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
Monday, February 28, 2011
Camreta v. Greene Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether "children's rights" include freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
Camreta v. Greene
For a printable .pdf version of this press release, click the link above.
“Children’s Rights” must include the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, according to a broad coalition of child advocacy groups supporting a family seeking to have those rights upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
The advocates are supporting a child known as “S.G.,” her sister, and their mother Sarah Greene. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 1 in their case, known as Camreta v. Greene. It is the first major case concerning child protective services systems to reach the high court in more than 21 years.
For a printable .pdf version of this press release, click the link above.
“Children’s Rights” must include the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, according to a broad coalition of child advocacy groups supporting a family seeking to have those rights upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
The advocates are supporting a child known as “S.G.,” her sister, and their mother Sarah Greene. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 1 in their case, known as Camreta v. Greene. It is the first major case concerning child protective services systems to reach the high court in more than 21 years.
Autopsy To Reveal How 7-Month-Old Foster Child Died
Autopsy To Reveal How 7-Month-Old Foster Child Died - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati
CINCINNATI -- Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services finds itself in the middle of a death investigation, after a 7-month-old baby dies in foster care.
News 5 first reported on the death of Tyionna Barfield on Friday.
CINCINNATI -- Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services finds itself in the middle of a death investigation, after a 7-month-old baby dies in foster care.
News 5 first reported on the death of Tyionna Barfield on Friday.
Assault on Ohio social worker upsets colleagues
WSYX ABC 6 - Ohio Columbus Local News & Headlines
Assault on Ohio social worker upsets colleagues
February 26, 2011 12:04 EST
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Some employees at a child welfare agency in Cleveland say they didn't find out a social worker had been assaulted at work until days later, when she was found dead at home.
Tashia Burch-York was assaulted by a 15-year-old boy on Feb. 17 at the Cleveland building where she worked for Cuyahoga County. Authorities have been investigating whether the attack led to her death.
The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reports some workers at the agency are concerned that they were not notified about the assault.
A spokesman for county Executive Ed FitzGerald says the decision was made by agency Director Deborah Forkas, who's being fired.
The newspaper reports the 15-year-old boy has been charged with the juvenile equivalent of felony assault and placed in juvenile detention.
------
Information from: The Plain Dealer, http://www.cleveland.com
Assault on Ohio social worker upsets colleagues
February 26, 2011 12:04 EST
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Some employees at a child welfare agency in Cleveland say they didn't find out a social worker had been assaulted at work until days later, when she was found dead at home.
Tashia Burch-York was assaulted by a 15-year-old boy on Feb. 17 at the Cleveland building where she worked for Cuyahoga County. Authorities have been investigating whether the attack led to her death.
The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reports some workers at the agency are concerned that they were not notified about the assault.
A spokesman for county Executive Ed FitzGerald says the decision was made by agency Director Deborah Forkas, who's being fired.
The newspaper reports the 15-year-old boy has been charged with the juvenile equivalent of felony assault and placed in juvenile detention.
------
Information from: The Plain Dealer, http://www.cleveland.com
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Deputies seek protection after threatening family
Deputies seek protection after threatening family
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Several Maricopa County, Ariz., deputies are seeking protection from the courts after threatening to take children away from their parents because the homeschooling family was unwilling to allow social workers inside their home for an inspection based on an unsubstantiated anonymous rumor.
But officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association have responded to the court filing by the deputies, explaining that they must answer for their actions in a court of law.
The case stems from a conflict in 2006 between social services in Arizona and John and Tiffany Loudermilk.
Find out how to keep the faith while in the world. Get "Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus"
A judge previously ruled that their lawsuit over civil rights violations by the social workers and the deputies can move forward. But the deputies appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they should be exempted from liability.
Social workers, told earlier by the court that they must respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, did not appeal that ruling, and the case, pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will move forward at the district court level once again when the deputies' requests have been resolved.
So far the court has suggested the social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
"No intellectually serious argument can be made to support the [deputies] incredulity about why an innocent man would wish to keep a government official from intruding into his home without legal authority," the HSLDA brief in opposition to the deputies' requests said.
