"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back " (Major Update, October 14)
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobody-gets-their-kids-back.html
The "Petition for Abuse/Neglect" filed on behalf of Cheyenne Irish by New Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleges that the baby, who was born on October 6, was "neglected" by her mother on that very day in the hospital where the infant was born.
What this means is that Stephanie Taylor's act of "neglect" was to give birth to her child, and that the only way she could have avoided that charge was to have Cheyenne killed in utero. Because Stephanie had neglected this supposed duty, the DCYF kidnapped Cheyenne a little more than 16 hours following her birth.
Barring a near-miraculous outcome, Cheyenne's parents will never get their daughter back. So testifies New Hampshire resident Dorothy Knightly. Between August 31, 2005 and February 3, 2006, Dorothy (who prefers to be called Dot) saw three of her grandchildren abducted by the DCYF on the basis of spurious child abuse and neglect allegations.
Dot's grandson Austin (who is now ten years old), was so traumatized by the kidnapping that he attempted suicide. As a result he was institutionalized and "medicated" with dangerous psychotropic drugs. Two of Dot's grandchildren have been adopted, and the DCYF won't permit any contact with the grandparents. Ally was placed with her father.
All of this began on August 31, 2005, when Dot's daughter Candy gave birth to a daughter named Isabella. At some point in the pregnancy Candy developed a condition called placenta previa. Although this usually requires that the child be delivered via C-section, Candy was put on a morphine drip and Isabella was delivered normally. Predictably, this meant that a urine test found morphine in Isabella's bloodstream -- a circumstance easily explained as a result of the circumstances of her birth, but was maliciously depicted as evidence that Candy had "abused" her baby through pre-natal drug use.
Believing that this matter would be quickly and easily cleared up, Dot and her husband applied for temporary custody of Isabella in their home. They eagerly and cheerfully cooperated with the DCYF out of the common but tragically mistaken belief that agencies of that kind are operated by people who actually care about children, governed by laws, and burdened with scruples.
"We let those people into our home," Knightly lamented to Pro Libertate. "We opened the door and greeted them with smiles. We offered them coffee and treated them well. We trusted them. We assured our daughter, `don't worry -- they're not going to take your baby.' We assumed that we had rights, that the law meant something, and that the people in the DCYF would have to obey the rules. We'll never make that mistake again, and we hope other people won't either."
Two weeks after Isabella was born, a false child abuse report was filed with the DCYF alleging that Austin and his sister Ally had been molested by their father, who was married to Dot's other daughter, Holly.When they were notified of the accusation, Dot and Holly immediately took the children to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center to be examined for evidence of molestation. A comprehensive screening revealed no evidence of abuse of any kind.
Nonetheless, during a preliminary hearing regarding custody of Isabella on September 26, 2005, DCYF official Kate McClure unflinchingly committed perjury by claiming that the medically debunked molestation charge had been "confirmed," adorning that lie with a critical decorative detail: The purported act has supposedly taken place in the grandparents' home.
Once that charge had been made by the DCYF, the fate of Dot's grandchildren was settled, in everything but the details.
A DCYF document entitled "Notice to Accused Parent" explains the ground rules that govern New Hampshire's "family law" court system: "All Court hearings and records of abuse and neglect cases are confidential. The hearings are not open to the public and only people involved in the case, or invited by the parties and approved by the Court, will be admitted to the Court hearings." In practice this means that DCYF banishes from such hearings anybody who can speak effectively on behalf of the accused.
A "preliminary hearing" can result in the DCYF being awarded "protective supervision or legal custody" over a child, "which would give DCYF the right to temporarily remove your child[ren] from parental care and custody and determine where and with whom your child[ren] will live," explains the document.
At no point in the process is it necessary to prove that abuse occurred. Even at an "adjudicatory hearing" -- the equivalent of a criminal trial -- the standard is a "preponderance of evidence," rather than a requirement to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the threshold for a judicial decision to award custody of a child to the DCYF is merely the presentation of "evidence."
In substantive terms, an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse qualifies as "evidence." In the same fashion, "temporary," as defined in New Hampshire child abuse cases, is a synonym for "indefinite." Once a judge has granted custody or protective supervision to the DCYF, the matter is placed beyond judicial remedy, and the child's fate will be determined by the child-snatcher bureaucracy.
After Candy was charged with "neglecting" Isabella by receiving a morphine drip during a difficult delivery, the grandparents were forbidden to present evidence at either the preliminary or the adjudicatory hearing. On October 3, 2005, the DCYF seized Isabella, who at the time was a little more than one month old. She was never seen again by her grandparents.Candy was allowed brief, sporadic visits until March of 2006.
One particularly provocative aspect of this case involves Candy's refusal to apply for DCYF-administered welfare benefits. On September 2, 2005 -- less than a month after Isabella was born -- DCYF employee Melissa Deane tried to persuade Candy to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Candy refused to do so, pointing out that she and Isabella would be living with the grandparents and wouldn't need welfare aid -- or the invasive government supervision that would come with it.
On September 28 -- two days after the preliminary hearing upheld the neglect charge against Candy -- Ms. Deane signed the application and filed it herself. A few days later, DCYF kidnapped Isabella from the hospital, eventually arranging for her adoption to another family.
Dot Knightly points out that as long as Isabella remained with Candy, the DCYF would not be able to obtain federal welfare funding in her name. That problem was "solved" by filing an application over the objections of Isabella's mother, and then stealing her child.
The DCYF then turned its predatory attention to Dot's other daughter, Holly, and her two children, Austin and Ally.
On January 19, 2006, Holly went to the hospital following a friend's suicide attempt. While there she was arrested for "belligerent behavior" by a police officer who believed that she was intoxicated. Although she was on various prescription medications (she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder), a test confirmed that there was no alcohol in her system at the time of her arrest. Regardless of that fact, Holly was charged with "child endangerment."
The arresting officer, Patrolman Josue I. Santia, delivered Holly's children Austin and Ally to Dot's home. Santia noted in his report that he and his partner "felt comfortable leaving the children in [the grandparents'] custody." On the following morning the grandparents were awarded temporary supervisory care over the children while the child endangerment charge was examined. That charge was eventually dropped, but DCYF wasn't willing to end its pursuit of Holly's kids.
Darren Hood Tucker, an attorney employed by DCYF, went "judge shopping" and "found another Judge willing to modify the court order" granting temporary custody to the grandparents, Dot Knightly recounted to Pro Libertate. Tucker was able to suborn a judge into ruling that it was inappropriate for Austin and Ally to have contact with Dot's daughter Candy -- whose only "offense" had been to give birth to a child who was later abducted by the DCYF.
"They sent four police officers to our home and took those children away at gunpoint," Dot recalls. "Poor Austin was literally dragged down the street kicking and screaming as the neighbors looked on." Shortly after the siblings were placed in a foster home in Merrimack, Austin -- who had no previous record of behavioral problems -- tried to hang himself.
News of the suicide attempt sent Holly rushing to the hospital, where she was intercepted by DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore. The caseworker "threatened my daughter Holly by stating that if Holly didn't sign Austin's admission to Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital ... the Judge would sign a court order terminating Holly's parental rights," Dot Knightly relates.
Just days earlier, Austin had been a bright-eyed, friendly, cheerful little boy.
Austin's disposition and physical appearance changed dramatically after he was seized by armed strangers and forced to take mind-altering drugs.
During the four months that DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore was on maternity leave (remember that detail; I'll return to it momentarily), Dot, her husband, and Austin's mother were able to have one brief phone call with Austin and his attending physician at the Psychiatric Hospital. The doctor told Dot that "after Austin spoke to his family his whole demeanor changed ... and he was not the same violent little boy as when he was admitted." When DCYF Supervisor Tracy Gubbins learned of that phone call, she issued instructions that there would be no further contact between Austin and his grandparents or his mother.
Austin with his Grandpa.
The only reason Dot was able to talk to her grandson was because the newly single caseworker was on maternity leave. Dot believes that Anna Salvatore -- who is now known as Anna Edlund -- may have become pregnant as a result of an affair.
"Holly and her husband had been having problems, but after this whole mess began they actually moved into a new apartment and seemed to be starting over," Dot told Pro Libertate. "The caseworker, or `home-wrecker,' Anna Salvatore found out about this and had them separated again within a week. Then Salvatore started to visit Holly's husband on nights and weekends, with or without the children, which eventually ruined her own marriage. And then she ended up divorced and pregnant -- after tearing my daughter's family apart."
After Austin was placed in a "pre-adoptive" home, Dot -- with the help of the new caseworker -- was able to arrange a few brief, supervised visits with Austin. During one of them, the traumatized little boy quietly informed his grandmother: "They told me that Holly's not my mother anymore."
"Honey, Holly is still your mother and will always be your mother," Dot replied -- thereby triggering the DCYF's retaliation reflex.
"From that time, all further visits were canceled," she recalled to Pro Libertate.
Not even this could be considered the crowning act of cruelty inflicted on this long-suffering family by New Hampshire's child "protection" racket.
By 2008, Dot -- who still hoped that she would be permitted to care for her grandchildren -- had completed her coursework to be a state-certified foster parent, but was refused a license. She was told by DCYF official Lorraine Bartlett that she would never be permitted to care for Austin out of fear that she would take him off the toxic psychotropic drugs he was forced to take.
Through a steady series of dilatory and obstructionist maneuvers, the DCYF made it impossible for Dot to qualify as a foster parent for her grandchildren. When it was decided that Austin would be adopted by another couple, Dot and her husband were instructed by Bartlett to write a good-bye letter to their grandson in order to bring "closure" to the atrocity. This gesture reminds me a bit of the way that firing squads employed by Ethiopian despot Mengistu Haile Mariam would force families of the victims to pay for the ammunition used to murder their loved ones.
Dot insisted that she would continue her legal efforts to get Austin back.
"Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."
(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original essay; some details have been changed in the interests of clarity.)
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
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Stark realities of foster "care" revealed by federal judge in Nevada
Stark realities of foster "care" revealed by federal judge in Nevada
The Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law was the loser in federal court in Las Vegas on Thursday when US District Judge Robert C. Jones dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services's director, Michael Willden; Clark County manager, Virginia Valentine; and county Dept. of Family Services director, Tom Morton, at left. The lawsuit sought class action status for three subgroups among the county's 3,600 foster children and monetary damages for the 13 foster children named as plaintiffs.
Read More:
http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/10/stark-realities-of-foster-care-revealed-by-federal-judge-in-nevada.html
The Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law was the loser in federal court in Las Vegas on Thursday when US District Judge Robert C. Jones dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services's director, Michael Willden; Clark County manager, Virginia Valentine; and county Dept. of Family Services director, Tom Morton, at left. The lawsuit sought class action status for three subgroups among the county's 3,600 foster children and monetary damages for the 13 foster children named as plaintiffs.
Read More:
http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/10/stark-realities-of-foster-care-revealed-by-federal-judge-in-nevada.html
Friday, October 29, 2010
Instead of using foster homes, county prefers to keep it in the family
Instead of using foster homes, county prefers to keep it in the family
Published: Friday, October 29, 2010
By Jason Lea
JLea@News-Herald.com
Lake County has 23 fewer active foster families than it did two years ago.
That may sound bad but, actually, it's a good thing.
There are fewer foster families because fewer families are needed. In 2006, 158 children were in the custody of Lake County. That number has dropped every subsequent year, according to information from Lake County Job and Family Services. Currently, there are only 66 kids in the county's custody.
State statistics mirror these trends. There were 21,038 in Ohio's custody in July 2003. In July 2010, that total dwindled to 12,197, according to the Children's Bureau of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Teresa Palm is the children services administrator for the county JFS. She said there were at least two reasons that fewer children were being taken from their biological households and put in foster care. The biggest reason is more at-risk kids are moving in with family members or friends of the family, instead of foster homes. These are called kinship placements.
