatures and discusses confidential session's of her client's with other client's in the program. Why she's still there is beyond me. Oh, it must be because of all the new babies she's supplying the state with! I wonder how much of a cut she's getting for each and every mother she lies about.
During my fight, I've been told by the high and mighty DCYF to move on with my life. To forget about my grandchildren. I, unlike DCYF, have a conscience. I have feeling's, unlike DCYF. I love my grandchildren and am fighting for justice, legally. Something else they know nothing about. I will never give up this fight. My grandchildren were taken illegally, due to the lies of so many so called people. The methadone counselor who perjured herself in court was the first. The health center hid my daughters records for five month's and then they were not allowed admitted into evidence in court. The witch testified the methadone given to my daughter in labor didn't reach the baby, so the morphine IV in labor for nineteen hours wouldn't have reached her either. The toxicology reports show the baby was NEVER tested for methadone!
As I go through the hospital and Doctor's records, quite often as I no longer have a life, thank's to DCYF and their cronies,it amazes me how much more evidence I find proving everyone involved to be nothing but liars. Just tonight I found more evidence. The social worker at DCYF's cohort hospital in Nashua, K.L. called in a report of abuse and neglect against my daughter on September 2nd 2005, stating morphine in my granddaughter. My granddaughter was born on August 31st. The toxicology reports weren't even back until Sept. 4th and 6th. So I guess that means she's a psychic just like the DCYF worker's and their lying Lawyer's. I also just found out that this same social worker told DCYF that my granddaughter was put in NICU immediately after she was born. Another lie! She and three nurses signed off on my granddaughter's discharge on Sept. 1st, stating she met all criteria for discharge on Sept. 2nd. That was until the crooked counselor J.W.from the methadone clinic talked her into moving the baby into NICU at 10 PM on the night of Sept. 1st, claiming the baby was withdrawing, only ALL hospital records show she wasn't. Shall we call this medicaid fraud also? Putting a baby that is NOT withdrawing on morphine and keeping her in the hospital for a month. How much is the cohort hospital getting for a cut for helping kidnap new babies?
I also found out tonight, that DCYF doesn't have just one lying Lawyer in Nashua,they have two. The first one committed perjury at the preliminary hearing for my daughter, relaying a false report to the Judge, without evidence of course, which was proven false almost two week's earlier. A lie has kept Isabella from my husband and I all this time, along with other relatives who spoke to Supervisor Tracy G, who stated, "Relative placement is NOT an option. Isabella is being placed in foster care, period!" And then told the court's there were no relatives who wanted her. The Supervisor who pushes around the new district manager. I wish he'd throw her out on her a--! Her day is coming. I hope she enjoy's the unemployment line.
After Austin and his sister were placed in my home, by the Nashua PD, because they do what their supposed to do when a parent is arrested, unlike DCYF, the other lying Lawyer got the Judge to sign a motion to modify placement. She argued with the Judge at the preliminary hearing, stating Isabella's mother lived with us. He said it didn't matter. As long as she didn't babysit. I just came across a paper in the file, where she stated to the court that I said I would not make my daughter (Isabella's mother) leave. And here I thought only K.M. was the only lying lawyer. Now I find out she is also. I guess she was afraid to tell the court what was really said, so she made up a lie about me. She told me she didn't want Isabella's mother to have contact with Austin and his sister. I asked her," And what does the Judge have to say about that?" Her response, "Nothing. The Judge has no say. It's all up to me."
Our government need's to start holding these sorry excuses of human beings accountable. Isn't kidnapping illegal? Then why does DCYF kidnap children every day and get away with it? Doesn't our federal government see what's going on? The federal funding need's to stop. If DCYF weren't getting paid to kidnap our children, maybe then they would work to preserve families. Oh, that's right, they don't know the meaning of "family preservation."
One more thing, does it make sense to place a child back in the SAME foster home where he tried to hang himself. Where he was being fed pretzels and water? Yes, Austin is back in the same foster stranger's home and DCYF has let these stranger's adopt him. Funny, his father's right's weren't even terminated and neither were Isabella's father's. Hopefully, the next time he tries to kill himself, he won't succeed. But I'm sure he'll try again. That is unless he's on even more drug's now than what DCYF already put him on. Pretty good. Their hired to protect children, but they don't even know how to handle them without drugging them!
Police: Man killed crying stepdaughter

Updated Jun 29, 2010 1:12 AM ET
A Texas man accused of fatally beating his 2-year-old stepdaughter when she wouldn't stop crying as he watched a World Cup game has been charged with capital murder.

McAllen Police Sgt. Joel Morales says 27-year-old Hector Castro was charged Monday after his Saturday arrest. Castro is being held on $1 million bond at the Hidalgo County jail, where a booking clerk says he does not yet have an attorney.

Police Chief Victor Rodriguez says Castro told investigators the toddler wouldn't stop crying while he was trying to watch the U.S.-Ghana matchup Saturday.

Rodriguez says the child was severely beaten and suffered several broken ribs. Police say a screw or bolt was forced down her throat in an apparent attempt to make it look like she choked to death.


The Abuse in Child Protective Services

The Abuse in Child Protective Services

There is an epidemic which is not viral or bacterial. That epidemic is known as Child Protective Services who legally kidnap and sell our children for profit.

Alice Samantha Thomason with her girls who have been stolen by Jackson County

PRLog (Press Release) – Jun 28, 2010 – There is an epidemic in our country one that is not airborne or viral. This epidemic is so rampant that it has affected even our elected officials.
The epidemic was created and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1976 under the Adoption and Safe Families Act and revised under Bill Clinton in 1996 when he added Title IV Funding.
This epidemic allowed Child Protective Services under the guise of “Best Interest of the Child” to legally kidnap and sell our children. Under Title IV-E Funding caseworkers are allowed to snatch children under “reasonable suspicion”. Once this happens and the child is placed with a foster care provider the county office makes money as much as $6,000.00. The foster care provider is paid a monthly check for the “care” of that child. However, it gets better, the foster care provider can earn more than the “monthly” check if the child has siblings or is considered “special needs”. A foster care provider can make as little as $2,000.00 per year and over $20,000.00 per year and all of this is non- taxable under Title IV-E Funding. If a child is considered special needs the foster care provider is paid additional monies for things they do for that child ie combing hair, dressing, giving medication, cooking for that child, birthday and Christmas gifts, driving that child to appointments. All this adds up in a month.
The wealth is spread around to the juvenile courts when a parent’s rights are terminated. They receive up to $6.000.00 per child for every child their tear away from the parents. The local CPS office also receives a bonus for every child that is taken from their parents under the termination of rights after their monthly goal is met. The caseworker earns a bonus for every child who is adopted out: http://library.adoption.com/articles/summary-of-the-adop ...
In Georgia alone in 2009 there were over one half million children stolen from their parents by Child Protective Services. The standard “charge” deprivation” which is listed in the Ga. criminal statutes as a felony under Ga. Criminal Code 16-5-70. However, they are not criminally charged, the reason, no evidence.
Child Protective Services operate under the guise of secrecy, threats and intimidation. They convince the parent they have no rights. This is in direct violation of the 1st,4th,6th,and 14th amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. These parents are not allowed due process, not allowed access to any discovery and are not allowed to question their accuser or witnesses. They are not allowed to have their own witnesses in fact in most courts it is considered closed.
The 13th amendment is violated in that the children are used as cash cows for income for foster care provider and adoptive parents who also earn a monthly check for that child under Title IV-E Funding until that child is eighteen years old. The child is also covered under Medicare until they turn eighteen. When the adoptive family adopts a foster child they are allowed to claim up to $15,000.00 in adoption fees on that year’s taxes.
Once these children enter the system several things can and do happen. They are abused in foster care and or adoptive care. They are used as income and they more likely than not enter the criminal justice system as an adult. 95% of all kids in out of home care end up in prison.
We are losing our children to abuse, greed and corruption by Child Protective Services. No one is watching the watchers. No one is holding them accountable for their actions. As the economy spirals downward there will be more children stolen and sold for the revenue dollars they generate for the coffers of Child Protective Services and the courts. Governors, state representatives and other elected officials turn a blind eye to this abuse. They know it is happening but they refuse to fix it.
As I researched this abuse, the more corruption, greed and abuse I uncovered. The more horror stories of families torn apart and children killed and abused in foster care and adoptive homes came to light.
The more research I did the more I found collusion between the attorneys for Child Protective Services, juvenile courts and Child Protective Services especially in Jackson County, Georgia. They all three operate under the same manual. The caseworkers are taught in workshops how to force the parent to sign away their rights – how to falsify records, how to get around “reasonable efforts” to help reunify families.
All of these manuals and acts can be found on my site:
This is first in a series of articles I will be writing and posting.