"The deputies were not merely bystanders. They were active participants in coercing consent to search. It was clearly established law that the threatening presence of several officers is an important factor in determining whether consent to search is voluntary and whether a person is seized," the HSLDA said.
"They cannot claim that they were merely present or merely 'standing by.' Indeed, the physical presence of a single uniformed law enforcement officer is considered to be the use of 'force,'" the brief said.
"After Sgt. [Joseph] Sousa arrived on the scene he determined that there were no grounds for arrest … and that there was no justification to enter the Loudermilks' home without a search warrant. The written policy of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office about consent searches further put Sgt. Sousa and the rest of the MCSO defendants on notice that, 'any consent to search must be voluntary, without fear, threats or promise.'
"Sgt. Sousa was the patrol sergeant. He had the authority to order the deputies to leave the Loudermilks' home, but he did not do so. Each of the deputies individually and all of them together were active participants in the violation of the Loudermilks' constitutional rights," the brief argues. "Their conduct was contrary to clearly established law; it was contrary to their training; and it was contrary to the sheriff's written policy about 'consent searches.'"
"Deputies argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and that they should be granted qualified immunity. This is wrong," the brief said. "The law of the Fourth Amendment in relation to warrantless searches in child protective investigations is clearly established and has been since at least 1999.
"There was a clear violation of the Loudermilks' constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures," the brief said.
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll decided that the lawsuit by the family against the social workers, sheriff and deputies, would be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
The Loudermilks are members of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based organization leading their defense.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
The judge's ruling had directed the case toward a jury trial, except the process was interrupted by the deputies' demand for protection from the courts against accusations of civil rights violations.
Authorities have alleged the Loudermilks voluntarily allowed the search of their home, which produced no evidence that the rumor, in fact, was true.
The HSLDA said, however, that "assertion ... ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry."
According to the HSLDA, social workers responding to the six-week-old tip demanded entry into the home.
"After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
"Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff's deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left," the HSLDA said.
The family's subsequent lawsuit filed by the HSLDA alleged violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments.
The lawsuit names Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge, in handing authorities a previous courtroom loss, noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide their cell phone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The judge ruled that verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience.'"
Read more: Deputies seek protection after threatening family http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=268349#ixzz1FCfoQ3dQ
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Several Maricopa County, Ariz., deputies are seeking protection from the courts after threatening to take children away from their parents because the homeschooling family was unwilling to allow social workers inside their home for an inspection based on an unsubstantiated anonymous rumor.
But officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association have responded to the court filing by the deputies, explaining that they must answer for their actions in a court of law.
The case stems from a conflict in 2006 between social services in Arizona and John and Tiffany Loudermilk.
Find out how to keep the faith while in the world. Get "Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus"
A judge previously ruled that their lawsuit over civil rights violations by the social workers and the deputies can move forward. But the deputies appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they should be exempted from liability.
Social workers, told earlier by the court that they must respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, did not appeal that ruling, and the case, pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will move forward at the district court level once again when the deputies' requests have been resolved.
So far the court has suggested the social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
"No intellectually serious argument can be made to support the [deputies] incredulity about why an innocent man would wish to keep a government official from intruding into his home without legal authority," the HSLDA brief in opposition to the deputies' requests said.
"The deputies were not merely bystanders. They were active participants in coercing consent to search. It was clearly established law that the threatening presence of several officers is an important factor in determining whether consent to search is voluntary and whether a person is seized," the HSLDA said.
"They cannot claim that they were merely present or merely 'standing by.' Indeed, the physical presence of a single uniformed law enforcement officer is considered to be the use of 'force,'" the brief said.
"After Sgt. [Joseph] Sousa arrived on the scene he determined that there were no grounds for arrest … and that there was no justification to enter the Loudermilks' home without a search warrant. The written policy of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office about consent searches further put Sgt. Sousa and the rest of the MCSO defendants on notice that, 'any consent to search must be voluntary, without fear, threats or promise.'
"Sgt. Sousa was the patrol sergeant. He had the authority to order the deputies to leave the Loudermilks' home, but he did not do so. Each of the deputies individually and all of them together were active participants in the violation of the Loudermilks' constitutional rights," the brief argues. "Their conduct was contrary to clearly established law; it was contrary to their training; and it was contrary to the sheriff's written policy about 'consent searches.'"