Read More:
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/10/29/news/nh3180662.txt
Published: Friday, October 29, 2010
By Jason Lea
JLea@News-Herald.com
Lake County has 23 fewer active foster families than it did two years ago.
That may sound bad but, actually, it's a good thing.
There are fewer foster families because fewer families are needed. In 2006, 158 children were in the custody of Lake County. That number has dropped every subsequent year, according to information from Lake County Job and Family Services. Currently, there are only 66 kids in the county's custody.
State statistics mirror these trends. There were 21,038 in Ohio's custody in July 2003. In July 2010, that total dwindled to 12,197, according to the Children's Bureau of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Teresa Palm is the children services administrator for the county JFS. She said there were at least two reasons that fewer children were being taken from their biological households and put in foster care. The biggest reason is more at-risk kids are moving in with family members or friends of the family, instead of foster homes. These are called kinship placements.
Read More:
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/10/29/news/nh3180662.txt
Food Additives And ADHD Drugs Are Destroying The Health of Our Children
Food Additives And ADHD Drugs Are Destroying The Health of Our Children
Dangerous food additives are creating a toxic environment for our children's health spurring allergies and ADHD. To add fuel to the fire, conventional medicine is addressing the symptoms with ineffective drugs which are essentially useless in the long-term.
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
When Robyn O'Brien served her children scrambled eggs one day for breakfast early in 2006, the mother of four had no clue it would change her life drastically and forever.
"I had made scrambled eggs and put them in front of all four kids and decided to put them in front of the baby," the 36-year-old said. "I put them on her highchair and she didn't want them, fussed and pushed them away. And I didn't think anything of it."
But 9-month-old Tory's aversion to the breakfast staple had little to do with taste, as O'Brien soon found out.
"I put her down for a nap. A few minutes later and there was some mother instinct in me because I went in to check on her for some reason, which I rarely do, and her face was swollen shut," O'Brien said.
A life-threatening reaction to eggs caused grotesque swelling of the infant's face and instantly shook O'Brien to her core. She said her daughter's severe response prompted her to take a closer look at what she was feeding all of her children and to educate herself on food allergies.
"I did not know what was happening. I was so unfamiliar with food allergy and what a reaction looked like," said O'Brien, who lives in Colorado. "That's really when my education began."
Learning About Additives
What O'Brien soon learned was that artificial dyes are used in sugary cereals, candies, sodas and other goodies marketed toward children. Sometimes artificial dyes are even used to simulate the colors of fruits and vegetables.
What further disturbed O'Brien was the fact that U.S. consumers regularly ingest the additives in their food, but they have been removed from the same foods in some other countries.
In fact, Mars Inc. responded to pressure from the British government last year by removing artificial colors from its well-known Starburst and Skittles candies sold in the United Kingdom, after a British study bolstered a hypothesis that such additives increase hyperactivity in children.
Food industry giant Kraft Foods Inc. also did the same thing in early 2007 with its British version of Lunchables.
Whereas British consumers have revolted against artificial food dyes in the U.K., Americans haven't been as vocal as their counterparts. That is something O'Brien hopes to change.
"My goal is simply to have the same value placed on the lives of the American children," O'Brien said.
Mom on a Mission
O'Brien even created a Web site, which she launched on Mother's Day 2006, to serve as a parental resource and forum on children's food allergies.
The site is specific with its concerns.
"At AllergyKids, our concern is that industry funding ties between the agri-chemical companies and pediatric allergists who have served on the FDA 'generally recognized as safe' panels and testified to the safety of MSG, aspartame, glutamate and genetically engineered proteins, may prevent full disclosure of leading global research highlighting a ban of these ingredients in Europe, Australia, the UK and other developed countries in an effort to protect children," the site says.
O'Brien even created a symbol a green stop sign with an exclamation point in the center to identify a child with food allergies. It can be put on lunch bags, wristbands and even shoes.
"My goal now is to say, 'OK, this is what's happening. Let's inspire other mothers to take control so that our children can benefit like the children around the world,'" O'Brien said.
In her own life, O'Brien has gotten strict about what she feeds her children and encourages others to do what she has done: Throw out as much non-organic processed food as they can afford to. Also, avoid anything that's genetically modified, artificially created or raised with hormones and don't eat food with ingredients you are unable to pronounce.
"I thought, 'Well, I want to cook like the moms in Europe and avoid these chemical additives and see if that makes a difference in my children's health and behavior.' And so we did," O'Brien said. "We moved from the tubes of blue yogurt to regular yogurt and we started mixing honey into it. "
Not everyone in her family was happy about the changes.
"I encountered major resistance from my boys," O'Brien said. "They loved that blue yogurt and it was easy and it was convenient, but to see the dramatic improvement in my boys especially as we cleaned out their diets it was amazing. It was incredibly inspiring. They slept better; they were able to concentrate in school. Their behavior improved."
The Allergies-Additives Connection
Two recent British studies found that certain food dyes, as well as the common preservative sodium benzoate, may have an adverse effect on some children's behavior. Researchers said the increase in ADHD diagnoses could be partly to blame on the preservative.
"It can affect their focus, their concentration. They become more easily distractible, become more impulsive. I think we're looking at a whole population of kids with skewed immune systems," said Dr. Kenneth Bock, who wrote a book that supports the theory that food additives could lead to hyperactivity in children.
A Southampton Study in the UK showed that additives cause hyperactivity in children within an hour after consumption. Food additives, especially the artificial colors are made from coal tar derivatives and synthetic chemicals. Within an hour of ingestion, hyperactive behavior is evident.
ADHD Drugs Don't Work
It was a team of American scientists researching what is called the "Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD -- MTA for short, who found that ADHD drugs are useless over long-term use. The drugs used to treat ADHD such as Ritalin and Concerta are ineffective treatment methodolgies which are constantly promoted by conventional medicine. They have no benefits whatsoever after three years and even though they may show some short-term benefits depending on who is watching, and depending on their judgment of the child's behavior, the truth is there is no long-term benefit whatsoever.
They found that these drugs stunt the growth of children. "They were not growing as much as other children in terms of both their height and their weight," said the report's co-author, Prof. William Pelham from the University of Buffalo. "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study," he added in reference to a study they did a few years ago where they declared that these drugs were helping children.
"We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That did not happen to be the case. The children had a substantial decrease in their growth rate," he continued. The second point was that there were no benefits to children taking these drugs whatsoever.
What they did not say in the results of this study is that the same drugs also stunt the growth of the children's brains. MRI brain scans later proved that children on ADHD medications had brains that were three years behind schedule in development. 80% of the children who were looked at with MRI scans were on ADHD medications.
Children taking stimulants as a treatment for ADHD are also 20 percent more likely to visit a doctor with heart-related symptoms, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida and published in the journal Pediatrics.
Researchers examined the records on 55,000 children between the ages of 3 and 20 who had undergone treatment for ADHD using central nervous system stimulants between 1994 and 2004. Their health profiles were compared with those of nearly two million other children in the Florida Medicaid database, making the current study the largest ever on the safety of ADHD drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Credo: Sell, Sell, Sell
This is what the ADHD industry is like. It is as if they have to carry on this outrageous lie, and they cannot really tell the truth because then the whole house of cards would collapse and everybody would realize this is all one giant fraud.
They cannot tell the truth so they have to keep coming up with new lies to try to market this to more people. First, it was just a children's disorder. Then the drug companies realized they could sell this same speed drug to adults. Children are only a small part of the total market.
They have to keep pushing these drugs onto more children. They have to keep those parents in a state of fear. That's how they sell more drugs. They have to keep people believing in this fictitious disease. That's the only way they are going to make money. This is an industry that makes money by exploiting the bodies of children, and the evidence is very clear.
Even the NIH is now saying that these drugs stunt the growth of children. That is a scientific fact announced by a mainstream medical research organization. This is not fringe science. This is not alternative medicine. This is not conjecture on the part of some person who has an axe to grind with psychiatry. This is mainstream medicine announcing that these drugs stunts the growth of children.
Flawed Children or Flawed System?
The Multi-Modal Treatment Study's co-author is Professor William Pelham at the University of Buffalo. He is the one who found out that these drugs do not help children at all in the long run. He says, "In the short run, medication will help the child behave better. In the long run, it will not and that information should be made very clear to parents."
Dr. Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the person who is working on some new guidelines about ADHD for the NHS) says, "A generous understanding would be to say that doctors have reached the point where they do not know what else to offer."
He says, "I hope we will be able to make recommendations that will give people a comprehensive approach to treatment…" there is that word "treatment" again. He continues, "and that will advise about what teachers might be able to do within the classroom when they are trying to deal with children who have difficult problems of this kind. I think the important thing is we have a comprehensive approach that does not focus on just one type of treatment."
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
http://preventdisease.com/home/tips89.shtml
Dangerous food additives are creating a toxic environment for our children's health spurring allergies and ADHD. To add fuel to the fire, conventional medicine is addressing the symptoms with ineffective drugs which are essentially useless in the long-term.
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
When Robyn O'Brien served her children scrambled eggs one day for breakfast early in 2006, the mother of four had no clue it would change her life drastically and forever.
"I had made scrambled eggs and put them in front of all four kids and decided to put them in front of the baby," the 36-year-old said. "I put them on her highchair and she didn't want them, fussed and pushed them away. And I didn't think anything of it."
But 9-month-old Tory's aversion to the breakfast staple had little to do with taste, as O'Brien soon found out.
"I put her down for a nap. A few minutes later and there was some mother instinct in me because I went in to check on her for some reason, which I rarely do, and her face was swollen shut," O'Brien said.
A life-threatening reaction to eggs caused grotesque swelling of the infant's face and instantly shook O'Brien to her core. She said her daughter's severe response prompted her to take a closer look at what she was feeding all of her children and to educate herself on food allergies.
"I did not know what was happening. I was so unfamiliar with food allergy and what a reaction looked like," said O'Brien, who lives in Colorado. "That's really when my education began."
Learning About Additives
What O'Brien soon learned was that artificial dyes are used in sugary cereals, candies, sodas and other goodies marketed toward children. Sometimes artificial dyes are even used to simulate the colors of fruits and vegetables.
What further disturbed O'Brien was the fact that U.S. consumers regularly ingest the additives in their food, but they have been removed from the same foods in some other countries.
In fact, Mars Inc. responded to pressure from the British government last year by removing artificial colors from its well-known Starburst and Skittles candies sold in the United Kingdom, after a British study bolstered a hypothesis that such additives increase hyperactivity in children.
Food industry giant Kraft Foods Inc. also did the same thing in early 2007 with its British version of Lunchables.
Whereas British consumers have revolted against artificial food dyes in the U.K., Americans haven't been as vocal as their counterparts. That is something O'Brien hopes to change.
"My goal is simply to have the same value placed on the lives of the American children," O'Brien said.
Mom on a Mission
O'Brien even created a Web site, which she launched on Mother's Day 2006, to serve as a parental resource and forum on children's food allergies.
The site is specific with its concerns.
"At AllergyKids, our concern is that industry funding ties between the agri-chemical companies and pediatric allergists who have served on the FDA 'generally recognized as safe' panels and testified to the safety of MSG, aspartame, glutamate and genetically engineered proteins, may prevent full disclosure of leading global research highlighting a ban of these ingredients in Europe, Australia, the UK and other developed countries in an effort to protect children," the site says.
O'Brien even created a symbol a green stop sign with an exclamation point in the center to identify a child with food allergies. It can be put on lunch bags, wristbands and even shoes.