# # #

Yvonne Mason, Published Author Bounty Hunter and Motovational Speaker
Author of Stan's Story, A Touch of Love, Tangled Minds, Brilliant Insanity and soon to be released true crime Silent scream


Monday, June 28, 2010

Question to Children Protective Services What Are We Doing To Our Children?

Question to Children Protective Services

What Are We Doing To Our Children?

Once again, a child died. As usual, we learn that Child welfare officials were familiar with the family, but naturally they did not do anything to prevent the death from occuring. Once again, a CPS worker had the opportunity to know that child was in danger. Once again, the wrong decision was fatal.

If you don't have over 2 million falsely accused families for child abuse,or the newborns taken from the delivery room maybe..... than you will be able to save those Children's life.

If states can't keep children safe, how can they take children from their parents? There are hundreds of incidents of children being killed in foster care. It is proven that government is a terrible, abusive "parent". The government should have parental right removed, permanently!

"The phenomenon of children dying in state care is one that deserves special scrutiny.We know that there are many more deaths than made the newspapers.The total number of children who die annually while under state care is unknown.While multiple agencies track their numbers, no central tracking agency exists and tracking methods differ between agencies.That's one of the issues should be addressed." Justice Maura Corrigan

"Our system is broken. The Department of Human Services is a mess. It's terrible for kids.We still have children dying. We still have children being moved around. The more we ignore the reality of this, our children are going to pay." said Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, a frequent critic of DHS who has called for the agency to be broken up into three separate parts to better focus its resources on children and families.

Since 2002, 30,000 children have died from child abuse, suicide or homicide in the United States, compared with about 5,000 American troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. But more attention has been paid to the troops dying" - By Michael Petit, president of Every Child Matters Education Fund

So I´m asking, what are we doing to our children?

"These are the state's children.And if you live in a democracy, then these are your children.Don't you want to know, when your child dies, how and when and why they died?" -- By Robert Fellmeth of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego

"The department sees putting a roof over a child's head as its only job.The loss of self, the loss of trust that happens when we take these kids away from their parents-we don't address that." -- By State Sen. Donne E. Trotter


Stranded in the Foster Care System


classified experiments on humans

article: classified experiments on humans

Filed under: articles, blog post by FRV June 23, 2010
Ten years have passed since unethical radiation experiments were publicly revealed in 1990s front page news and the Office for Human Subject Research, OHRP, recently confirmed that there have been no changes in federal regulations on human subjects of classified research since then. In 1995 the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, (ACHRE) reported that the federal government was “blameworthy for not having had policies and practices in place to protect the rights and interests of human subjects” in several thousand experiments. President Clinton adopted one of the ACHRE recommendations in a 1997 presidential memorandum requesting that federal agencies modify their policy governing classified research. A 1998 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) proposed rule on the Clinton memorandum has stalled and secret unethical experimentation could happen again.
This is the second time a major scandal involving human experiments for national security purposes has occurred. Past military and CIA experiments with toxic chemicals and for behavior modification were headline news in the 1970s. Congressional hearings uncovered illegal and extensive government programs including the CIA’s now infamous MKULTRA mind control experiments. As a result, a series of presidential executive orders were implemented.
President Reagan’s 1981 executive order, E.O. 12333, is the only current law governing classified experiments by intelligence agencies. Legal experts say it is unenforceable for several reasons, one being that a provision of the executive order states, “Nothing contained herein or in any procedures promulgated hereunder is intended to confer any substantive or procedural right or privilege on any person or organization.”
Federal regulations are ineffective – Adopted by 17 federal agencies, the current regulations on experiments are called “The Common Rule”. The rules cover both classified and unclassified experiments and include the cornerstone of human experimentation law, informed consent of the research subject. But experts agree the regulations lack any mechanisms for how classified research can be reviewed and conducted with informed consent.
Efforts to adopt a regulation on classified research have failed. A new draft regulation has been circulated but it’s current status could not be confirmed. Some experts say US national security policy on weapons development is the main reason for the lack of effective protections for human subjects of classified experiments.
9-11 secrecy law increases risk of unethical experiments – “It borders on the scandalous that we still don’t have rules in place that would at least begin to protect the people who are in those trials,” warned Jonathan D. Moreno in a 2002 news account. Dr. Moreno, a University of Virginia ethicist reported that President Bush had given the Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] the authority to classify information as secret. Moreno said “that could allow the Defense Department or CIA to undertake secret human experiments with the HHS.”
Dr. Andrew Goliszek, author of the 2003 book, “History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation” warned, “While there is much debate, there are no clear guidelines or legislation that would prevent the government from conducting secret research in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists who would use bio weapons against us.”
Proposed legislation fails – Fred Allingham is executive director of the National Association of Radiation Survivors, NARS, a network of 11,000 radiation survivors. Allingham recently described NARS legislative work. “Five to eight years ago, our members brought a proposed Nuclear Ethics Law to their local congresspeople (over 200) asking them to sponsor such a piece of legislation in order to make it not only a civil wrong but a criminal wrong, to expose people to radiation deliberately for experimental purposes… Not one congressman touched it. We … decided we are going to try again.”
Former Senator Glenn of Ohio described his 1997 bill as “the nation’s first criminal sanctions for medical researchers who fail to obtain consent from people participating in experiments.” The bill did not pass. Congressman Diane Degette of Colorado will reintroduce her 2002 bill on experimentation very soon, her office reported last week.
No national statute on protections for human subjects of classified experimentation that would help to prevent national security experiments like the radiation or mind control experiments has passed.
Lack of justice in the courts – Lawyers of radiation and mind control experiments litigation describe a nightmare of legal hurdles. Courts give great deference to national security and the government is immune to many types of lawsuits. While the government admitted to wrongdoing, not one government official or researcher involved in mind control or radiation experiments has been punished.
A 1994 US News account reported few victims of the drug and behavior control experiments were told what was done to them and most were never compensated. Radiation victims report a similar tragedy. A huge number are not eligible for the available legislative compensation because of extremely demanding requirements.
No change in sight – Commenting on the total lack of legal protections, law professor Alan Scheflin stated, “The message to scientists and governments around the world is that you can get away with unlawful experiments on unwitting victims with impunity.” New classified weapons comparable to the atomic bomb have actually been in development for a long time and classified, unethical human experiments are inevitable, without major changes.
Coping with the Weapons of Tomorrow, a 2003 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) conference featured a discussion of concerns about new nonlethal weapons using electromagnetic energy. A disarmament expert read from the 1975 Geneva protocol treaty debates about the then-future weapons including, “…geophysical, ecological, electronic and radiological warfare as well as devices generating radiation, microwaves, infrasonic waves, light flashes and laser beams”.
According to Dr. Colin Ross, author of Project Bluebird, on CIA experiments, new nonlethal weapons “are beamed at individuals in order to control them.” Dr. Ross predicted, “It is implausible that there hasn’t been some clandestine experiments of nonlethal weapons on individuals today.”

Source: “Protections for human subjects of classified experiments still lacking” by Cheryl Welsh, November 2003, mindjustice.org


by J. Holderbaum
June 28, 2010

It has to end

In the United States of America our child protection industry is engaging in Medicaid fraud, racketeering and human rights abuses. We have granted the child protection industry unlimited power to remove children from their families on the basis of suspicion alone. There is no system of accountability or oversight in place to deter this. Its mission of protecting children has been undermined by a criminal element. We are allowing criminals to use child protection for their own greed and personal agendas.

It has to end.

Child abuse is a crime. It is assault, rape, torture, starvation and homicide. It is violent crime and the evidence is obvious. There is no mystery to it. We must bring science, logic and reason back into the way we handle violent crimes against children. We must base our statistics on scientific evidence, not mere accusations.