"Deputies argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and that they should be granted qualified immunity. This is wrong," the brief said. "The law of the Fourth Amendment in relation to warrantless searches in child protective investigations is clearly established and has been since at least 1999.
"There was a clear violation of the Loudermilks' constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures," the brief said.
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll decided that the lawsuit by the family against the social workers, sheriff and deputies, would be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
The Loudermilks are members of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based organization leading their defense.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
The judge's ruling had directed the case toward a jury trial, except the process was interrupted by the deputies' demand for protection from the courts against accusations of civil rights violations.
Authorities have alleged the Loudermilks voluntarily allowed the search of their home, which produced no evidence that the rumor, in fact, was true.
The HSLDA said, however, that "assertion ... ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry."
According to the HSLDA, social workers responding to the six-week-old tip demanded entry into the home.
"After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
"Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff's deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left," the HSLDA said.
The family's subsequent lawsuit filed by the HSLDA alleged violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments.
The lawsuit names Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge, in handing authorities a previous courtroom loss, noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide their cell phone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The judge ruled that verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience.'"
Read more: Deputies seek protection after threatening family http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=268349#ixzz1FCfoQ3dQ
The Future of Children - Blog
The Future of Children - Blog
Federal Budget 2012: What's Most Important?
By Lauren Moore on February 25, 2011 2:16 PM
On February 14, 2011, President Obama released the 2012 federal budget, and a flood of media responses followed. For a moment, it appeared that children might fare well in the proposed budget: domestic discretionary spending remained level, and the proposed budget asked for $77.4 billion in education funding as well as continued and increased funding for early education, teacher support, and community initiatives, among others.
Federal Budget 2012: What's Most Important?
By Lauren Moore on February 25, 2011 2:16 PM
On February 14, 2011, President Obama released the 2012 federal budget, and a flood of media responses followed. For a moment, it appeared that children might fare well in the proposed budget: domestic discretionary spending remained level, and the proposed budget asked for $77.4 billion in education funding as well as continued and increased funding for early education, teacher support, and community initiatives, among others.
Beware Child Protective Services: What Victims, Advocates, and Mandated Reporters Need to Know
Beware Child Protective Services: What Victims, Advocates, and Mandated Reporters Need to Know
Introduction
Part 1 - Key Facts About Child Protective Services
Part 2 - Tips for Avoiding the Abuses of Child Protective Services for non-offending parents, advocates, and mandated reporters
Links - About Child Protective Services
Note: Throughout this text the terms Child Protective Services (CPS) and Child Welfare Agencies are used interchangeably.
Introduction
Probably no other public agency leaves victims and advocates more perplexed than Child Protective Services. On the one hand, people think of CPS with appreciation as they envision a selfless agency rescuing innocent children from horrific conditions. Indeed, CPS workers across the country do this routinely. The gratitude is deserved.
Introduction
Part 1 - Key Facts About Child Protective Services
Part 2 - Tips for Avoiding the Abuses of Child Protective Services for non-offending parents, advocates, and mandated reporters
Links - About Child Protective Services
Note: Throughout this text the terms Child Protective Services (CPS) and Child Welfare Agencies are used interchangeably.
Introduction
Probably no other public agency leaves victims and advocates more perplexed than Child Protective Services. On the one hand, people think of CPS with appreciation as they envision a selfless agency rescuing innocent children from horrific conditions. Indeed, CPS workers across the country do this routinely. The gratitude is deserved.
Defend Yourself?: Liberty, Justice & The Rule of Law by Jurisdictionary
Defend Yourself?: Liberty, Justice & The Rule of Law by Jurisdictionary
Do you Know Your State Statutes? Do you Know Court Proceedings? Whether you seek legal advice OR defend yourself, doing your homework and answering the above questions are vital.
Do you Know Your State Statutes? Do you Know Court Proceedings? Whether you seek legal advice OR defend yourself, doing your homework and answering the above questions are vital.
WATCH your back- your doctor may not be your friend
WATCH your back
This message hopefully will serve to help make parents more aware of what may be more common than most want to believe about the doctor or pediatrician you choose to take care of your children. Here is what happened this week with a local mother who was using a "supposedly" well known and respected doctor for her son who happened to be diabetic.