"My goal now is to say, 'OK, this is what's happening. Let's inspire other mothers to take control so that our children can benefit like the children around the world,'" O'Brien said.
In her own life, O'Brien has gotten strict about what she feeds her children and encourages others to do what she has done: Throw out as much non-organic processed food as they can afford to. Also, avoid anything that's genetically modified, artificially created or raised with hormones and don't eat food with ingredients you are unable to pronounce.
"I thought, 'Well, I want to cook like the moms in Europe and avoid these chemical additives and see if that makes a difference in my children's health and behavior.' And so we did," O'Brien said. "We moved from the tubes of blue yogurt to regular yogurt and we started mixing honey into it. "
Not everyone in her family was happy about the changes.
"I encountered major resistance from my boys," O'Brien said. "They loved that blue yogurt and it was easy and it was convenient, but to see the dramatic improvement in my boys especially as we cleaned out their diets it was amazing. It was incredibly inspiring. They slept better; they were able to concentrate in school. Their behavior improved."
The Allergies-Additives Connection
Two recent British studies found that certain food dyes, as well as the common preservative sodium benzoate, may have an adverse effect on some children's behavior. Researchers said the increase in ADHD diagnoses could be partly to blame on the preservative.
"It can affect their focus, their concentration. They become more easily distractible, become more impulsive. I think we're looking at a whole population of kids with skewed immune systems," said Dr. Kenneth Bock, who wrote a book that supports the theory that food additives could lead to hyperactivity in children.
A Southampton Study in the UK showed that additives cause hyperactivity in children within an hour after consumption. Food additives, especially the artificial colors are made from coal tar derivatives and synthetic chemicals. Within an hour of ingestion, hyperactive behavior is evident.
ADHD Drugs Don't Work
It was a team of American scientists researching what is called the "Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD -- MTA for short, who found that ADHD drugs are useless over long-term use. The drugs used to treat ADHD such as Ritalin and Concerta are ineffective treatment methodolgies which are constantly promoted by conventional medicine. They have no benefits whatsoever after three years and even though they may show some short-term benefits depending on who is watching, and depending on their judgment of the child's behavior, the truth is there is no long-term benefit whatsoever.
They found that these drugs stunt the growth of children. "They were not growing as much as other children in terms of both their height and their weight," said the report's co-author, Prof. William Pelham from the University of Buffalo. "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study," he added in reference to a study they did a few years ago where they declared that these drugs were helping children.
"We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That did not happen to be the case. The children had a substantial decrease in their growth rate," he continued. The second point was that there were no benefits to children taking these drugs whatsoever.
What they did not say in the results of this study is that the same drugs also stunt the growth of the children's brains. MRI brain scans later proved that children on ADHD medications had brains that were three years behind schedule in development. 80% of the children who were looked at with MRI scans were on ADHD medications.
Children taking stimulants as a treatment for ADHD are also 20 percent more likely to visit a doctor with heart-related symptoms, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida and published in the journal Pediatrics.
Researchers examined the records on 55,000 children between the ages of 3 and 20 who had undergone treatment for ADHD using central nervous system stimulants between 1994 and 2004. Their health profiles were compared with those of nearly two million other children in the Florida Medicaid database, making the current study the largest ever on the safety of ADHD drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Credo: Sell, Sell, Sell
This is what the ADHD industry is like. It is as if they have to carry on this outrageous lie, and they cannot really tell the truth because then the whole house of cards would collapse and everybody would realize this is all one giant fraud.
They cannot tell the truth so they have to keep coming up with new lies to try to market this to more people. First, it was just a children's disorder. Then the drug companies realized they could sell this same speed drug to adults. Children are only a small part of the total market.
They have to keep pushing these drugs onto more children. They have to keep those parents in a state of fear. That's how they sell more drugs. They have to keep people believing in this fictitious disease. That's the only way they are going to make money. This is an industry that makes money by exploiting the bodies of children, and the evidence is very clear.
Even the NIH is now saying that these drugs stunt the growth of children. That is a scientific fact announced by a mainstream medical research organization. This is not fringe science. This is not alternative medicine. This is not conjecture on the part of some person who has an axe to grind with psychiatry. This is mainstream medicine announcing that these drugs stunts the growth of children.
Flawed Children or Flawed System?
The Multi-Modal Treatment Study's co-author is Professor William Pelham at the University of Buffalo. He is the one who found out that these drugs do not help children at all in the long run. He says, "In the short run, medication will help the child behave better. In the long run, it will not and that information should be made very clear to parents."
Dr. Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the person who is working on some new guidelines about ADHD for the NHS) says, "A generous understanding would be to say that doctors have reached the point where they do not know what else to offer."
He says, "I hope we will be able to make recommendations that will give people a comprehensive approach to treatment…" there is that word "treatment" again. He continues, "and that will advise about what teachers might be able to do within the classroom when they are trying to deal with children who have difficult problems of this kind. I think the important thing is we have a comprehensive approach that does not focus on just one type of treatment."
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
http://preventdisease.com/home/tips89.shtml
ADHD Misdiagnosed In Nearly 1 Million U.S. Kids Say Researchers
ADHD Misdiagnosed In Nearly 1 Million U.S. Kids Say Researchers
Two studies published recently suggest there could be something wrong with the way ADHD is diagnosed in young children in the US, one found that nearly 1 million kids are potentially misdiagnosed just because they are the youngest in their kindergarten year, with the youngest in class twice as likely to be on stimulant medication, while the other study confirmed that whether children were born just before or just after the kindergarten cutoff date significantly affected their chances of being diagnosed with ADHD.
Papers on both studies by US researchers are in press, to be published in the Journal of Health Economics, the first being a corrected proof that was first available online in June, and the other appeared online on 4 August.
In the first paper, Dr Todd Elder, assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University, looked at a sample of nearly 12,000 children from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort, which is funded by the National Center for Education Statistics. He analysed the difference in ADHD diagnosis and medication rates between the youngest and the oldest children in a kindergarten grade.
He found that the youngest children were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and to be prescribed behavior-modifying stimulants such as Ritalin than their older classmates. He told the press that the "smoking gun" was that the diagnoses depended on the children's age relative to classmates and the teacher's perceptions of whether they had symptoms.
Elder said:
"If a child is behaving poorly, if he's inattentive, if he can't sit still, it may simply be because he's 5 and the other kids are 6."
"There's a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD," he urged.
Elder said medicating such children inappropriately was a cause for concern not just because of the effect of long term stimulant use on their health but also because it costs a lot of money: he estimated about 320 to 500 million US dollars is being wasted on unnecessary medication of young children for ADHD, of which 80 to 90 million is funded by Medicaid.
From his analysis, Elder found that the youngest kindergarten kids were 60 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade, and also, by the time those groups reached the fifth and eighth grades, the youngest were more than twice as likely to be on prescription stimulants.
Elder estimated that overall in the US, the misdiagnosis rate is about 1 in 5, that is around 900,000 of the 4.5 million children currently diagnosed with ADHD have been misdiagnosed.
Like the researchers in the second study, Elder used kindergarten eligibility cutoff dates to distinguish between the youngest and the oldest kids in a grade. While this date differs among states in the US, the most commonly used one is that used by 15 states to rule that kids must be 5 years old on or before 1st September to be eligible for kindergarten.
He found the same definitive pattern both in the case of individual states and when he compared across states.
Michigan for example has a cutoff date of 1st December for kindergarten attendance. Elder found higher rates of diagnosed ADHD among Michigan kids born on 1st December than born on 2nd December. Those born on the 1st December would have been the youngest in their grade, while those born on the 2nd, just one day later, because of the cutoff date, would have enrolled a year later and therefore been among the oldest in their grade.
Elder remarked that even though these kids were only born a day apart, they were assessed differently because they were being compared with classmates of a different age set.
Looking across states, Elder gave the example of Illinois and Michigan. In Illinois, where the cutoff date for kindergarten is 1st September, August-born kids were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD than Michigan kids born in August of the same year.
Elder's study defined a diagnosis of ADHD as including evidence of multiple symptoms, including inattention and hyperactivity sustained for six months or more observed in two settings, for instance the home and school, before the age of seven.
Although a mental health professional performs the diagnosis, the opinions of teachers often influence whether a child is sent for evaluation in the first place, said Elder.
"Many ADHD diagnoses may be driven by teachers' perceptions of poor behavior among the youngest children in a kindergarten classroom," said Elder, but the "symptoms" that teachers perceive may "merely reflect emotional or intellectual immaturity among the youngest students".
ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder for kids in the United States, and currently there are no neurological markers for ADHD (such as a blood test for example). Experts disagree on how common it is, hotting up public debate about whether it is under- or over-diagnosed, said Elder.
In the second paper, researchers at North Carolina (NC) State University, Notre Dame and the University of Minnesota drew very similar conclusions to those of Elder's study.
Co-author Dr Melinda Morrill, a research assistant professor of economics at NC State, told the press that:
"The question we asked was whether children who are relatively young compared to their classroom peers were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD."
Morrill and colleagues looked at kids born just before the kindergarten eligibility cutoff date and those born shortly after and found large discrepancies in rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment based on small differences in birth dates.
For the study they analyzed data from two national health surveys and a national database of private health insurance claims. The data covered several periods between 1996 and 2006.
They found that kids who were "relatively old-for-grade", that is those born just after the kindergarten cutoff date, were 25 per cent less likely to have received a diagnosis for ADHD than their the "relatively young-for-grade" peers, that is kids born just before the cutoff date.
As their premise was that children born a few days apart should have the same underlying risk of developing ADHD, finding a significant discrepancy based on small differences in age suggests the problem is inappropriate diagnosis, concluded the researchers.
"This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons," said Morrill.
"We believe that younger children may be mistakenly diagnosed as having ADHD, when in fact they are simply less mature," she added, drawing the same conclusion as Elder in the first study.
However, she wished to stress that their study is "not downplaying the existence or significance of ADHD in children".
"What our research shows is that similar students have significantly different diagnosis rates depending on when their birthday falls in relation to the school year," she pointed out.
"The importance of relative standards in ADHD diagnoses: Evidence based on exact birth dates."
Todd E. Elder
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 June 2010
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.06.003
"Measuring Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis and Treatment in Survey Data: The Case of ADHD among School-Age Children."
William N. Evans, Melinda S. Morrill, Stephen T. Parente
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 August 2010.
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.005
-- Journal of Health Economics
Sources:
Michigan State University, North Carolina State University.
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102910_adhd_misdiagnosed.shtml
Two studies published recently suggest there could be something wrong with the way ADHD is diagnosed in young children in the US, one found that nearly 1 million kids are potentially misdiagnosed just because they are the youngest in their kindergarten year, with the youngest in class twice as likely to be on stimulant medication, while the other study confirmed that whether children were born just before or just after the kindergarten cutoff date significantly affected their chances of being diagnosed with ADHD.
Papers on both studies by US researchers are in press, to be published in the Journal of Health Economics, the first being a corrected proof that was first available online in June, and the other appeared online on 4 August.
In the first paper, Dr Todd Elder, assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University, looked at a sample of nearly 12,000 children from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort, which is funded by the National Center for Education Statistics. He analysed the difference in ADHD diagnosis and medication rates between the youngest and the oldest children in a kindergarten grade.
He found that the youngest children were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and to be prescribed behavior-modifying stimulants such as Ritalin than their older classmates. He told the press that the "smoking gun" was that the diagnoses depended on the children's age relative to classmates and the teacher's perceptions of whether they had symptoms.
Elder said:
"If a child is behaving poorly, if he's inattentive, if he can't sit still, it may simply be because he's 5 and the other kids are 6."
"There's a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD," he urged.