We must remove the perpetrator, not the child.

We are accusing our citizens of crimes without the use of forensic evidence and denying them due process in a criminal court of law. We are tearing children out of the arms of their mothers and fathers, and their extended families without evidence of a crime. We are warehousing children in foster homes and facilities across the nation without evidence of a crime. We are allowing children to be exposed to sexual abuse in the custody of the states. We are allowing children to be used in servitude in the custody of the states. We are allowing children to be brutalized and murdered in the custody of the states. There are children aging out of foster care into homelessness and crime.

Our prisons are filled with children who grew up in foster care. It has to end.

Taking children for profit and abusing them in state custody is not what Walter Mondale had in mind when he signed CAPTA into law in 1974. It is not what Bill Clinton had in mind when he signed ASFA into law in 1997 and it is not what Hilary Clinton had in mind when she wrote "It Takes a Village."

These leaders entrusted our professionals working within the child protection industry with the resources to protect abused and orphaned children. It was a noble gesture. But child protection let us down. They failed to fulfill their promise to our children, our leaders and to our great nation. They engage in egregious violations of law and human rights abuses. The industry has been taken over by criminals who have no decency or integrity.

They have crossed the line. They have turned child protection into a national disgrace and it has to end.

We can't reform an industry that commits atrocities against children. We must start over with new ideas and a completely different approach. We must change the way we think about child abuse and child protection. We must focus our efforts on helping impoverished families build better lives for themselves, not try to turn a profit on human suffering. It is not only impoverished families who are being subjected to brutality. It is any family who can't afford a costly legal defense against it.

Your family could be next. It has to end.

If we tear down the child protection industry and return to the practice of criminal investigations under due process of law in criminal court, the number of cases will drop dramatically. We will have the resources we need to help our impoverished and save billions of tax dollars at the same time.

We must do better than this for the future of our nation.

We must free our mandated reporters from the threat of losing their licenses if they don't report their suspicions. Let them go back to healing, teaching, protecting and serving without this constant threat hanging over their heads. We must trust that they are competent and intelligent enough to make a distinction between crime and poverty.

We are turning neighbor against neighbor, family against teachers, doctors, police officers, politicians and our country by allowing the criminal element in child protection to continue on this course.

It has to end.

I encourage every American to join together to:

1. Call for an immediate nationwide moratorium on all child abuse investigations that do not use forensic evidence;

2. Call for the immediate transfer of power from child protective services to a division of law enforcement specializing in investigations of violent crime. These investigations must include the use of forensic evidence, and must be conducted independently of anyone working within child protection or in the promotion of child protection, with no financial incentives for taking children whatsoever;

3. Call for immediate state and federal investigations of every organization affiliated with child protection and family court across the nation for the crimes of Medicaid fraud, racketeering and all other crimes, including crimes against humanity;

4. Call for the return of children to families who were accused of crimes and denied due process in criminal court keeping in mind that some children may never be going home.

5. Call for a repeal of CAPTA to end mandated reporting and the child abuse hotline and end the practice of central registries for all cases not proven in a criminal court of law.

Thank you,

J. Holderbaum
Child Protection Reform


Sunday, June 27, 2010

Baby LK Report For June 27th 2010 www.youtube.com

Study links bullying to cognitive deficits, brain changes-Good Article for DCYF!

This is a good article for DCYF to read, especially when they blame parent's for their children's mistakes and then ultimately refuse them custody of their grandchildren!

Sunday, June 27, 2010
Study links bullying to cognitive deficits, brain changes
Toronto Globe and Mail

They lurk in hallways, bathrooms, around the next blind corner.
But for the children they have routinely teased or tormented, bullies effectively live in the victims’ brains, as well – and not just as a terrifying memory.
Preliminary evidence shows that bullying can produce signs of stress, cognitive deficits and mental-health problems.
Now, University of Ottawa psychologist Tracy Vaillancourt and her colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., plan to scan the brains of teens who have been regularly humiliated and ostracized by their peers to look for structural differences compared with other children.
“We know there is a functional difference. We know their brains are acting differently, but we don’t know if it is structural, as well,” said Vaillancourt, an expert in the biology of bullying.
She says she hopes her work will legitimize the plight of children who are bullied and encourage parents, teachers and school boards to take the problem more seriously.
Vaillancourt has been following a group of 17-year-olds since they were 12. All 70 of the children were routinely bullied during those years – teased, harassed, threatened or excluded.
Physical violence is relatively rare, she says, because their tormentors are smart enough to know it will get them into trouble.
“For many of these kids, every day is a nightmare,” Vaillancourt said.
They go to school and no one will talk to them. Someone deliberately bumps into them in the hallway, and all the other children laugh. They get called horrible names.
The researchers will start with brain scans of 15 of the extreme cases, such as the child who stood in her gym uniform while other kids put her school clothes in the toilet and urinated on them.
There also are teenagers in the study who have been bullied for five straight school years.
The scientists have already shown that children who are bullied are more likely than other kids to have cognitive deficits. They score lower on tests that measure verbal memory and executive function, a set of skills needed to focus on a task and get the job done. Mental-health problems, such as depression, are also more common.
Vaillancourt suspects they will also have a smaller hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory. Depression has been shown to be related to a smaller hippocampus.
As well, animal studies have shown that chronic high levels of stress can kill brain cells. Vaillancourt says this kind of damage may help explain why children who are bullied often perform poorly academically.
She will also be looking for a smaller prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in being able to pay attention and other executive functions.
These kinds of differences have been documented in functional magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, studies of children who have been neglected or abused. Vaillancourt suspects the chronic stress of being bullied will have a similar impact.
She and her colleagues have already published research showing that boys who are bullied tend to produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. It’s as if their system is in permanent overdrive.
It’s the opposite for the girls; they tend to produce less cortisol than average, as though their stress response system is overly subdued. “At some point, their brains stop reacting,” said Vaillancourt, who holds a Canada Research Chair in children’s mental health and violence prevention.
These changes to the brain’s stress response system may be linked to the higher rates of depression among children who are regularly picked on by their peers, especially girls. The adolescent years are when peer relations are most important and when girls, more than anything, want to belong, Vaillancourt says.


The American Form of Government


Children Need Both Parents
Posted by FAIR RULINGS on June 27, 2010

HHS OIG Oversight of States' Subgrantee Monitoring in the Foster Care Program

HHS OIG Oversight of States' Subgrantee Monitoring in the Foster Care Program

Foster Parents vs NH DCYF

From Expert Law Forum-Help with your Legal questions

Join Date: May 2009

Foster Parents vs DCYF
My question involves child abuse/neglect/guardianship questions in the State of: NH

*** I know that there are hundreds of requests for help in these forums and it is only by the member's generosity of time, that the questions can be answered. I know that the idea is to be as brief as possible, but the complexity of my problem over the past 7 years has grown enormous. If those inclined to help out do not wish to read such a lengthy summary, PLEASE JUST SKIP to my questions at the end and ask further questions of me as needed - I don't mind re-answering anything already described below. ***

Over the past 16 years, as a specialized/therapeutic foster home,my husband and I have adopted five boys (9,10,13,19,21) through the foster care system, most with significant special needs that had been unsuccessful in multiple prior placements (Bipolar, Autism, Epilepsy, feeding tube, mental retardation).

In addition, we have a foster child who I will call "Jay" (13), who has been living with us full time for 7 years, with a couple of exceptions. He has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, ADHD, PTSD, and has learning disabilities and an auditory processing disorder). As with all of our children (when still in foster care), we have been actively involved in all aspects of Jay's care and life.

When we got Jay at 6 years old, he had already been in ten foster homes over a period of about 2 years. He was horribly abused and had tremendous behavior difficulties. As is often the case with DCYF, we received few details at the outset, and over the next several months, he destroyed thousands of dollars worth of property, had aggressive and sexualized behaviors, psychotic symptoms; hearing voices, playing with fire, lying, stealing etc - you get the picture). However, through all of this, we kept Jay, for which DCYF was enormously grateful.