Over the past several months this mom, who was using one such physician in the Dallas, TX area kept having CPS called on her right after she would take her son in for a check-up monitoring and treating him for diabetes. She couldn't figure it out. Fortunately, the local CPS agency is not an aggressive family destructive unit, or this family would have been destroyed, as is so common for several northern counties, particularly, Tarrant, Parker, Denton, and Collin counties, Dallas county has gotten better in the last few months, but the physician in Dallas apparently, is still working "for" CPS reporting parents and their children who have done nothing wrong so the agencies can keep their flow of government money rolling in.
This Mother "got smart". She went to a local pharmacy and purchased a brand new, one of the latest and best models of diabetic testing meters presently on the market and started testing her son and recording the results. She "KEPT" her receipt of purchase with her. Every time in the recent months she would take the child in to this doctor, the doctor was telling her the child's sugar was "way too high" and just ream her out! She was telling the doctor that the checks she was doing at home were good and her son was doing well. This doctor wouldn't accept anything she was saying and was calling CPS after "every" visit claiming or reporting her as "medically neglectful of her son" and deliberately not properly caring for her son. Of course, we all know what that translated into - a visit by CPS.
On this day, the mother using the brand new state of the art meter she had purchased, checked her son's blood sugar within minutes of being called back to see the doctor, recorded the results which were what they should be. Once again, soon as they were called back to the patient room, Mom used her new meter and checked the boy's sugar level right in front of the nurse and once again the result was what it was supposed to be. The doctor had sent in another nurse to check the boy's sugar level with "his" meter unit. When the doctor then came into the patient room, he informed the mother that the child's sugar level was "way too high" and once again proceeded to just ream her out.
This time, she was prepared and called his hand on it. She asked the nurse to come into the room who had witnessed and watched her test her son's blood before the doctor entered the room or had "his" test done. She also presented her "new meter and purchase receipt" and informed him of the tests she had performed in the presence of that nurse right there in his office, and then asked him WHY was his test reading so high when hers with the new meter was reading normal. She then asked him was he telling her that her brand new state of the art meter was wrong?
He turned quite red in the face and replied "He had mis-read the results". The numbers he claimed and the numbers of the actual result were not even close, so NO he did NOT mis-read it. He was "deliberately" reporting this family to CPS for the purpose of increasing or trying to "give" CPS a case against them.
He was caught red handed!
That incident now begs the question and an investigation as to "how many" families has this doctor reported to CPS to help them start "unjustified and unwarranted" cases in the DFW metro and north Texas who uses physicians in the metroplex? I have a feeling that number would be quite shocking!
I am working with this family to help them "expose" this doctor and clinic as well as file the documents into their CPS records to prevent any further investigation into the matter. Mom is going to insist that this "quack" doctor sign a statement admitting his "wrongful reporting with incorrect information" to CPS. She also got the witnessing nurse to put the info into the records at the clinic and give her a copy of that report for her records and to present copy to CPS locally.
I don't anticipate any further investigation by the local CPS. I know most of the caseworkers and supervisors and they do abide by the law here and are not so aggressive and family destructive.
The matter is "not" yet resolved so far as that physician is concerned.
There is going to be complaints filed against him with the state medical board. Wouldn't it be nice if he lost his license to practice?
We are working with the family now to get the child under the care of a local doctor, rather than this so-called pediatric diabetic "specialist".
Moms, Dads, IF you are having problems with your child's doctor reporting you to CPS, take a hard and close look at the situation. Take whatever steps necessary to "bust" those doctors for their mal-practice! It really makes us wonder just how many cases, how many families has this (*^%^%&*) so-called doctor filed false reports on that ultimately destroyed the family or caused harm?
As soon as I can get the information on this doctor, name, clinic where he practices, etc, I will post that information. In the meantime, BEWARE -- he is in the Dallas, TX area.
This message hopefully will serve to help make parents more aware of what may be more common than most want to believe about the doctor or pediatrician you choose to take care of your children. Here is what happened this week with a local mother who was using a "supposedly" well known and respected doctor for her son who happened to be diabetic.