Elder said medicating such children inappropriately was a cause for concern not just because of the effect of long term stimulant use on their health but also because it costs a lot of money: he estimated about 320 to 500 million US dollars is being wasted on unnecessary medication of young children for ADHD, of which 80 to 90 million is funded by Medicaid.
From his analysis, Elder found that the youngest kindergarten kids were 60 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade, and also, by the time those groups reached the fifth and eighth grades, the youngest were more than twice as likely to be on prescription stimulants.
Elder estimated that overall in the US, the misdiagnosis rate is about 1 in 5, that is around 900,000 of the 4.5 million children currently diagnosed with ADHD have been misdiagnosed.
Like the researchers in the second study, Elder used kindergarten eligibility cutoff dates to distinguish between the youngest and the oldest kids in a grade. While this date differs among states in the US, the most commonly used one is that used by 15 states to rule that kids must be 5 years old on or before 1st September to be eligible for kindergarten.
He found the same definitive pattern both in the case of individual states and when he compared across states.
Michigan for example has a cutoff date of 1st December for kindergarten attendance. Elder found higher rates of diagnosed ADHD among Michigan kids born on 1st December than born on 2nd December. Those born on the 1st December would have been the youngest in their grade, while those born on the 2nd, just one day later, because of the cutoff date, would have enrolled a year later and therefore been among the oldest in their grade.
Elder remarked that even though these kids were only born a day apart, they were assessed differently because they were being compared with classmates of a different age set.
Looking across states, Elder gave the example of Illinois and Michigan. In Illinois, where the cutoff date for kindergarten is 1st September, August-born kids were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD than Michigan kids born in August of the same year.
Elder's study defined a diagnosis of ADHD as including evidence of multiple symptoms, including inattention and hyperactivity sustained for six months or more observed in two settings, for instance the home and school, before the age of seven.
Although a mental health professional performs the diagnosis, the opinions of teachers often influence whether a child is sent for evaluation in the first place, said Elder.
"Many ADHD diagnoses may be driven by teachers' perceptions of poor behavior among the youngest children in a kindergarten classroom," said Elder, but the "symptoms" that teachers perceive may "merely reflect emotional or intellectual immaturity among the youngest students".
ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder for kids in the United States, and currently there are no neurological markers for ADHD (such as a blood test for example). Experts disagree on how common it is, hotting up public debate about whether it is under- or over-diagnosed, said Elder.
In the second paper, researchers at North Carolina (NC) State University, Notre Dame and the University of Minnesota drew very similar conclusions to those of Elder's study.
Co-author Dr Melinda Morrill, a research assistant professor of economics at NC State, told the press that:
"The question we asked was whether children who are relatively young compared to their classroom peers were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD."
Morrill and colleagues looked at kids born just before the kindergarten eligibility cutoff date and those born shortly after and found large discrepancies in rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment based on small differences in birth dates.
For the study they analyzed data from two national health surveys and a national database of private health insurance claims. The data covered several periods between 1996 and 2006.
They found that kids who were "relatively old-for-grade", that is those born just after the kindergarten cutoff date, were 25 per cent less likely to have received a diagnosis for ADHD than their the "relatively young-for-grade" peers, that is kids born just before the cutoff date.
As their premise was that children born a few days apart should have the same underlying risk of developing ADHD, finding a significant discrepancy based on small differences in age suggests the problem is inappropriate diagnosis, concluded the researchers.
"This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons," said Morrill.
"We believe that younger children may be mistakenly diagnosed as having ADHD, when in fact they are simply less mature," she added, drawing the same conclusion as Elder in the first study.
However, she wished to stress that their study is "not downplaying the existence or significance of ADHD in children".
"What our research shows is that similar students have significantly different diagnosis rates depending on when their birthday falls in relation to the school year," she pointed out.
"The importance of relative standards in ADHD diagnoses: Evidence based on exact birth dates."
Todd E. Elder
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 June 2010
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.06.003
"Measuring Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis and Treatment in Survey Data: The Case of ADHD among School-Age Children."
William N. Evans, Melinda S. Morrill, Stephen T. Parente
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 August 2010.
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.005
-- Journal of Health Economics
Sources:
Michigan State University, North Carolina State University.
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102910_adhd_misdiagnosed.shtml
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Mental health agency blasted-Keene, NH
Mental health agency blasted
Monadnock Family Services faces discipline
By Dave Eisenstadter
Sentinel Staff
Published: Thursday, October 28, 2010
On the heels of several state-level cuts to mental health services, Keene-based Monadnock Family Services faces a threat of a different kind.
Through a recent performance audit, the N.H. Bureau of Behavioral Health has slammed Monadnock Family Services with more than a dozen concerns requiring immediate action.
If the organization’s board of directors fails to come up with a plan to address the concerns by Nov. 14, Monadnock Family Services will lose its designation as community mental health center for the Monadnock Region.
Read More:
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/10/28/news/local/free/id_417057.txt
Monadnock Family Services faces discipline
By Dave Eisenstadter
Sentinel Staff
Published: Thursday, October 28, 2010
On the heels of several state-level cuts to mental health services, Keene-based Monadnock Family Services faces a threat of a different kind.
Through a recent performance audit, the N.H. Bureau of Behavioral Health has slammed Monadnock Family Services with more than a dozen concerns requiring immediate action.
If the organization’s board of directors fails to come up with a plan to address the concerns by Nov. 14, Monadnock Family Services will lose its designation as community mental health center for the Monadnock Region.
Read More:
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/10/28/news/local/free/id_417057.txt
CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Jane Boyer
Subject: CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:36:44 -0400
From: Michigan for Parental Rights
CPS Case Law
Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000)
In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing her from her parents' custody. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
"This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be."
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals (2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's Department, who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
"The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children's development, even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently." A brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989)
"[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained, while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." No qualified immunity claim to be found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. The state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)
Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received specific information questioning the safety of children," they acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together without governmental interference and will not be separated without due process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
NEW! Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th Cir. 1999)
"The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster care was well established as of 1991.
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution." Section 1983 case reinforces that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.
Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child into protective custody."
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
"We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished)
"It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is unreasonable."
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
"In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed."
Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
"Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from altering parental custody rights." What I find interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Guess again!
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in this section 1983 action.
--
Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287 MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com Social Network
miparentalrights@gmail.com E-mail Address
616-848-0664
Jane Boyer
Subject: CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:36:44 -0400
From: Michigan for Parental Rights
CPS Case Law
Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000)
In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing her from her parents' custody. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
"This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be."
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals (2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's Department, who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
"The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children's development, even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently." A brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989)
"[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained, while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." No qualified immunity claim to be found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. The state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)
Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received specific information questioning the safety of children," they acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together without governmental interference and will not be separated without due process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
NEW! Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th Cir. 1999)
"The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster care was well established as of 1991.
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution." Section 1983 case reinforces that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.
Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child into protective custody."
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
"We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished)
"It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is unreasonable."
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
"In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed."
Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
"Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from altering parental custody rights." What I find interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Guess again!
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in this section 1983 action.
--
Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287 MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com Social Network
miparentalrights@gmail.com E-mail Address
616-848-0664
Judge finds NYC Administration for Children Services in contempt for not placing child with uncle
Judge finds NYC Administration for Children Services in contempt for not placing child with uncle
September 18th, 2009 1:00 pm ET
Judge Bryanne Hamill, of Kings' County Family Court, found the New York City Administration for Children's Services in contempt earlier this week for not placing a child in the custody of her uncle as ordered by the court. Judge Hamill also fined ACS $2,500 plus costs and expenses in the Matter of Lanaya B., for failure to release the child into the custody of her uncle on May 19 as ordered.
Lanaya B. and her two siblings were removed from the mother's care when Lanaya was hospitalized for failure to thrive. The mother, suffering from depression, was unable to properly feed her.
According to the judge's decision:
"On May 14, 2009, ACS requested a removal of the three subject children from their mother and a remand to ACS, which was granted by the presiding intake Judge. On May 14, 2009 the Court issued an order directing ACS, pursuant to Family Court Act (hereinafter "FCA") §1017 (1), to investigate the children's maternal uncle as a resource for the children. The respondent requested a FCA §1028 hearing, which was adjourned to this Court on May 19, 2009."
"On May 19, 2009, the parties agreed to a partial settlement. The two older children were placed into the care and custody of their mother, who consented to the continued remand of the infant, Lanaya, with the understanding that the infant would be placed with the maternal uncle. ACS informed the Court that it had conducted a State Central Registry clearance for the uncle, but failed to submit a written investigative report on him, pursuant to FCA §1017, as ordered on May 14, 2009."
Because of the failure of ACS to submit a written report, the Court investigated the uncle on May 19 and found that he was a suitable person for placing Lanaya. The court also ordered that Lanaya's mother could have liberal visits with her, supervised by the uncle, so that she and the infant could bond. The infant's law guardian was in agreement with the plan.
Later testimony revealed that during these visits the mother spent upwards of eight hours a day with the child, fed, burped and washed her and brought the siblings along so they could bond with her also. In contrast, while in foster care the mother was only allowed to visit with her baby for a maximum of two hours a day, during the few days she was allowed to visit.
While ACS presented many arguments to explain why the agency did not turn the child over to the uncle as ordered, the judge would have none of them. In short ACS argued that they were unable to fulfill the court order. Judge Hamill said that the inability to fulfill the order was self-created. In her decision, Judge Hamill also stated that the law (FCA §1017) does not give ACS the authority to "stay" a court ordered placement.
In awarding the mother compensation for the actions by ACS, the judge stated:
"The record here is clear: the respondent mother suffered loss of visiting and bonding time of eight or more hours per day with her daughter for each day that ACS failed to comply with this Court's mandate. For nine days of her infant's life, this mother was not able to hold, feed, parent and bond with Lanaya, because she was placed in a stranger's home instead of the home of a loving relative that this Court held to be in the best interests of Lanya. The FCA §1028 hearing testimony supports that when Lanaya was placed with her uncle, nine days after it was first Court-ordered, her mother was able to spend up to eight hours per day with her, and Lanaya, in turn, was able to be parented by her mother. Thus, this Court finds that this mother suffered daily compensable harm for which she shall be compensated for each day ACS was in contempt of its order."
Judge Hamill's decision also referenced the law in regard to the importance of placing children with suitable relatives rather than with strangers. She also made it clear that the definition of liberal visitation is liberal visitation, quoting from respondent's counsel who argued in her reply, "Liberal as applied to visits is widely understood to describe visits that are unrestricted in their frequency."
For more info: Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child custody, child abuse and related matters.
http://www.examiner.com/cps-and-family-court-in-albany/judge-finds-nyc-administration-for-children-services-contempt-for-not-placing-child-with-uncle
September 18th, 2009 1:00 pm ET
Judge Bryanne Hamill, of Kings' County Family Court, found the New York City Administration for Children's Services in contempt earlier this week for not placing a child in the custody of her uncle as ordered by the court. Judge Hamill also fined ACS $2,500 plus costs and expenses in the Matter of Lanaya B., for failure to release the child into the custody of her uncle on May 19 as ordered.
Lanaya B. and her two siblings were removed from the mother's care when Lanaya was hospitalized for failure to thrive. The mother, suffering from depression, was unable to properly feed her.
According to the judge's decision:
"On May 14, 2009, ACS requested a removal of the three subject children from their mother and a remand to ACS, which was granted by the presiding intake Judge. On May 14, 2009 the Court issued an order directing ACS, pursuant to Family Court Act (hereinafter "FCA") §1017 (1), to investigate the children's maternal uncle as a resource for the children. The respondent requested a FCA §1028 hearing, which was adjourned to this Court on May 19, 2009."