Over the years, Jay has improved in many areas, but still requires constant 1:1 supervision, due to impulsivity, hearing voices telling him to hurt people at times, poor decision making leading to safety issues and very poor social skills and peer interaction. We have remained committed to Jay through all of this.
As a side note: parental rights have been terminated.

The problem is as follows: DCYF feels Jay should have the opportunity to be adopted by a family, and if we don't agree to be that family, they want to look elsewhere. We want Jay to remain with us, with some part time weekend residential/therapeutic component as recommended by his mental health providers. Jay has stated his preference to never be moved anywhere, even if we can't adopt him, as he considers us his only real family. The only reason we have not yet adopted Jay is that due to his extreme needs, and uncertain mental health status in the future, we fear losing all the services currently available to him as a foster child. DCYF has refused to consider keeping these services in place after adoption, although they have the ability to approve them.

This case is unusual in that upon our request, the probate judge has made us "parties to the case", which gives us many rights not typically afforded to foster parents. In addition, due to DCYF's refusal to follow court orders, we hired an attorney and filed contempt charges against them, which were eventually dropped in exchange for an out of court agreement, signed as a court order, that markedly limits the DCYF's ability to make unilateral decisions about Jay's care, treatment or placement.

Despite this, DCYF continues to directly violate the terms of the court agreement, making unilateral decisions and acting out of spite, rather than doing what the court approved "team" has recommended. None of the "team" agrees with DCYF; not his long term psychiatrist and psychologist; not his CASA/GAL and most importantly, not the court, which has ruled against DCYF multiple times in their quest to have Jay moved to another home who might be willing to adopt him. It should also be noted that DCYF has in the past, placed him on the National Adopt USA website with no response for for 15 + months.

With DCYF's continued lack of regard for the law or court orders, I am again in the position of having to seek an attorney's help to file new contempt charges to stop DCYF from trying to remove him from our home if we don't agree to keep him full time under their conditions. Although I may be able to somehow come up with enough money for one more round, I can't continue to do this on a long term basis, which is possible given DCYF's past actions.

The reason this has been so lengthy is that I would like to ask those in the legal forums with so much expertise, to suggest possible solutions to this problem - some new, fresh ideas to this untenable situation.

We have considered asking for guardianship, but as there is no subsidized guardianship available in NH, this is not an option. Co-guardianship would
work but requires the consent of both parties and DCYF has flatly refused to consider this. Does anyone know of some way around this such as some type of partial guardianship or limited guardianship; could we try to get guardianship over medical/psychiatric treatment, or placement or ???. Could we ask the court to limit the duties of DCYF in terms of their guardianship over Jay. Are there any guardianship loopholes, avenues to

What about some type of power of attorney over some part of Jay's care/treatment that would in turn limit DCYF's power?

Were we to adopt Jay, would it be within the power of the probate court (or higher court) to order that, in addition to the normal subsidy, services such as transportation, respite, unusual costs (ie destruction, acute care services in times of crisis) and therapeutic summer programming (over what the school provides) must be kept in place?

My attorney thus far, has not been able to come up with anything else, and has spent most of her time focusing on the court agreement/DCYF contempt and putting out fires/objecting to DCYF motions to remove team members that don't agree with them and most recently, DCYF's motion to vacate the court agreement.

I have spent hours and hours researching the law to the best of my ability as a lay person, but have not found anything specific enough to pursue as an alternative. I suppose my last ditch effort would be to go public with the case, within the limits of confidentiality requirements. Perhaps public outrage would spur on closer scrutiny of DCYF's actions and their total disregard for the law.

Any help or suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. PLEASE!

Thank you,a NH foster parent

06-01-2009, 07:02 PM
Mr. Knowitall
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,603
Re: Foster Parents vs DCYF
It sounds like you've had an effective lawyer working for you, and that you have an unusually complicated case history and situation. The short question appears to be, is there a way to get the benefits and support of a foster parent when adopting, or when taking custody by some other means; the short answer is "not that I'm aware of." A lawyer could spend a lot of hours chasing possibilities, most of which will turn out to be dead ends or things you already know.

I really do wish that I had a brilliant idea that would get you out of this mess.

06-01-2009, 08:19 PM

Junior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Re: Foster Parents vs DCYF
Thank you for taking the time to read the post and for your answer, although
I really do wish you had a "brilliant idea" that would get me out of this

I guess I'll keep on plugging away, even if I have to do it without an attorney
the next time, while foolishly hoping that in the future, DCYF will actually do what "is in the best interests of the child" and act with integrity instead of

Thanks again for your reply.

A foster parent

Friday, June 25, 2010

The washington dc family rights movement against cps

The washington dc family rights movement against cps
Jane Boyer

The Family Rights Movement has been around for years.

Families have taken a new turn in the United States and are now saying enough.

When a family finds their lives devastated by entities privately contracted through our government all to often they have no where to turn.

2010 proves to be a very interesting year for families here in the United States as they reach out to other families afflicted.

In the course of families being destroyed by these entities they are now joining together to tell political elected officials they want change.

Families will lobby and speak out on Capitol Hill July 23 - 25.

The goal is and should be to show how many in mass numbers are affected by the families these private entities that no longer work for you, us, and our families.

The hope of gathering is that our elected officials will take notice and start to work for We The People as it should be.

We want them to take notice that change is needed and strive towards reforming or eliminating those entities that harm family values, family, morals, and family unity.

We the ones working for this change ask you those affected to take a step forward with us and use your voices.

Show your numbers this year on Capitol Hill with the voice God gave you for preserving your Right to be a Parent.

Once we unite from all across America in a mass quantity that is drastically needed the government will have no other recourse than to acknowledge and change
where entities have done wrong.

Thank you for your time.

All Who Have Worked To Bring We The People Family Preservation Fest to D.C

ADHD Diagnose and the True Nature of Children


Thursday, June 24, 2010

Foster Agency Accused of Forcing Teen to Abort Now Threatens Whistleblowers

Foster Agency Accused of Forcing Teen to Abort Now Threatens Whistleblowers

By James Tillman

PHILADELPHIA, PA, June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Luz Navarro, a foster-mother who earlier this year had four minors under her care, had all of them removed from her home after she told a newspaper that a Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworker forced one of the children to have an abortion.

Now Concilio, a social-service agency that oversees fostering cases and subcontracts for Philadelphia, has allegedly tried to intimidate and silence other foster parents by falsely stating that Navarro will be going to jail.

After she became pregnant, the 16-year-old foster child in Navarro's care had initially been thrilled to be expecting, and had told her 1-year-old that he would have a little brother.

But according to Navarro, a social worker with the Philadelphia Department of Human services threatened to take away both of the girl's children unless she had an abortion.

"She said that if she decided to have the infant she wasn't going to let her have both babies," Navarro said. "They wouldn't be together."

After Navarro told the Philadelphia Daily News about the social worker's actions, the DHS took away all of the foster children in her care.

City spokesman Douglas Oliver has said that the foster mother violated HIPAA by revealing confidential information about the minor in her charge. Nevertheless, no charges have yet been pursued against Navarro.

But according to the Philadelphia Daily News, Concilio is now attempting to silence other foster parents by alleging that Navarro will be jailed.

"Lawyers for the city and for Concilio will sue ... the person who was a foster [parent]," a Concilio foster-care coordinator told foster parents, according to a foster parent speaking anonymously. "The sentence could be five to 10 years in jail."

The coordinator claimed to be reading a letter from Philadelphia Department of Human Services commissioner Anne Marie Ambrose. But according to a spokeswoman from the DHS, Ambrose never wrote anything like this.

Concilio also said that the city would be suing Marisol Rivera, a former Concilio employee who had been fired because she did not want to cooperate in the abortion.

"They hired me to work in child protection, not to kill children," Rivera told the Daily News.

Rivera had been threatened after she refused to drive the girl to an abortuary. Rivera acquiesced after she discovered that a prior trip to the abortuary had already killed the baby, but was fired after she told Concilio's human-relations director about the threat.

According to the Daily News Concilio has also recently imposed new confidentiality rules, holding small group meetings with foster parents to discuss them and have them sign new contracts.

The new contract states that foster parents are forbidden to tell "the child's history with neighbors, friends, relatives or any other persons(s) not directly involved with the professional care of the child." It is also more than twice as long as the previous contract.