Over the past several months this mom, who was using one such physician in the Dallas, TX area kept having CPS called on her right after she would take her son in for a check-up monitoring and treating him for diabetes. She couldn't figure it out. Fortunately, the local CPS agency is not an aggressive family destructive unit, or this family would have been destroyed, as is so common for several northern counties, particularly, Tarrant, Parker, Denton, and Collin counties, Dallas county has gotten better in the last few months, but the physician in Dallas apparently, is still working "for" CPS reporting parents and their children who have done nothing wrong so the agencies can keep their flow of government money rolling in.
This Mother "got smart". She went to a local pharmacy and purchased a brand new, one of the latest and best models of diabetic testing meters presently on the market and started testing her son and recording the results. She "KEPT" her receipt of purchase with her. Every time in the recent months she would take the child in to this doctor, the doctor was telling her the child's sugar was "way too high" and just ream her out! She was telling the doctor that the checks she was doing at home were good and her son was doing well. This doctor wouldn't accept anything she was saying and was calling CPS after "every" visit claiming or reporting her as "medically neglectful of her son" and deliberately not properly caring for her son. Of course, we all know what that translated into - a visit by CPS.
On this day, the mother using the brand new state of the art meter she had purchased, checked her son's blood sugar within minutes of being called back to see the doctor, recorded the results which were what they should be. Once again, soon as they were called back to the patient room, Mom used her new meter and checked the boy's sugar level right in front of the nurse and once again the result was what it was supposed to be. The doctor had sent in another nurse to check the boy's sugar level with "his" meter unit. When the doctor then came into the patient room, he informed the mother that the child's sugar level was "way too high" and once again proceeded to just ream her out.
This time, she was prepared and called his hand on it. She asked the nurse to come into the room who had witnessed and watched her test her son's blood before the doctor entered the room or had "his" test done. She also presented her "new meter and purchase receipt" and informed him of the tests she had performed in the presence of that nurse right there in his office, and then asked him WHY was his test reading so high when hers with the new meter was reading normal. She then asked him was he telling her that her brand new state of the art meter was wrong?
He turned quite red in the face and replied "He had mis-read the results". The numbers he claimed and the numbers of the actual result were not even close, so NO he did NOT mis-read it. He was "deliberately" reporting this family to CPS for the purpose of increasing or trying to "give" CPS a case against them.
He was caught red handed!
That incident now begs the question and an investigation as to "how many" families has this doctor reported to CPS to help them start "unjustified and unwarranted" cases in the DFW metro and north Texas who uses physicians in the metroplex? I have a feeling that number would be quite shocking!
I am working with this family to help them "expose" this doctor and clinic as well as file the documents into their CPS records to prevent any further investigation into the matter. Mom is going to insist that this "quack" doctor sign a statement admitting his "wrongful reporting with incorrect information" to CPS. She also got the witnessing nurse to put the info into the records at the clinic and give her a copy of that report for her records and to present copy to CPS locally.
I don't anticipate any further investigation by the local CPS. I know most of the caseworkers and supervisors and they do abide by the law here and are not so aggressive and family destructive.
The matter is "not" yet resolved so far as that physician is concerned.
There is going to be complaints filed against him with the state medical board. Wouldn't it be nice if he lost his license to practice?
We are working with the family now to get the child under the care of a local doctor, rather than this so-called pediatric diabetic "specialist".
Moms, Dads, IF you are having problems with your child's doctor reporting you to CPS, take a hard and close look at the situation. Take whatever steps necessary to "bust" those doctors for their mal-practice! It really makes us wonder just how many cases, how many families has this (*^%^%&*) so-called doctor filed false reports on that ultimately destroyed the family or caused harm?
As soon as I can get the information on this doctor, name, clinic where he practices, etc, I will post that information. In the meantime, BEWARE -- he is in the Dallas, TX area.
Heritage Map - News | Heritage Defense
Heritage Map - News | Heritage Defense
Welcome to the News section of the Heritage Map, where we read, sift, and comment on news concerning the family. We are currently tracking news relating to social services. As we track more issues in the future, you will be able to click and unclick categories on the right to broaden or narrow your view to the issues that are important to you.