"On May 19, 2009, the parties agreed to a partial settlement. The two older children were placed into the care and custody of their mother, who consented to the continued remand of the infant, Lanaya, with the understanding that the infant would be placed with the maternal uncle. ACS informed the Court that it had conducted a State Central Registry clearance for the uncle, but failed to submit a written investigative report on him, pursuant to FCA §1017, as ordered on May 14, 2009."
Because of the failure of ACS to submit a written report, the Court investigated the uncle on May 19 and found that he was a suitable person for placing Lanaya. The court also ordered that Lanaya's mother could have liberal visits with her, supervised by the uncle, so that she and the infant could bond. The infant's law guardian was in agreement with the plan.
Later testimony revealed that during these visits the mother spent upwards of eight hours a day with the child, fed, burped and washed her and brought the siblings along so they could bond with her also. In contrast, while in foster care the mother was only allowed to visit with her baby for a maximum of two hours a day, during the few days she was allowed to visit.
While ACS presented many arguments to explain why the agency did not turn the child over to the uncle as ordered, the judge would have none of them. In short ACS argued that they were unable to fulfill the court order. Judge Hamill said that the inability to fulfill the order was self-created. In her decision, Judge Hamill also stated that the law (FCA §1017) does not give ACS the authority to "stay" a court ordered placement.
In awarding the mother compensation for the actions by ACS, the judge stated:
"The record here is clear: the respondent mother suffered loss of visiting and bonding time of eight or more hours per day with her daughter for each day that ACS failed to comply with this Court's mandate. For nine days of her infant's life, this mother was not able to hold, feed, parent and bond with Lanaya, because she was placed in a stranger's home instead of the home of a loving relative that this Court held to be in the best interests of Lanya. The FCA §1028 hearing testimony supports that when Lanaya was placed with her uncle, nine days after it was first Court-ordered, her mother was able to spend up to eight hours per day with her, and Lanaya, in turn, was able to be parented by her mother. Thus, this Court finds that this mother suffered daily compensable harm for which she shall be compensated for each day ACS was in contempt of its order."
Judge Hamill's decision also referenced the law in regard to the importance of placing children with suitable relatives rather than with strangers. She also made it clear that the definition of liberal visitation is liberal visitation, quoting from respondent's counsel who argued in her reply, "Liberal as applied to visits is widely understood to describe visits that are unrestricted in their frequency."
For more info: Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child custody, child abuse and related matters.
http://www.examiner.com/cps-and-family-court-in-albany/judge-finds-nyc-administration-for-children-services-contempt-for-not-placing-child-with-uncle
Time Traveler' Caught on Tape?
http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4392185/time-traveler-caught-on-tape/?playlist_id=87937
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Austin Knightly in State custody at Silver Lake, NOT being watched
The above picture of my grandson Austin was taken at Silver Lake State Park, while in DCYF custody, being held by St. Charles Children's Home for the state of NH. I just recently learned Austin was left to run off on his own, without anyone watching him. Aquaintences of his mother caught him trying to get out to the dock to obtain the cone he has in front of him. They chased him, stopped him and retrieved the cone for him. He could have drowned while being "protected" by the state. I'd hate to see what they call NOT being "protected".
Monday, October 25, 2010
Bulletin from the cause: Stop Child Abuse for Profit
CALL TO ACTION: WASHINGTON DC 10 30 2010 live TV exposure! Bring signs!
CALL TO ACTION: Please get to this Rally and make your way to the front with big signs on the issues. Sat 10 30 2010 12-3pm on the west side of the Nations capital on the mall.
Please forward this to your networks. Sat 10 30 2010 these Rallies have live TV feeds so make signs and get on national TV to expose our issues. Educate the public. Expose the deceptions.
Create media exposure! Educate the public.
http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/
http://www.keepfearalive.com/
CALL TO ACTION: Please get to this Rally and make your way to the front with big signs on the issues. Sat 10 30 2010 12-3pm on the west side of the Nations capital on the mall.
Please forward this to your networks. Sat 10 30 2010 these Rallies have live TV feeds so make signs and get on national TV to expose our issues. Educate the public. Expose the deceptions.
Create media exposure! Educate the public.
http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/
http://www.keepfearalive.com/
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Surveillance and Child Protection:De-mystifying the Trojan Horse
Surveillance and Child Protection:De-mystifying the Trojan Horse
Article by Lynne Wrennall
John Moores University, UK.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/trojan_horse/trojan_horse
Article by Lynne Wrennall
John Moores University, UK.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/trojan_horse/trojan_horse
Mother who bludgeoned husband with sledgehammer could get custody of son
Mother who bludgeoned husband with sledgehammer could get custody of son
By JILLIAN DUCHNOWSKI - jduchnowski@nwherald.com
LAKE IN THE HILLS – As a toddler, Joey Dombroski was shuffled among family members shortly after his mother smashed his father’s face with a sledgehammer nine years ago.
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/10/22/r_x1lnv8aiqsirafkmzttd5q/index.xml#readcomments
By JILLIAN DUCHNOWSKI - jduchnowski@nwherald.com
LAKE IN THE HILLS – As a toddler, Joey Dombroski was shuffled among family members shortly after his mother smashed his father’s face with a sledgehammer nine years ago.
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/10/22/r_x1lnv8aiqsirafkmzttd5q/index.xml#readcomments
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights advocates for justice, dignity and policy reform for vulnerable women and girls in the United States and in Africa. We believe that women and girls possess the right to live free of gendered inequity and violence, and that investment in their leadership creates healthy, safe, and strong communities.
Mother's Behind Bar's Report on how States were rated in the treatment of Mother's behind bar's
Read More:
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/
Mother's Behind Bar's Report on how States were rated in the treatment of Mother's behind bar's
Read More:
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Reform Effort's in Nebraska
In Nebraska the goal of foster care reform is to keep children in their homes, PRESERVING families!!!! I commend Nebraska for doing the right thing by families. By doing the job their paid to do. Will the rest of the states join in? How about New Hampshire? Or is the blood money just too much to give up?
http://journalstar.com/article_1973ee7a-de36-11df-b7f2-001cc4c002e0.html
http://journalstar.com/article_1973ee7a-de36-11df-b7f2-001cc4c002e0.html
CDC Report: Birthrate lowest in nation for NH teens
CDC Report: Birthrate lowest in nation for NH teens
By CAROL ROBIDOUX
My comment-Could the reason be because there is NO parental notification in NH and the DHHS cohort health center's and hospital's coerce teen's into abortion?
Fewer teenage girls in New Hampshire have babies than do their counterparts in other states, according to the most recent national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on teenage birthrates.
It's good news that's not terribly surprising, said Michelle Ricco, family planning manager for the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Read More:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Report:+Birthrate+low+for+NH+teens&articleId=23100b1c-13aa-4269-a9df-afc757a6899d
By CAROL ROBIDOUX
My comment-Could the reason be because there is NO parental notification in NH and the DHHS cohort health center's and hospital's coerce teen's into abortion?
Fewer teenage girls in New Hampshire have babies than do their counterparts in other states, according to the most recent national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on teenage birthrates.
It's good news that's not terribly surprising, said Michelle Ricco, family planning manager for the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Read More:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Report:+Birthrate+low+for+NH+teens&articleId=23100b1c-13aa-4269-a9df-afc757a6899d
GOD GUNS AND GUTS Protecting your family under tyranny
GOD GUNS AND GUTS
Protecting your family under tyranny
By Jan Smith
I can’t think of a more violent government act against residents, then to send in government agents to take one’s children and place them in stranger’s homes and for all kinds of erroneous reasons determined by the psychiatric and legislative professions. Once removed those in power have devised a system so overwhelmingly corrupt and expansive, the average person is crippled under its auspices. From start to finish, the child protection system under a concept called Parens Patriae ensures that all involved parents and relatives are void of any rights. Most rights presented are nothing more than an illusion and the targets are usually very vulnerable.
The concept of Parens Patriae (government control of vulnerable children) came from English/British legal schools of thought and was implemented by the judicial system here in the US. However, this concept has gone way past the judiciary and encompasses the federal government and agencies, state government and agencies, contracted agencies and mandated reporters. Then there are all the “volunteer” agents (neighbors, friends, relatives, etc.) whose perception of a person’s parenting leads to government intervention. These too, are a part of the Parens Patriae system by choice. What they don’t realize is what they are subjecting the whole family to (including extended) when they pick up that phone and begin the process of removal.
So, what are they being subjected to? Poorly trained attorneys who are part of a “team” and may or may not represent their clients but the state. Then there is a massive Attorney General’s office and assigned assistant AGs who represent each government stakeholder at significant tax payer expense. The courts aren’t really courts at all, but a devised method of child removal and adoption with supportive rules, regulations and laws designed to give Parens the ability to make any type of decision – right or wrong – without consequence. Then there are the case workers and their big ideas of how to save the world through removal and adoption, leaving the entire lineage devastated with their mouths hanging open at the experience.
The targets are anyone whose income is at the poverty level. This includes those families who do not accept any type of government assistance but could if they applied. Most are having babies like crazy and completely unaware they are under government radar and gun scopes of medical, educational, and social worker opinion. Those who fall under ADA categories are disproportionately attacked to include the blind and disabled in wheel chairs. People with diagnosed mental health problems are a “shoe in” for removal and adoption for government agents. Depression is the government’s weapon of choice. They will use this diagnose to divide families and seek out any information that would suggest a parent or extended family has depression issues. Quietly, the government is taking children away from family after family under these categories and only recently, is there becoming an awareness of the plot.
There are several things families need to start doing. The first and most important is practicing the 2nd Amendment rights of gun ownership. All families at or below poverty levels need to own a gun and know how to use it safely by taking the required courses. If this means buying a gun on time payments then do it. Many hand guns are below $200 used. Nine millimeters have the cheapest ammo for practice. Talk to local gun firing ranges about developing a system of affordable shooting. They need to start supporting ALL Americans so they can practice their gun owner rights, not just those of higher incomes. Join the NRA. Currently, there is a special of $25 https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=XR014432 (copy and paste). Attend gun shows. Most are only about $5 to get in. You need to get a gun before international law goes into place with the Obama administration who would like to take the guns away from every American.
The second is educating yourself if you are going to have a child. Know who are mandatory reporters and under what circumstances your state allows removal. Know what the evidence standards are and how to dispute accusations. Families need to educate themselves on family law if they are going to have children. Know that marriage, holding down a job, and maintaining a stable environment are important factors in a court room setting. So are fighting in front of children, domestic violence, failing to show up for medical appointments, drug/alcohol abuse and a messy house will get agents involved with court support. Spanking with objects (belt, switch, etc.) is never allowed. Know what your rights are when agents show up at the door investigating your family and how to state those rights.
For activist/system victims who want to know what to do, consider developing groups in your area to do the following:
Develop fliers to hand out at maternity wards in hospitals to vulnerable parents and clinics who take government medical
Find out about all HUD housing apartment complexes and give community lectures on family law and child protection on site. If they won’t let you do that, hand out fliers and set up community meetings. Find a free place to have community meetings. Libraries are one source.
Go to your local ADA and express your concern about their lack of support regarding families. Picket if necessary to get your point across.
Develop a solid volunteer base. Memberships in family rights organizations fail if there is a fee. Most people won’t pay to have advocacy.
Educate those with money like foundations. This is important because they are funding foster care systems but don’t realize what is happening to families in the legal system. We need backers to help.
Work at night if you can, so that your schedule is free during the day to attend court hearings and public legislation. Get to know all the legislators in your state.
Pool resources with others to get training. Pick out members in your groups to attend important functions and meetings then collect the funds to get them that training. Once trained the trainees can come back and train the group.
Hand out fliers at DSHS offices where families are signing up for money/food/medical.
Organize parent groups in school systems that may be a little too excited about government involvement with families. There is safety in numbers.