Rivera has said confidentiality was never a priority before the story of the forced abortion came out.

Jheovannie Williams, the same Concilio employee who allegedly threatened the foster parents, also reportedly told parents not to believe the “lies” in the newspaper, or the people who are "united to create chaos."

To contact Concilio:
Phone: (215) 627-3100
705-09 N. Franklin Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19123

To contact the Philadelphia Department of Human Services:
Anne Marie Ambrose, Commissioner
1515 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102


CPS - Child Trafficking is Domestic Terrorism, Ret NYPD Jim Rothstein w Greg Szymanski




Justice is failing - Backup


The Anatomy of Child Welfare Fraud: Part 1 - Targeted Case Management


Isabella Knightly's Father's Right's NEVER Terminated Before ILLEGAL NH Adoption

This picture was taken before Isabella's mother's right's were terminated. The foster stranger's took it upon themselves to cut her hair and pierce her ear's, which was illegal without the parent's permission. If a parent whines, DCYF states,"Oh so what, they made a mistake." Well what about biological parent's. They make a mistake and lose their child forever. Why do foster stranger's NOT have to be perfect, but REAL parents do?

Isabella Brooke Knightly, formerly of Nashua, NH's father's right's were never terminated either. The caseworker in my daughter's case gave the court a fictitious mans name instead of Isabella's father's name. The only reason I can think of why DCYF would do anything so underhanded is because their too lazy and greedy to take the time to find the REAL father, which means they can terminate the mother's rights quicker.
If DCYF and the Court's made it a practice of actually reading the court-ordered medical files, they would have seen the caseworker gave the wrong name of Isabella's father.
When Isabella's mother was made aware that the wrong man's right's were terminated to a daughter he never fathered, she filed an affidavit with the Hillsborough County Probate Court. The Judge denied ever receiving the affidavit and granted the ILLEGAL adoption of Isabella just a few day's later. The affidavit was in an objection brief filed by the NH Attorney General's Office, to a brief I filed with the Supreme Court in this never ending fight for my granddaughter. If the Probate Judge never received the affidavit, then how did it get in an objection brief filed by the AG's office? More FRAUD! So in all actuality the adoption of Isabella is also an ILLEGAL adoption which should be reversed by the NH Supreme Court. Maybe when Hell freezes over!
Isabella's REAL father filed for custody and a paternity test twice. The same Probate Judge denied him his rights to his daughter. The same Judge who has been denying us our grandchildren all along.The one who keep's claiming we have no standing. Sorry Judge, We actually do have standing! He'd better start reading up on the Law.
Isabella belongs with her family. The family who made sure she was born healthy. The family who took care of her mother night and day, because her prenatal Doctor's didn't bother to treat her for any of the complications she suffered. Why did we even bother to take such good care of an unborn child only to have DCYF and the state of NH steal her and benefit from her Illegal removal and ILLEGAL adoption? Because we're family. Something DCYF and the NH Court's know nothing about!

Austin Knightly's Father's Rights NEVER Terminated Beforee ILLEGAL NH Adoption

This picture of Austin must have been taken before his daily dose of medication. Is this the picture DCYF showed the Judge before the adoption? I'm sure the Judge wouldn't have cared. He doesn't care about anything else!

Austin Ricardo Gamez-Knightly, formerly of Nashua, NH before his illegal kidnapping by Nashua, NH DCYF. Austin's father, Ricardo Gamez of Honduras, was never notified by the State of NH that his son was in state custody, even though ALL information was given to Nashua DCYF, which included his birthday, social security number and address. Austin's mother's caseworker told her ad's were placed in the Mexico newspaper's, not Honduras, even though they were well aware of his address.
Austin's mother was given paperwork from the Hillsborough County Probate Court, stating Austin's father's rights were being terminated. After reading over the paperwork, Austin's mother and myself noticed the year of birth on the paperwork for Austin's father was NOT the year of Austin's father's birthday. His father was born in 1969. The false father's birthday is in 1980 and lives in Nashua. We immediately told the caseworker they had the wrong man. Her response, "Oh well. No big deal. It doesn't matter." It certainly DOES matter and it IS a big deal. A fictitious man's rights were terminated to a child he never fathered. Austin's REAL father should have rights to his son. The Hillsborough County Probate Court Judge is right up there with DCYF when it comes to FRAUD. This isn't the first time the Judge has been made aware that father's whose rights are being terminated, are NOT the REAL father's, yet he still goes ahead and terminates the rights and then grants adoption of these children, ILLEGALLY! Therefore the adoption of Austin is ILLEGAL! His name change before he was adopted, was also ILLEGAL! Is there anything DCYF and this Judge do that IS legal, or is that all they know is to practice FRAUD!
Austin need's to come home and the fraudulent adoption need's to be reversed by the NH Supreme Court. If Austin can't be with his parent's, he belongs with his grandparent's. The people he loves most in this world. The NH Supreme Court need's to get it's act together and stop the fraud practiced in the NH Court's. They need to stop coetowing to DCYF and the AG.s office. Families are being destroyed instead of preserved and the NH Supreme Court is of NO help to the falsely accused. Children are being needlessly traumatized and fed psychiatric medication to stop them from fighting back. If DCYF had their way, they'd probably be drugging the parent's also to keep them from fighting this fraudulent system.

Psychiatrists target infants as mental patients

Pre-Crime? Try Pre-Diagnose and Pre-Drug: Psychiatrists target infants as mental patients

By CCHR International
June 23, 2010

A new study, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and headed by psychiatrist John H. Gilmore, professor of psychiatry and Director of the UNC Schizophrenia Research, claims to be able to detect “brain abnormalities associated with schizophrenia risk” in infants just a few weeks old. We would like to point out the obvious flaw in this bogus study; there is no medical/scientific test in existence that schizophrenia is a physical disease or brain abnormality to start with. There is not one chemical imbalance test, X-ray, MRI or any other test for schizophrenia, not one. So with no evidence of medical abnormality to start with, the “associated with schizophrenia risk” amounts to what George Orwell called Doublespeak (language that deliberately disguises, distorts, misleads)—it means nothing.

For decades, psychiatrists and Pharma have spouted lines to the press and public amounting to, “researchers now believe” they have medical evidence of schizophrenia as a physical/biological abnormality, or “new evidence suggests” evidence of schizophrenia as a real disease. But despite millions of dollars in research funds and countless tales of “belief” —no evidence to support the theory. One of the most common tricks employed by the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry to mislead the public, legislators and the press, is to take X-rays or brain images of people who have been long-term users of antipsychotic drugs (known to cause brain atrophy/shrinkage) and then claim people with schizophrenia have smaller brains. They’ve spouted similar studies on kids with ADHD having smaller brains, but the bottom line to that study was that the kids with smaller brains, were…smaller kids. These are just a few of the many PR spins employed by Psycho/Pharma to try and maintain the “belief” in psychiatry, in their credibility as a science. As evidenced by the recent statement of psychiatrist Allen Frances, former DSM- IV Task Force Chairman, this belief is falling apart even within their own ranks, “There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder.” —Allen Frances (And Frances isn’t the only psychiatrist exposing the fraud of the biological brain disease model; click here for more.)

The logical question the press should be asking is what are the American Journal of Psychiatry and “the Director of UNC Schizophrenic Research” really after? What is their goal?

As we have exposed in the article “Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Wants His Pre-Drugging Agenda to Go Global” there is a concerted push being headed by Australian psychiatrist Patrick McGorry and other pharmaceutically funded psychiatrists for the global implementation of a new mental health paradigm; preventative mental health, i.e., pre-diagnosing (diagnosing children before they develop a “mental disorder”) and pre-drugging children ( before they show “signs” of the mental disorder). There is an obvious push for the same pre-diagnosing and pre-drugging agenda with this latest study, which claims ”major cases of schizophrenia are usually not diagnosed until a person begins witnessing its related symptoms like delusions and hallucinations as a teenager or adult . However, by that time, the disease [notice the term disease despite no medical evidence of disease] crosses the stage of preliminary treatment and is difficult to treat.” In other words, if we wait to administer drugs to them it may be too late. That along with Gilmore’s statement, “It allows us to start thinking about how we can identify kids at risk for schizophrenia very early and whether there are things that we can do very early on to lessen the risk.” This is the pre-diagnosing, pre-drugging agenda being pushed and the new “preventative” model of mental health that is more akin to a Brave New World than anything previously witnessed. And this latest “study” tells us infants are also on the agenda.