Make lists of doctors and forensic experts where families are losing their rights because of their testimonies and examine the validity of their arguments. Some of these quacks go for years with false testimony before getting discovered.
Own a gun and practice good safety.
I could continue listing, but if these items get accomplished, great gains will be made. People lack power because of isolation and an absence of critical thinking. It will take some time and effort in the beginning, but once you become an established entity, the ripple effect will take over and have some impact.
http://washingtonstateextendedfamilies.com/GOD%20GUNS%20AND%20GUTS.htm
Protecting your family under tyranny
By Jan Smith
I can’t think of a more violent government act against residents, then to send in government agents to take one’s children and place them in stranger’s homes and for all kinds of erroneous reasons determined by the psychiatric and legislative professions. Once removed those in power have devised a system so overwhelmingly corrupt and expansive, the average person is crippled under its auspices. From start to finish, the child protection system under a concept called Parens Patriae ensures that all involved parents and relatives are void of any rights. Most rights presented are nothing more than an illusion and the targets are usually very vulnerable.
The concept of Parens Patriae (government control of vulnerable children) came from English/British legal schools of thought and was implemented by the judicial system here in the US. However, this concept has gone way past the judiciary and encompasses the federal government and agencies, state government and agencies, contracted agencies and mandated reporters. Then there are all the “volunteer” agents (neighbors, friends, relatives, etc.) whose perception of a person’s parenting leads to government intervention. These too, are a part of the Parens Patriae system by choice. What they don’t realize is what they are subjecting the whole family to (including extended) when they pick up that phone and begin the process of removal.
So, what are they being subjected to? Poorly trained attorneys who are part of a “team” and may or may not represent their clients but the state. Then there is a massive Attorney General’s office and assigned assistant AGs who represent each government stakeholder at significant tax payer expense. The courts aren’t really courts at all, but a devised method of child removal and adoption with supportive rules, regulations and laws designed to give Parens the ability to make any type of decision – right or wrong – without consequence. Then there are the case workers and their big ideas of how to save the world through removal and adoption, leaving the entire lineage devastated with their mouths hanging open at the experience.
The targets are anyone whose income is at the poverty level. This includes those families who do not accept any type of government assistance but could if they applied. Most are having babies like crazy and completely unaware they are under government radar and gun scopes of medical, educational, and social worker opinion. Those who fall under ADA categories are disproportionately attacked to include the blind and disabled in wheel chairs. People with diagnosed mental health problems are a “shoe in” for removal and adoption for government agents. Depression is the government’s weapon of choice. They will use this diagnose to divide families and seek out any information that would suggest a parent or extended family has depression issues. Quietly, the government is taking children away from family after family under these categories and only recently, is there becoming an awareness of the plot.
There are several things families need to start doing. The first and most important is practicing the 2nd Amendment rights of gun ownership. All families at or below poverty levels need to own a gun and know how to use it safely by taking the required courses. If this means buying a gun on time payments then do it. Many hand guns are below $200 used. Nine millimeters have the cheapest ammo for practice. Talk to local gun firing ranges about developing a system of affordable shooting. They need to start supporting ALL Americans so they can practice their gun owner rights, not just those of higher incomes. Join the NRA. Currently, there is a special of $25 https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=XR014432 (copy and paste). Attend gun shows. Most are only about $5 to get in. You need to get a gun before international law goes into place with the Obama administration who would like to take the guns away from every American.
The second is educating yourself if you are going to have a child. Know who are mandatory reporters and under what circumstances your state allows removal. Know what the evidence standards are and how to dispute accusations. Families need to educate themselves on family law if they are going to have children. Know that marriage, holding down a job, and maintaining a stable environment are important factors in a court room setting. So are fighting in front of children, domestic violence, failing to show up for medical appointments, drug/alcohol abuse and a messy house will get agents involved with court support. Spanking with objects (belt, switch, etc.) is never allowed. Know what your rights are when agents show up at the door investigating your family and how to state those rights.
For activist/system victims who want to know what to do, consider developing groups in your area to do the following:
Develop fliers to hand out at maternity wards in hospitals to vulnerable parents and clinics who take government medical
Find out about all HUD housing apartment complexes and give community lectures on family law and child protection on site. If they won’t let you do that, hand out fliers and set up community meetings. Find a free place to have community meetings. Libraries are one source.
Go to your local ADA and express your concern about their lack of support regarding families. Picket if necessary to get your point across.
Develop a solid volunteer base. Memberships in family rights organizations fail if there is a fee. Most people won’t pay to have advocacy.
Educate those with money like foundations. This is important because they are funding foster care systems but don’t realize what is happening to families in the legal system. We need backers to help.
Work at night if you can, so that your schedule is free during the day to attend court hearings and public legislation. Get to know all the legislators in your state.
Pool resources with others to get training. Pick out members in your groups to attend important functions and meetings then collect the funds to get them that training. Once trained the trainees can come back and train the group.
Hand out fliers at DSHS offices where families are signing up for money/food/medical.
Organize parent groups in school systems that may be a little too excited about government involvement with families. There is safety in numbers.
Make lists of doctors and forensic experts where families are losing their rights because of their testimonies and examine the validity of their arguments. Some of these quacks go for years with false testimony before getting discovered.
Own a gun and practice good safety.
I could continue listing, but if these items get accomplished, great gains will be made. People lack power because of isolation and an absence of critical thinking. It will take some time and effort in the beginning, but once you become an established entity, the ripple effect will take over and have some impact.
http://washingtonstateextendedfamilies.com/GOD%20GUNS%20AND%20GUTS.htm
Friday, October 22, 2010
Woman accused of burning 2-year-old pleads not guilty
Woman accused of burning 2-year-old pleads not guilty
5:34 PM, Oct 21, 2010
Plainfield
DANVILLE — A Plainfield woman accused of badly burning a 2-year-old boy at her home daycare pled not guilty today at an initial court hearing.
Irene Martin, 37, who runs a daycare site out of her home in the 6300 block of Quail Ridge West Drive, Plainfield, was formally charged with three felony counts — two for battery and a third for neglect of a dependant — stemming from an incident that occurred Friday, while she was watching eight children, including three of her own.
Read More:http://www.indystar.com/article/20101021/LOCAL0505/101021023/Woman-accused-of-burning-2-year-old-pleads-not-guilty?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Communities|s
5:34 PM, Oct 21, 2010
Plainfield
DANVILLE — A Plainfield woman accused of badly burning a 2-year-old boy at her home daycare pled not guilty today at an initial court hearing.
Irene Martin, 37, who runs a daycare site out of her home in the 6300 block of Quail Ridge West Drive, Plainfield, was formally charged with three felony counts — two for battery and a third for neglect of a dependant — stemming from an incident that occurred Friday, while she was watching eight children, including three of her own.
Read More:http://www.indystar.com/article/20101021/LOCAL0505/101021023/Woman-accused-of-burning-2-year-old-pleads-not-guilty?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Communities|s
Big Pharma Maneuvers to Label Toddlers as Depressed—and Drug Them
Big Pharma Maneuvers to Label Toddlers as Depressed—and Drug Them
Once children are in the system, most become fodder for the Big Pharma machine for the rest of their miserable lives.
by Heidi Stevenson
Big Pharma is bringing out the big guns to convince parents that their toddlers' normal behavior needs to be controlled with drugs.
Read More:
http://gaia-health.com/articles301/000320-big-pharma-toddlers-depressed-drug-them.shtml
Once children are in the system, most become fodder for the Big Pharma machine for the rest of their miserable lives.
by Heidi Stevenson
Big Pharma is bringing out the big guns to convince parents that their toddlers' normal behavior needs to be controlled with drugs.
Read More:
http://gaia-health.com/articles301/000320-big-pharma-toddlers-depressed-drug-them.shtml
The Deadly Industry Of Psychiatry
The Deadly Industry Of Psychiatry
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industrypsychiatry.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industrypsychiatry.htm
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Luo Yan Qua Interview-Eighth-Month Forced Abortion in China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC6deR6gCLE&feature=player_embedded
How To File A Child Welfare Grievance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtCGN9p6yk&feature=player_embedded#!
J. Irish & S. Taylor vs. The State, Round Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0i5NbPXI6Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://bikerbillnh.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Parents Of Child Who Died In Foster Care Sue Oklahoma DHS
Parents Of Child Who Died In Foster Care Sue Oklahoma DHS
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The biological parents of a 2-year-old girl who died while she was in foster care has sued the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and the foster parents.
Read More:http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13359049
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The biological parents of a 2-year-old girl who died while she was in foster care has sued the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and the foster parents.
Read More:http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13359049
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Galvanize The Vote Sign Petition We The People Reform U.S. DHS Justice For Families and Children
Contact Deborah Young Justice For Families and Children (267) 463-8242 email justiceforfamilies@gmail.com WE THE PEOPLE JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN PETITION FOR REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED STATES' DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY PETITION THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO INVE...
Help Save Clayton & Blake
Help Save Clayton & BlakePlease share this page...the more people who know, the more that can speak out...and put corruption in it's place! Let's all DE-BENCH Charlette Pellar the ABUSIVE judge!!
This page was created to raise awareness of the CHILD ABUSE by their politically "connected" father. These children are 5 & 6 years old. Clayton is 6 and Blake is 5. While their mother and father were married, their father regularly physically abused their mother. Their father wanted ONE son, that is Clayton. When their mom got pregnant with Blake, she found out was in fact pregnant with twins. The father, not wanting a second baby, let alone two more, took out his anger on her by beating her in the face, chest, and stomach, at 14 weeks pregnant. Her mother rushed her to the doctor, only to find out she was in the midst of a miss-carriage due to the beating. GOD intervened, and ONE child survived! That is Blake, he was born at 34 weeks and weighed only 5 lbs. His father NEVER came to the hospital to see him or their mom. When Blake was 1 year old, their Mother had ENOUGH, and left their father. He was convicted of Battery, and given NO visitation with the children.
Their father is a wealthy man, and politically connected in Lake County Indiana. After the Judge in the custody/divorce case told him "no-way no visitation, you are a danger to those children" he went behind that judges back and got a corrupt judge Arrendando (who isn't even associated with this case) to give him unsupervised visitation. THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE ARE ALL INJURIES THAT THEIR FATHER GAVE TO THEM. He was able to get the boys for 4 weeks in the summer of 2008, with their mother fighting tooth and nail against corruption to keep them SAFE. He starved Blake for 4 weeks! NO FOOD...Blake went from a healthy 38 lbs 3 year old...down to 24 lbs! After having the children for 4 weeks, he returned them to their mother on a Monday morning. Seeing the baby's condition, she called their doctor immediatley...and he said he would see them the very next day. THEY NEVER MADE IT TO THE DOCTOR. The father had hired Dr. Deb Fedge (who had NEVER seen these children before) to call CPS and tell them that the MOTHER had starved the baby! CPS removed the boys from the mother and placed them UN-SUPERVISED with their father, where they remain to this day. If a man can beat a 4 year old in the face...and starve a BABY close to death what is he doing to them now??? The mother needs help, with legal advice, financial help, and moral support. We all know how CORRUPT CPS is, so lets try to help Clayton and Blakes MOM so she can get custody back away from this abusive man!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-Save-Clayton-Blake/111374678926031
This page was created to raise awareness of the CHILD ABUSE by their politically "connected" father. These children are 5 & 6 years old. Clayton is 6 and Blake is 5. While their mother and father were married, their father regularly physically abused their mother. Their father wanted ONE son, that is Clayton. When their mom got pregnant with Blake, she found out was in fact pregnant with twins. The father, not wanting a second baby, let alone two more, took out his anger on her by beating her in the face, chest, and stomach, at 14 weeks pregnant. Her mother rushed her to the doctor, only to find out she was in the midst of a miss-carriage due to the beating. GOD intervened, and ONE child survived! That is Blake, he was born at 34 weeks and weighed only 5 lbs. His father NEVER came to the hospital to see him or their mom. When Blake was 1 year old, their Mother had ENOUGH, and left their father. He was convicted of Battery, and given NO visitation with the children.
Their father is a wealthy man, and politically connected in Lake County Indiana. After the Judge in the custody/divorce case told him "no-way no visitation, you are a danger to those children" he went behind that judges back and got a corrupt judge Arrendando (who isn't even associated with this case) to give him unsupervised visitation. THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE ARE ALL INJURIES THAT THEIR FATHER GAVE TO THEM. He was able to get the boys for 4 weeks in the summer of 2008, with their mother fighting tooth and nail against corruption to keep them SAFE. He starved Blake for 4 weeks! NO FOOD...Blake went from a healthy 38 lbs 3 year old...down to 24 lbs! After having the children for 4 weeks, he returned them to their mother on a Monday morning. Seeing the baby's condition, she called their doctor immediatley...and he said he would see them the very next day. THEY NEVER MADE IT TO THE DOCTOR. The father had hired Dr. Deb Fedge (who had NEVER seen these children before) to call CPS and tell them that the MOTHER had starved the baby! CPS removed the boys from the mother and placed them UN-SUPERVISED with their father, where they remain to this day. If a man can beat a 4 year old in the face...and starve a BABY close to death what is he doing to them now??? The mother needs help, with legal advice, financial help, and moral support. We all know how CORRUPT CPS is, so lets try to help Clayton and Blakes MOM so she can get custody back away from this abusive man!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-Save-Clayton-Blake/111374678926031
Monday, October 18, 2010
Agency blundered in child custody case
MONITOR EDITORIAL
Agency blundered in child custody case
By Monitor staff
October 18, 2010
Under normal circumstances, the state's decision to take a newborn baby from her parents and place her in foster care would have been just another tough call officials must make in balancing child safety and parental rights. But in the case of an Epsom couple whose baby was born at Concord Hospital last week, an affidavit summarizing the state's case included not just the parents' legal past, but the father's status as a gun owner and the allegation that he "associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers."
That was a mistake in more ways than one. Maggie Bishop, director of the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, told the Monitor that children are not removed from their homes because of a parent's affiliations - but that the agency includes in affidavits everything it learns about a case and leaves it to a judge to decide what has bearing and what doesn't.
Perhaps she was trying to minimize her staff's error. But for the purposes of determining parental rights, an individual's affiliation with a group - whether it's the Catholic Church, the Masons, a political party or the Hell's Angels - is irrelevant. In this case, the worker's information may have also been inaccurate.
DYCF's action offended members of Oath Keepers, an organization formed by Yale Law School graduate Stewart Rhodes to remind military members, police officers and firefighters to remember the Founders' pledge to devote "my life, my fortune and my sacred honor" to their country and resist government orders to carry out an unconstitutional act.
The group held a rally to support the father, Johnathon Irish - who it said was not actually a member. It was held in front of the Rochester Family Division Court where, after a hearing, a judge decided to reverse an earlier court decision and return Cheyenne Irish to her parents.
The decision to remove the child from her parents may or may not have been the right call.
The same is true of the decision to return her to them. Matters regarding the custody of a child are rightly confidential, so the public will never know for sure.
Court documents show that Irish, 24, was named as the main suspect in an investigation into the source of bruises on two young children his girlfriend, Stephanie Taylor, had with a man she's still married to. Those children were ultimately placed in foster care.
Irish and Taylor, records show, have taken restraining orders out against each other in the past, and Taylor's husband is seeking to terminate her parental rights to their two children.
Such information is necessary for the agency and the court to consider. Political affiliations are not.
Comment from "thetruthbites"
Confidential Courts serve only inadequate judicial guidelines and overzealous employees of Maggie Bishop. And it limits the media resources for fear of lawsuits and or simply laziness in reporting the whole story. Parents are threatened with action of being charged with a misdemeanor for simply talking about the case. The Best Interest of the Child is elusive undefined and not as enlightened as it sounds.
The International Human Rights Law and US Citizens have a first amendment right to free speech, the gag orders implemented by DCYF prevent constituents from speaking out on their experience, closed courts impede other lawyers from learning how to argue these cases. In Standfield v. Florida Department of Children and Families (1997) the 2nd district found specifically ... courts cannot prohibit citizens from exercising their first amendment right to publicly discuss knowledge gain independent of court documents even if the same information appears in the court documents.
The court practice in these proceedings is very similar to the Clergy sex abuse cases - protecting pedophile pastors at the expense of their victims. DCYF does the same thing and with such a low standard to meet to prove guilt anything goes their victims might be you or your neighbors. DCYF further victimizes families with their billing around these cases - federal funds reimburse the state for 75% of costs in these cases no matter how lack lustrous they are Under Title IV of the social security act. Yet these families are being charged 100% for services that have little merit.
Maggie Bishop’s response - no comment - the bills are confidential –no transparency in this day and age Federal and State money that we as tax payers provide yet we are NOT entitled to know what they are doing with the money - why not an audit from outside the state from one of the big four - like Price Water House Coopers, KPMG, Ernst and Young or Deliotte Touche' for the blatant lack of accountability.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220817/agency-blundered-in-child-custody-case
Agency blundered in child custody case
By Monitor staff
October 18, 2010
Under normal circumstances, the state's decision to take a newborn baby from her parents and place her in foster care would have been just another tough call officials must make in balancing child safety and parental rights. But in the case of an Epsom couple whose baby was born at Concord Hospital last week, an affidavit summarizing the state's case included not just the parents' legal past, but the father's status as a gun owner and the allegation that he "associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers."
That was a mistake in more ways than one. Maggie Bishop, director of the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, told the Monitor that children are not removed from their homes because of a parent's affiliations - but that the agency includes in affidavits everything it learns about a case and leaves it to a judge to decide what has bearing and what doesn't.
Perhaps she was trying to minimize her staff's error. But for the purposes of determining parental rights, an individual's affiliation with a group - whether it's the Catholic Church, the Masons, a political party or the Hell's Angels - is irrelevant. In this case, the worker's information may have also been inaccurate.
DYCF's action offended members of Oath Keepers, an organization formed by Yale Law School graduate Stewart Rhodes to remind military members, police officers and firefighters to remember the Founders' pledge to devote "my life, my fortune and my sacred honor" to their country and resist government orders to carry out an unconstitutional act.
The group held a rally to support the father, Johnathon Irish - who it said was not actually a member. It was held in front of the Rochester Family Division Court where, after a hearing, a judge decided to reverse an earlier court decision and return Cheyenne Irish to her parents.
The decision to remove the child from her parents may or may not have been the right call.
The same is true of the decision to return her to them. Matters regarding the custody of a child are rightly confidential, so the public will never know for sure.
Court documents show that Irish, 24, was named as the main suspect in an investigation into the source of bruises on two young children his girlfriend, Stephanie Taylor, had with a man she's still married to. Those children were ultimately placed in foster care.
Irish and Taylor, records show, have taken restraining orders out against each other in the past, and Taylor's husband is seeking to terminate her parental rights to their two children.
Such information is necessary for the agency and the court to consider. Political affiliations are not.
Comment from "thetruthbites"
Confidential Courts serve only inadequate judicial guidelines and overzealous employees of Maggie Bishop. And it limits the media resources for fear of lawsuits and or simply laziness in reporting the whole story. Parents are threatened with action of being charged with a misdemeanor for simply talking about the case. The Best Interest of the Child is elusive undefined and not as enlightened as it sounds.
The International Human Rights Law and US Citizens have a first amendment right to free speech, the gag orders implemented by DCYF prevent constituents from speaking out on their experience, closed courts impede other lawyers from learning how to argue these cases. In Standfield v. Florida Department of Children and Families (1997) the 2nd district found specifically ... courts cannot prohibit citizens from exercising their first amendment right to publicly discuss knowledge gain independent of court documents even if the same information appears in the court documents.
The court practice in these proceedings is very similar to the Clergy sex abuse cases - protecting pedophile pastors at the expense of their victims. DCYF does the same thing and with such a low standard to meet to prove guilt anything goes their victims might be you or your neighbors. DCYF further victimizes families with their billing around these cases - federal funds reimburse the state for 75% of costs in these cases no matter how lack lustrous they are Under Title IV of the social security act. Yet these families are being charged 100% for services that have little merit.
Maggie Bishop’s response - no comment - the bills are confidential –no transparency in this day and age Federal and State money that we as tax payers provide yet we are NOT entitled to know what they are doing with the money - why not an audit from outside the state from one of the big four - like Price Water House Coopers, KPMG, Ernst and Young or Deliotte Touche' for the blatant lack of accountability.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220817/agency-blundered-in-child-custody-case
Psychiatry Drugs Foster Care Children – Tristen
Psychiatry Drugs Foster Care Children – Tristen I took mу video camera tο a Foster Care Alumni meeting аחԁ аѕkеԁ seven foster kids tο tеƖƖ mе аbουt tһеrе experiences іח Child Protective Services wһіƖе wards οf tһе state. One thing tһеу all һаԁ іח common wаѕ massive over drugging wіtһ psychiatric drugs. Child placement agencies, foster parents, RTCs (Residential Treatment Centers) аחԁ Therapeutic Foster Homes ɡеt paid a сеrtаіח amount οf money each day fοr taking care οf a foster child. Tһе amount οf money tһеу ɡеt paid depends οח a level οf care system. Tһе more difficult tһе child οr tһе more problems tһаt child һаѕ, tһе more money уου ɡеt. A child аt tһе basic level οf care іѕ worth аbουt 17 dollars a day wһеrе аѕ a child іח tһе highest level οf care сουƖԁ bе worth аѕ much аѕ a 1000 dollars a day. Tһіѕ puts tһе incentive οח diagnosing children wіtһ behavior problems tο justify raising tһеіr level οf care. A child οח psychiatric drugs іѕ worth more tһаח a child without problems. It іѕ חοt uncommon fοr a foster child tο bе placed οח many different psychotropic drugs аt tһе same time. Sοmе investigations һаνе found children οח аѕ many аѕ 13 mind altering drugs prescribed bу a psychiatrists аt one time. Tһеѕе drugs include all categories οf psychiatric drugs; antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiety medications, anticonvulsants medications, etc. Tһе SSRI drugs аrе commons such аѕ Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc. AƖѕο a number οf tһеѕе children ԁеѕсrіbеԁ taking …
http://methadonedetoxforum.com/methadone-detox/psychiatry-drugs-foster-care-children-tristen-2/
ADHD: Commonly diagnosed disorder in children. Study links childhood deaths and stimulants
ADHD: Commonly diagnosed disorder in children. Study links childhood deaths and stimulants
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD or ADHD) is a neuron behavioral developmental disorder. It is the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorder in children affecting about 3 to 5% of children globally with symptoms starting before seven years of age. It is characterized by a persistent pattern of impulsiveness and inattention, with or without a component of hyperactivity. ADHD is diagnosed twice as frequently in boys as in girls, though studies suggest this discrepancy may be due to subjective bias. ADHD is generally a chronic disorder with 30 to 50% of those individuals diagnosed in childhood continuing to have symptoms into adulthood. As they mature, adolescents and adults with ADHD are likely to develop coping mechanisms to compensate for their impairment.
Though previously regarded as a childhood diagnosis, ADHD can continue throughout adulthood. Four percent of American adults are estimated to live with ADHD.
ADHD management typically involves some combination of medications, behavior modifications, life-style changes, or counseling.