And finally, to psychiatrist and lead study author John H. Gilmore, we think you should take a lesson from the former National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Chief of the Center for Studies in Schizophrenia, the late Loren R. Mosher, M.D. who stated in his letter of resignation to the American Psychiatric Association, “The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support my membership…After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this is my belief I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization’s true identify requires no change in the acronym…”

To read more from Loren Mosher, including his two-year outcome study treating patients diagnosed “schizophrenic” without the use of drugs, his vehement stance against the biological psychiatric model of “disease” and more, click here.

To read the latest bogus psychiatric study, click here.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The pain we suffer from Parental Alienation


The hostility extends to extended families

Sacramento CPS: The hostility extends to extended families
by Richard Wexler, published on June 21, 2010 at 6:15AM
Storyline: Child Welfare
Community Tags: california child abuse child welfare family preservation foster care kinship care sacramento county
In response to my column last week, about how Sacramento County is the child removal capital of California, an aunt who is providing foster care for a nephew raised several objections. Among other things, she argued that it was unfair of me to lump in relatives providing foster care, known as “kinship care,” with strangers in calculating Sacramento’s rate of removal.
In one sense she is right; it’s unfair - unfair to other counties, because it makes Sacramento look too good. When you look only at the proportion of children placed with total strangers, Sacramento actually fares even worse.
My previous column documented the extensive research on the inherent trauma of foster care - trauma that occurs even when the foster home is a good one, as the majority are. That trauma can be reduced, but not eliminated, if the child is placed with a relative instead of a stranger.
Study after study has shown the enormous benefits of kinship care.
Kinship care is still foster care, and even grandma is no substitute for leaving children in their own homes. But when that really isn’t safe, at least if a child is placed with a relative, or with an aunt, it’s likely to cushion the blow. The child is with someone he knows and loves. And odds are the placement is in his own neighborhood, so he doesn’t have to change schools and lose all his friends.
Kinship care also lessens one of the most damaging problems of foster care, moving children from foster home to foster home. People who love you are far less likely to give up on you than total strangers. So grandparents and other relatives are more likely to put up with behavior that might prompt strangers to either reach for the psychiatric medication or throw the child out.
Indeed that helps explain why in Florida, for example, where the child welfare agency is trying to crack down on the misuse and overuse of sometimes dangerous psychiatric medication on foster children, while 26 percent of institutionalized foster children and 21 percent of foster children placed with strangers are on such medication, only four percent of foster children are medicated when they are placed with relatives.
And there are more benefits to kinship care. A study by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia found that children placed in foster care with relatives had fewer behavior problems than children placed in stranger care.
Another study found that children in kinship care did far better than children in stranger care on multiple measures of safety, permanence and well being.
This is one of several studies showing the most important result of all: Kinship care is safer than stranger care.
But apparently the word hasn’t reached Sacramento County.
San Francisco also has a dismal record for taking away children from their families – a record almost as bad as Sacramento. But at least San Francisco manages to place nearly one-third of those children immediately with a relative. Orange County does almost as well. Contra Costa and Alameda Counties place about one-quarter of children immediately with relatives. The statewide average is 17.4 percent.
In Sacramento the figure is only 9.3 percent – only seven of the counties ranked in the NCCPR California Rate-of-Removal Index do worse.
There is a similar discrepancy when one looks at the percentage of all foster children placed with relatives on any given day – not just those placed with relatives immediately.
San Francisco places half of such children with relatives, Orange County and Santa Clara County place more than 42 percent of foster children with relatives; Los Angeles, Alameda and Contra Costa counties all are over one-third – which is the statewide average.
In Sacramento County it’s 29.1 percent. Only eight of the ranked counties do worse.
I’ve updated the full NCCPR California Rate of Removal Index to include kinship care data for all the ranked counties. It’s available on our website here: http://www.nccpr.org/reports/2009californiaror.pdf
Because grandparents bring an extra ingredient to the mix – love – it should surprise no one that kinship care generally is safer than stranger care. So why is Sacramento County so reluctant to use it?
Sadly, it’s not unusual for child welfare systems that are deeply hostile to birth parents to extend the hostility to extended families. It’s all summed up in one pernicious little smear: “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” If mom is abusive, it is claimed, it must be because grandma has failed in some way.
For starters, this assumes that if mom is doing a poor job raising the children it has to be grandma’s fault. In fact, there are any number of times when a grandparent may raise four children under circumstances of poverty and need that many of us can’t possibly imagine, and have three of them become happy, healthy productive adults. The fourth is lost to the lure of the streets. When that grandmother then comes forward, at a time when finally she should be able to rest, and offers to take care of that child’s children, she should be treated as a hero, not a suspect.
And, as one of the nation’s leading experts on kinship care has said: “a tree has more than one branch.”
Unfortunately, some child welfare systems have sought to take advantage of the benefits of kinship care and pretend that it is not foster care at all. But make no mistake: When it is done because a child welfare agency demands it or a court orders it, kinship care is still foster care.
Indeed, the federal government counts such placements as foster care placements. Kinship care is still a blow to the child, and it is no substitute for safe, proven alternatives to keeping children in their own homes. That’s why, when calculating rates of removal, I will continue to “lump in” kinship care placements and stranger care placements.
Even if that makes Sacramento County look better than it deserves.
Former journalist Richard Wexler is Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, based in Alexandria Va. The full NCCPR California Rate of Removal Index and comprehensive recommendations for reforming child welfare in California and nationwide are available at www.nccpr.org Citations for the studies cited in this article are available on request.


Work toward thriving, not fractured, families

Work toward thriving, not fractured, families
June 23, 2010 12:05 AM Posted in: Editorials

Reggie Williams

Reggie Williams was born in DeLand and raised in DeLeon Springs. He worked for Volusia County government for 29 years, where his last position was director of the Community Services Department. In March 2006, Williams became the district administrator for the Department of Children and Families for Volusia and Flagler Counties. In 2007, DCF reorganized, and his responsibility expanded to St. Johns and Putnam counties.

All of us with families, especially with children, have an inherent concern for their health and well-being. "Don't run with scissors," "Look both ways before you cross the street" and "Don't talk to strangers" are just a few of the common types of guidance we provide our children for their safety.

For the Department of Children and Families, it is one of the fundamental reasons for our existence, and, for many of the people who work here, it is their chosen profession. The department has helped tens of thousands of families over the years to overcome crises and obstacles in their lives to assist them with ensuring the safety of their children. Though only a few of the most severe situations with terrible consequences come to the public's attention through the media, the vast majority of families that interact with the department (and our many community partners) go on to provide a sound environment for their children to grow into healthy and productive adults.

In situations where it is found that risk to a child's safety is very high, the department may find it necessary to remove that child from his or her family until the family can address those issues that threaten the child and make it safe to return the child home. This decision is not taken lightly by the department. It involves the judicial system for oversight and traumatizes both the family and child.

What are the consequences of removing a child from their family?

Studies by two highly respected institutions -- the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Casey Family Program -- show:

· 44 percent of children who were in foster care were later arrested, compared with 14 percent of children who remained with their families.

· More than half of the girls in foster care will become teen mothers, compared to only one-third of other children.

· Children who grow up in foster care are 17 times more likely to be homeless.

Children who grow up in foster care are more likely to commit crimes, abuse drugs, drop out of school and be unemployed.

Regardless of the dismal outcomes of removing children from their families, there are times that removing a child is the only safe option. But we have come to realize that there are times when that act may do more harm than good. In recognizing this fact, the department has begun an initiative in our area to restructure the foster care system as it has existed for many years. We have collaborated with our Community Based Care organizations, which are responsible for foster care, and our community providers, who deliver many of the services to our families. This collaboration and partnership will change processes we have historically used to protect families, improving services. The new system of care will provide better risk assessment, shared decision-making, accelerated and more intensive services for shorter durations, and quicker, more successful conclusions for families.

Some of the specifics are:

· Integrated and expanded substance-abuse and mental-health services.

· Innovative training and expanded services for domestic violence .

· A service decision team that brings together experts from various agencies to assist in planning services for families and to look for ways to keep a family together.

· A family preservation function that provides a safe alternative to removing a child from the family by providing extremely intense services and family interaction. This service is of a much shorter duration than services traditionally delivered when a child is removed.

· An intensive family intervention function that provides extensive services and family interaction for more moderate-risk cases. Again, the duration of this service is much shorter than the traditional in-home service method.

· Use of family engagement practices to encourage families to participate in seeking solutions for themselves.

· An outreach function that will assist families in trouble or crisis even though it is determined that no abuse or neglect was evident with the family.

· Improved processes to stabilize families when children are returned from out-of-home care.

· Improved processes to more rapidly find permanent living arrangements such as relative custody or adoption for children who cannot reunify with their parents.

This is an ambitious undertaking and it will take not only the department's effort but the effort of our entire community to become truly successful. The collaboration we have experienced so far has been phenomenal and we are only at the beginning of this journey.

Over the next six months we will be meeting with groups of people throughout our service area, discussing the planned changes. We will solicit community input and support as to how we can further improve and restructure our system of care. The families we serve are our neighbors, our co-workers and our friends. The most effective approach to helping these children and families is one in which the whole community takes part, so that together, we can significantly improve children's lives.

The News-Journal has invited a variety of local folks to use this space to share their point of view about our greater community, its challenges, and its opportunities for success.


Foster care fraught with private abuses, public excuses

Foster care fraught with private abuses, public excuses

AJC investigation: Children needing homes get placed in harm’s way with few repercussions

By Alan Judd
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia officials decided last year that a rules violation by a private foster care agency was so egregious it warranted one of the toughest possible penalties.

Bita Honarvar, bhonarvar@ajc.com Melissa Carter is director of the Georgia Office of the Child Advocate for the Protection of Children.

The agency, state records show, had inappropriately placed two children in the same foster home. One was a 17-year-old who had engaged in incest and other sexual activity. The other was 8, autistic and mute, with a history of being abused and an IQ of 16. The boys at first shared a bedroom; ultimately, they shared a bed.

The foster agency’s punishment: a $300 fine.

What happened at the Trek Program, a foster agency based in Fort Oglethorpe, and how the state responded illustrate the scope of problems in Georgia’s growing system of publicly funded but privately operated foster care, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The newspaper reviewed more than 1,500 reports of state inspections and investigations, which provide an astonishing narrative of stark conditions and inadequate oversight in small foster homes and large group facilities alike.

Fights. Sexual assaults. Consensual sex between young teens. Abuse by foster parents and group home employees. Escapes. Suicide attempts. All occur with regularity at many of Georgia’s 336 private foster care agencies, the Journal-Constitution’s examination found.

One agency, for example, repeatedly used anti-psychotic drugs to subdue misbehaving children. Another tried to rid residents of “demons” through forced exorcism.

Yet the state office that oversees foster care consistently excuses serious, repeated rules violations that jeopardize children’s health and safety.

Since 2008, officials have issued 1,107 citations to 300 of the 336 private agencies. Most cases involved multiple violations of foster care rules. But the state imposed fines or other penalties — what it calls “adverse actions” — in just 83, or 7 percent, of those citations. The median fine: $500.

Of the 336 private foster care agencies, 100 receive direct state funding; last year’s total exceeded $55 million. Even among those agencies, violations are common. In the past two years, the state has cited 91 of the 100 agencies — while continuing to pay them for housing foster children.

Like many other states, Georgia increasingly relies on private agencies — not-for-profit organizations, for the most part — to place children in foster homes or group homes and to oversee much of their care. Many of the children have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, behavioral disorders, or both. Some enter foster care through the state’s social services system to protect them from abusive or neglectful parents. Others come through juvenile courts after getting in trouble with the law.

About 4,000 children, roughly half those in state care, reside in privately owned facilities. A decade ago, private agencies cared for no more than 10 percent of Georgia’s foster children.

State oversight, however, has not kept pace with the growth in private care.

In Fulton and DeKalb counties, Georgia’s most populous, half the children in foster care did not receive the required two visits a month from state workers in 2009, court-appointed monitors said in a recent report. In addition, the monitors said, state officials inspected the operations of one-third as many private foster agencies last year as in 2008.

And while half the foster children in the two counties live in private facilities, the monitors told a judge, they account for three-fourths of substantiated maltreatment cases in foster homes. (The state recently countered that 37 percent of the maltreatment occurred outside foster homes.)

“These are just the cases that actually get identified, investigated and substantiated as abuse,” said Ira Lustbader, associate director of Children’s Rights Inc., a New York-based advocacy group involved in the federal lawsuit that led to the monitors’ appointment.

“If the state is going to utilize the private sector, they have to have mechanisms in place” to ensure children’s safety, Lustbader said. “In the end, it’s all about the quality of the state’s oversight.”

State officials, however, say regulating foster care agencies is a complicated undertaking, one that involves using both persuasion and the specter of serious penalties to combat substandard treatment.

“It is not the goal to put people out of business,” said Keith Bostick, director of the state Office of Residential Child Care. “We want to do as much as we can to try to keep kids safe. But it is a balancing act.”

Dena Smith, spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services, which oversees the regulatory office, added: “Many times there are agencies or providers that, with a soft nudge, they can get back into compliance.”

But many foster care providers complain that enforcement is too aggressive, too focused on administrative requirements that don’t directly affect how children are treated.

“The regulations are good regulations,” said Normer Adams, executive director of the Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children, an industry lobbying group. “But sometimes the citations are really tedious. Most of the violations don’t threaten the health or safety of a child.”

Regardless, in most instances, the state merely tells private agencies to correct deficiencies. Sometimes it also threatens an “adverse action.” But many agencies continue to violate the rules, with little or no consequence.

Drugs and demons

One day last April, an employee of the Mercy’s Door group home near Dalton approached a resident with a plan for his redemption: exorcism.

The employee took the boy to an office, where four other staff members were waiting, the boy later told a state inspector. They sat the boy in a chair and encircled him, hands joined, saying they would “exorcise the demons out” of him, he told the inspector.

“In Jesus’ name,” the boy quoted a staff member as saying, “remove the demons.”

Employees at Mercy’s Door required residents to attend daily “devotionals,” where they claimed to “rebuke demons of depression” and spoke in tongues, according to a second boy, who witnessed part of the exorcism rite. When another resident, an atheist, left his room, the boy said, staff members prayed over his bed. The staff, according to one resident, believed that “everyone has demons inside of them.”

The boy targeted by the exorcism said two staff members rubbed olive oil on his forehead and spoke about “four angels and rings of fire” — an apparent reference to Revelation’s prophesy that 144,000 people will be “sealed” and spared in Earth’s inevitable destruction. The boy said he was told he had been “bought for a price and adopted by Jesus.”

At one point, two of the facility’s employees later said, the boy became distraught. “Why,” he asked, jumping out of his chair, “can’t you be Baptist?”

In a brief telephone interview, the facility’s director, Veronica Alcerro, declined to comment.

A state investigation confirmed the boy’s story about the exorcism — and found that an employee of the group home, which received $62,416 in state money last year, had lied to an inspector.

But while the state cited Mercy’s Door for rules violations, it assessed no penalty.

In May 2008, the state cited Morningstar Treatment Services, which operates the Youth Estate group home outside Brunswick, for repeatedly using anti-psychotic drugs to control residents who would “act up.” A similar citation had been issued the previous October.

Regulators described the shots as an improper form of chemical restraint, used “as a means of convenience” for the facility’s staff.

One resident, for instance, was drugged for “non-compliance,” according to an incident report prepared by Morningstar. The resident had argued over serving an in-school suspension, so a nurse gave the child Ativan, an anti-psychotic, and Benadryl, an over-the-counter antihistamine also used as a sedative. After “lying on the bench for a little while,” the incident report said, the child completed the suspension “without fighting it.”

The state ordered Morningstar to revise its medication policy, and the agency said it would.

Ten months later, however, state inspectors learned that Morningstar was still using medication to discipline or control residents.