The most common symptoms of ADHD are:
* Impulsiveness: acting before thinking of consequences, jumping from one activity to another, disorganization, tendency to interrupt other peoples’ conversations.
* Hyperactivity: restlessness, often characterized by an inability to sit still, fidgeting, squirm Ines, climbing on things, restless sleep.
* Inattention: easily distracted, day-dreaming, not finishing work, difficulty listening, and motor clumsiness.
ADHD and its diagnosis and treatment have been considered controversial since the 1970s. The controversies have involved clinicians, teachers, policymakers, parents and the media, with opinions regarding ADHD that range from not believing it exists at all to believing there are genetic and physiological bases for the condition and also include disagreement about the use of stimulant medications in the treatment. Most healthcare providers accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder with debate in the scientific community mainly around how it is diagnosed and treated.
According to a study published yesterday that was funded by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health Children taking stimulant drugs such as Ritalin to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder are several times as likely to suffer sudden, unexplained death as children who are not taking such drugs. The study’s lead author, Madelyn Gould, a professor in child psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University, said she agreed with the FDA’s advice.
Doctors have speculated about such a connection in the past because stimulants increase heart rate and have other cardiovascular effects. Physicians are currently advised to evaluate patients for cardiac risks before prescribing the drugs, and FDA officials said yesterday that those guidelines do not need strengthening in light of the recent study. About 2.5 million children in the United States take ADHD medications such as Ritalin and Adderall.
“This study reports a significant association or ’signal’ between sudden unexplained death and the use of stimulant medication, specifically methylphenidate,” the study researchers concluded, referring to the chemical name of Ritalin. “While the data have limitations that preclude a definitive conclusion, our findings draw attention to the potential risks of stimulant medications for children and adolescents.”
Since an experimental study comparing the risk of sudden death among children taking medications with those not taking medications would have had to include millions of children to generate a useful scientific result, Gould and a number of colleagues conducted what is known as a matched case-control study: They obtained information about 564 children in the United States who died suddenly and inexplicably between 1985 and 1996. The researchers evaluated how many of the children who died had been taking stimulant drugs by asking their parents and caregivers and by reviewing medical documents.
For every child who died suddenly and inexplicably, the researchers also found another child closely matched in terms of age, sex and other variables who died in a traffic accident. Taking a stimulant drug is unlikely to have played any role in a child getting killed in an accident. If stimulant drugs had nothing to do with sudden, unexplained death, then the number of victims on stimulant drugs who suffered such deaths and the number of victims on stimulant drugs who died in traffic accidents ought to have been about the same.
Gould found that 10 children in the group that suffered sudden, unexplained death had been taking stimulant drugs, whereas only two children in the group killed in traffic accidents were taking such medications.
Robert Temple, director of the Office of Drug Evaluation at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, said that the study had been well conducted, but that he was concerned that not all parents may accurately recall whether children who died were taking stimulant drugs. When a child dies suddenly, he said, it is natural for a parent to pay close attention to all the medications the child was taking at the time and to report that to researchers. By contrast, he said, parents whose children die in traffic accidents may be less likely to note whether their children are taking medications — and less able to report it years later.
In an editorial accompanying the study, Benedetto Vitiello of the National Institute of Mental Health said that ADHD itself might have increased the risk for sudden, unexplained death. If that were the case, he said, it would explain why more children taking stimulant drugs found in the group that unexpectedly died than among the children who died in traffic accidents.
The researchers who conducted the peer-reviewed study acknowledged that its design precluded definitive answers, but they said that they had taken care to eliminate each of these potential confounders. They did not consider cases of sudden death in which children had asthma or cardiac abnormalities — conditions known to be associated with ADHD — because those factors might have independently raised the risk of sudden death. They also included one child who died in a traffic accident who seemed to have been abusing amphetamines, rather than taking an ADHD medication.
In a press briefing called on short notice yesterday, FDA officials said that given the seriousness of ADHD and the rarity of sudden death Which strikes fewer than 1 in 10,000 children ? the benefits of the drugs outweigh their risks. Agency officials urged parents to discuss concerns with doctors rather than deciding on their own to discontinue a child’s Medication.
http://www.insomniacuresreviews.com/adhd-commonly-diagnosed-disorder-in-children-study-links-childhood-deaths-and-stimulants.html
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD or ADHD) is a neuron behavioral developmental disorder. It is the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorder in children affecting about 3 to 5% of children globally with symptoms starting before seven years of age. It is characterized by a persistent pattern of impulsiveness and inattention, with or without a component of hyperactivity. ADHD is diagnosed twice as frequently in boys as in girls, though studies suggest this discrepancy may be due to subjective bias. ADHD is generally a chronic disorder with 30 to 50% of those individuals diagnosed in childhood continuing to have symptoms into adulthood. As they mature, adolescents and adults with ADHD are likely to develop coping mechanisms to compensate for their impairment.
Though previously regarded as a childhood diagnosis, ADHD can continue throughout adulthood. Four percent of American adults are estimated to live with ADHD.
ADHD management typically involves some combination of medications, behavior modifications, life-style changes, or counseling.
The most common symptoms of ADHD are:
* Impulsiveness: acting before thinking of consequences, jumping from one activity to another, disorganization, tendency to interrupt other peoples’ conversations.
* Hyperactivity: restlessness, often characterized by an inability to sit still, fidgeting, squirm Ines, climbing on things, restless sleep.
* Inattention: easily distracted, day-dreaming, not finishing work, difficulty listening, and motor clumsiness.
ADHD and its diagnosis and treatment have been considered controversial since the 1970s. The controversies have involved clinicians, teachers, policymakers, parents and the media, with opinions regarding ADHD that range from not believing it exists at all to believing there are genetic and physiological bases for the condition and also include disagreement about the use of stimulant medications in the treatment. Most healthcare providers accept that ADHD is a genuine disorder with debate in the scientific community mainly around how it is diagnosed and treated.
According to a study published yesterday that was funded by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health Children taking stimulant drugs such as Ritalin to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder are several times as likely to suffer sudden, unexplained death as children who are not taking such drugs. The study’s lead author, Madelyn Gould, a professor in child psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University, said she agreed with the FDA’s advice.
Doctors have speculated about such a connection in the past because stimulants increase heart rate and have other cardiovascular effects. Physicians are currently advised to evaluate patients for cardiac risks before prescribing the drugs, and FDA officials said yesterday that those guidelines do not need strengthening in light of the recent study. About 2.5 million children in the United States take ADHD medications such as Ritalin and Adderall.
“This study reports a significant association or ’signal’ between sudden unexplained death and the use of stimulant medication, specifically methylphenidate,” the study researchers concluded, referring to the chemical name of Ritalin. “While the data have limitations that preclude a definitive conclusion, our findings draw attention to the potential risks of stimulant medications for children and adolescents.”
Since an experimental study comparing the risk of sudden death among children taking medications with those not taking medications would have had to include millions of children to generate a useful scientific result, Gould and a number of colleagues conducted what is known as a matched case-control study: They obtained information about 564 children in the United States who died suddenly and inexplicably between 1985 and 1996. The researchers evaluated how many of the children who died had been taking stimulant drugs by asking their parents and caregivers and by reviewing medical documents.
For every child who died suddenly and inexplicably, the researchers also found another child closely matched in terms of age, sex and other variables who died in a traffic accident. Taking a stimulant drug is unlikely to have played any role in a child getting killed in an accident. If stimulant drugs had nothing to do with sudden, unexplained death, then the number of victims on stimulant drugs who suffered such deaths and the number of victims on stimulant drugs who died in traffic accidents ought to have been about the same.
Gould found that 10 children in the group that suffered sudden, unexplained death had been taking stimulant drugs, whereas only two children in the group killed in traffic accidents were taking such medications.
Robert Temple, director of the Office of Drug Evaluation at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, said that the study had been well conducted, but that he was concerned that not all parents may accurately recall whether children who died were taking stimulant drugs. When a child dies suddenly, he said, it is natural for a parent to pay close attention to all the medications the child was taking at the time and to report that to researchers. By contrast, he said, parents whose children die in traffic accidents may be less likely to note whether their children are taking medications — and less able to report it years later.
In an editorial accompanying the study, Benedetto Vitiello of the National Institute of Mental Health said that ADHD itself might have increased the risk for sudden, unexplained death. If that were the case, he said, it would explain why more children taking stimulant drugs found in the group that unexpectedly died than among the children who died in traffic accidents.
The researchers who conducted the peer-reviewed study acknowledged that its design precluded definitive answers, but they said that they had taken care to eliminate each of these potential confounders. They did not consider cases of sudden death in which children had asthma or cardiac abnormalities — conditions known to be associated with ADHD — because those factors might have independently raised the risk of sudden death. They also included one child who died in a traffic accident who seemed to have been abusing amphetamines, rather than taking an ADHD medication.
In a press briefing called on short notice yesterday, FDA officials said that given the seriousness of ADHD and the rarity of sudden death Which strikes fewer than 1 in 10,000 children ? the benefits of the drugs outweigh their risks. Agency officials urged parents to discuss concerns with doctors rather than deciding on their own to discontinue a child’s Medication.
http://www.insomniacuresreviews.com/adhd-commonly-diagnosed-disorder-in-children-study-links-childhood-deaths-and-stimulants.html
'We're doing experiments on poor children'
'We're doing experiments on poor children'
Washington state is working to reverse a disturbing trend: the disproportionate use of adult antipsychotic drugs to treat poor kids with mental illness.
Read More:
http://crosscut.com/2010/10/18/health-medicine/20249/-We-re-doing-experiments-on-poor-children-/
Washington state is working to reverse a disturbing trend: the disproportionate use of adult antipsychotic drugs to treat poor kids with mental illness.
Read More:
http://crosscut.com/2010/10/18/health-medicine/20249/-We-re-doing-experiments-on-poor-children-/
Sunday, October 17, 2010
CPS reform-Please Sign the Petition
CPS reform-Go to:http://www.rallycongress.com/fight-cps/1448/cps
Sign the Petition : 5,653 Letters and Emails Sent So Far
Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in Texas they're known as DFPS. (Department of Family and Protective Services)
While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percentage of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph.
I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources.
Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are:
1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974.
2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
3. Social Security Title IV-E funds.
The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential" abuser.
The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell.
Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse?
1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.
2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances.
3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting.
4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there.
5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field.
6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law!
7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide.
Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts:
Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington.
CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4)
Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5)
As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non-offending homes nationwide.
Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day!
1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)
2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588
3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)
4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)
6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)
7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child Protection System?
I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime.
II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause.
III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it.
IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them.
V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster parents. They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught!
VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police!
VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location.
VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation.
IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done.
X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly basis, so no more children vanish in the system.
XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child's current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care.
XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won't have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed.
Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed.
Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans. Help us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them focused on finding and saving abused children. It's time we removed them from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families apart.
Sign the Petition : 5,653 Letters and Emails Sent So Far
Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in Texas they're known as DFPS. (Department of Family and Protective Services)
While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percentage of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph.
I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources.
Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are:
1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974.
2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
3. Social Security Title IV-E funds.
The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential" abuser.
The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell.
Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse?
1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.
2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances.
3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting.
4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there.
5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field.
6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law!
7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide.
Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts:
Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington.
CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4)
Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5)
As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non-offending homes nationwide.
Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day!
1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)
2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588
3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)
4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)
6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)
7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child Protection System?
I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime.
II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause.
III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it.
IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them.
V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster parents. They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught!
VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police!
VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location.
VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation.
IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done.
X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly basis, so no more children vanish in the system.
XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child's current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care.
XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won't have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed.
Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed.
Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans. Help us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them focused on finding and saving abused children. It's time we removed them from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)