A nurse sedated one child for “being out of area.” Another resident was given a blend of Benadryl, Ativan and Haldol, another anti-psychotic, for “agitation, destruction and self-abuse.” Yet another received Valium for “agitation and aggression”; when the child still didn’t calm down, a nurse gave him the powerful anti-psychotic drug Thorazine.

In those instances, as in others, inspectors noted, “there was no valid prescription for the medications given.”

Staff members told inspectors that without the shots, “they would not be able to handle some of the residents,” according to a state report.

The four dozen or so residents at Morningstar typically have IQs between 40 and 70 and emotional and behavioral disorders, said Barry Kerr, the agency’s chief executive.

Morningstar has been “very aggressive” in reducing the use of drugs to manage residents’ behavior, Kerr said. The medicines, he said, have been used only “when we did not have another alternative.”

After Morningstar’s second citation, the state gave the agency a stern warning: “Based on repeat rule violations and failure to comply with an accepted plan of correction, adverse action may be initiated.”

About a week later, the state did act against Morningstar.

It imposed a $450 fine.

‘Eyes on the situation’

At least once a year, Rachel Neal shows up unannounced at each of the 80 or so foster care facilities that comprise her portfolio as a state inspector.

She carries a lengthy list of rules that each must follow: a minimum number of training hours for employees, up-to-date inspections for vehicles that transport foster children, and on and on.

Most violations get a written citation and are corrected within weeks. But when she discovers dangerous situations, such as toxic materials left within the reach of children, Neal expects instant remedies.

“Usually, they’ll be like, ‘OK, Ms. Neal, that will be dealt with immediately,’ ” she said during a tour of The Bridge, a group home in northwest Atlanta. “We make sure before I leave that that hazard will be fixed.”

Even during standard inspections, Neal said, “a lot of times you may come across something else” that endangers children or otherwise violates state rules. She said she may deviate from the routine “if I hear something, or see something, or read something in a file.”

But Neal and other inspectors spend relatively little time at each foster care facility. State case workers — assigned to a different division of the Department of Human Services — are supposed to visit each child they oversee twice a month. But they may not always look for problems affecting children supervised by other case workers, said Melissa Carter, the state’s child advocate.

“They are our eyes on the situation,” Carter said. “If I’m a case manager and I’m responsible for little Susie, I just go in and take a look at little Susie. It could be that other children were seen and other problems could have been detected.”

‘Minimal information’

In early 2007, the state took custody of an autistic child who had been neglected and abused in his home. The boy was “greatly at risk” of more maltreatment, case workers wrote, and would have to be “safeguarded from abuse.”

The state then delegated the boy’s protection to a private agency: Trek, a nonprofit program operated by the Lookout Mountain Community Services Board in North Georgia. Trek, in turn, placed the child in a foster home with which it contracted.

In March 2009, the state asked Trek to handle another child with profound troubles: a 17-year-old with a long, repulsive sexual history. The agency chose the same home where it had put the autistic child.

No one, however, told the foster parents about the 17-year-old’s experiences with incest and pornography. Or about his “sexual inappropriateness” with a stepparent. Or about what a therapist described as his “distorted sexual beliefs”: that children aren’t hurt if adults molest them, for example, and it’s OK for an older child to initiate sex with a younger one.

Trek provided “very minimal information,” the foster parents would later tell a state inspector. When they asked to see the 17-year-old’s psychological evaluations, the foster parents said, a Trek case worker demurred, saying only that the child had “never sexually acted out in previous placements.”

The foster parents moved the 17-year-old into a bedroom with the 8-year-old autistic boy. About a month later, the night of April 7, a cry transmitted by a baby monitor awoke one of the foster parents. He went to the boys’ bedroom, where he found the 17-year-old in bed with the younger child. The older boy was masturbating and had one hand in the 8-year-old’s pants.

The state cited Trek for failing to “prepare the foster family for the placement ... by anticipating adjustments and problems that may arise.” The previous month, the agency had received two similar citations. And a month later, the state assessed the $300 fine.

John Brewer, Trek’s program director, declined to comment on the case. But he said Trek tries to comply with state rules.

“They’ve always looked for specific things and make sure we follow through,” Brewer said. “We do get cited occasionally, and we try to correct those things.”

No one told

The state has cited numerous agencies that withheld critical information from foster parents.

For instance, state officials found that Benchmark Family Services of Jonesboro knew a child it placed in a foster home was supposed to receive therapy for sexual misbehavior. But no one, records show, told the foster family.

Soon, the child “inappropriately touched” another student at school, according to state reports. At the foster home, he groped another child.

The state cited the agency, but imposed no penalty.

A child placed in 2008 by another agency, Choices for Life of Georgia, based in Valdosta, had entered foster care after having sex with a cousin. He was not supposed to sleep, bathe, undress or be alone with younger children.

Again, no one told the foster family. Within weeks, the boy had molested at least one of the younger children in the home.

The state cited the agency, but imposed no penalty.

Foster parents need information about children in their care, said Beth Locker, policy director for Voices for Georgia’s Children, an Atlanta-based advocacy group.

“When that doesn’t happen,” Locker said, “it’s hard to know whether it’s a breakdown in communication, or a genuine concern about the privacy of a child’s family, or a concern about the cost of providing needed services.”

Sometimes, however, foster parents exacerbate harm already done to the children they supervise.

Choices for Life is one of several agencies cited for not preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment or other prohibited disciplinary methods. Last year, regulators said, the agency “failed to take appropriate corrective action” after learning a child had been spanked, and injured, by her foster parent. The child reported the spanking in December 2008, but Choices for Life left her in the foster home for 42 days.

The state imposed no penalty. It rarely does unless it finds a series of serious violations.

Inspectors documented numerous deficiencies in oversight by Bethany Christian Services of Atlanta, for instance. One of the agency’s foster parents left a child who uses a wheelchair home alone several times. Once, a social worker came by and found the wheelchair upstairs and the child on the basement floor, unable to get up and lying in his own waste.

Two other foster parents with Bethany forced a child to swallow a Benadryl tablet. The foster parents, the child said, called it a “sleep vitamin.”

From 20 investigations and four other inspections since May 2008, the state has cited Bethany Christian eight times for a total of 27 rules violations.

Just once, however, did the state impose a penalty: a $500 fine this January.


Differing solutions

More regulation or less? Experts and children’s advocates are divided in their suggestions for improving Georgia’s foster care system.

Those who support tougher enforcement of foster care rules suggest that:

● More state case workers are needed so each child in foster care can be visited at least twice each month, as required by a settlement agreement in a lawsuit over conditions in foster care.

● The state should be more diligent in searching for relatives to care for children taken into protective custody.

● State officials could more closely monitor private agencies that operate group homes or place children in foster homes; inspections of those agencies dropped dramatically in 2009.

● The state could increase funding to replace case workers and other regulators, whose numbers have declined through attrition, retirement and other factors.

Those who say less-stringent oversight would help privately operated foster care agencies propose that:

● The state could eliminate what one report called “disparities in degrees of regulation and disparate treatment” of state-supervised foster homes and those overseen by private agencies. Problems in state-operated homes, the report said, may be addressed by case workers “who personally know and have worked with the foster parents.”

● Privately operated foster homes could be regulated by social workers, rather than inspectors with more of an enforcement mentality.

● A single, independent body — not affiliated with the Department of Human Services, which funds foster care — could oversee all foster care providers.

Sources: Court-appointed monitors’ report to U.S. District Court, Georgia Office of the Child Advocate’s 2008 annual report, AJC research

How we got the story

For this series of articles exploring Georgia’s increasing reliance on private agencies to operate the state’s child welfare system, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution examined more than 1,500 state reports and other public documents and interviewed foster care providers, state officials and children’s advocates.

Today: Substandard conditions in privately operated foster care settings seldom incur penalties.

Monday: A riot at a North Georgia group home for foster children was the culmination of a long slide into chaos — and of the state’s failure to intervene.

Next Sunday: Breakdowns in multistate adoptions arranged by a private agency from Georgia largely escape the attention of state regulators.

April 26: Private adoption and foster care agencies are supposed to be not-for-profit organizations. That doesn’t stop some agency officials from turning child welfare into a lucrative enterprise.