Welcome to the News section of the Heritage Map, where we read, sift, and comment on news concerning the family. We are currently tracking news relating to social services. As we track more issues in the future, you will be able to click and unclick categories on the right to broaden or narrow your view to the issues that are important to you.
Legal Terminology
Legal Terminology
Legal Terminology and Related Terms
Web Edition w/ continuous updates
The following pages contain legal terminology and related terms you will need to be familiar with. These pages contain words particular to our cases as parents. "Please be advised that the information provided to you as a courtesy may not reflect current revisions, amendments and/or changes in your states statutes and codes. You must go to your government website to check for and download those revisions and/or amendments yourself". (If you can't find a definition on this page Go To this page now and search terms. However, the most widely used legal dictionary is Black's Law Dictionary)
Legal Terminology and Related Terms
Web Edition w/ continuous updates
The following pages contain legal terminology and related terms you will need to be familiar with. These pages contain words particular to our cases as parents. "Please be advised that the information provided to you as a courtesy may not reflect current revisions, amendments and/or changes in your states statutes and codes. You must go to your government website to check for and download those revisions and/or amendments yourself". (If you can't find a definition on this page Go To this page now and search terms. However, the most widely used legal dictionary is Black's Law Dictionary)
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases on KFYR-TV North Dakota's NBC News Leader
Child abuse is one of the most terrible crimes a parent could commit, but some parents are falsely accused and may need more protections. So, lawmakers introduced a bill to address that.
However, many people who deal with the issue on a regular basis are afraid the legislation would jeopardize the safety of victims.
The House Human Services Committee discussed a bill today that would change the way victims under the age of 15 are questioned.
Legislators are considering a bill which would require the parents of suspected child abuse victims to be given the opportunity to be present during their child`s questioning with investigators.
Under current law, authorities don`t have to notify parents until after the interview is completed.
Opponents packed into the committee room to express their concerns. Representatives from law enforcement, social services, state`s attorneys and judges say things are fine the way they are and parents are protected.
"They have the resources to hire an attorney to represent them. And then they have the full rights under state statute and the constitution to protect them. Children don`t have that," said Jim Vukelic, former judge and prosecutor.
Supporters of the legislation say this bill is about protecting parents who are falsely accused.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield said: "The deck is stacked against them, from the standpoint if you have a social worker who is technically neutral, so the courts give high precedence to anything they say and under the assumption they`re only looking out for the child, and they will tend to discount testimony from other experts who testify on behalf of the the parents."
Opponents say the legislation would do more harm than good.
"The forensic interview is supposed to be a neutral environment to allow the child to tell their story," said Paula Condol with Dakota Children`s Advisory Center. "Having a parent in the room will influence the entire process."
Opponents say the legislation would also have a negative economic impact, especially for social services in rural areas.
Child abuse is one of the most terrible crimes a parent could commit, but some parents are falsely accused and may need more protections. So, lawmakers introduced a bill to address that.
However, many people who deal with the issue on a regular basis are afraid the legislation would jeopardize the safety of victims.
The House Human Services Committee discussed a bill today that would change the way victims under the age of 15 are questioned.
Legislators are considering a bill which would require the parents of suspected child abuse victims to be given the opportunity to be present during their child`s questioning with investigators.
Under current law, authorities don`t have to notify parents until after the interview is completed.
Opponents packed into the committee room to express their concerns. Representatives from law enforcement, social services, state`s attorneys and judges say things are fine the way they are and parents are protected.
"They have the resources to hire an attorney to represent them. And then they have the full rights under state statute and the constitution to protect them. Children don`t have that," said Jim Vukelic, former judge and prosecutor.
Supporters of the legislation say this bill is about protecting parents who are falsely accused.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield said: "The deck is stacked against them, from the standpoint if you have a social worker who is technically neutral, so the courts give high precedence to anything they say and under the assumption they`re only looking out for the child, and they will tend to discount testimony from other experts who testify on behalf of the the parents."
Opponents say the legislation would do more harm than good.
"The forensic interview is supposed to be a neutral environment to allow the child to tell their story," said Paula Condol with Dakota Children`s Advisory Center. "Having a parent in the room will influence the entire process."
Opponents say the legislation would also have a negative economic impact, especially for social services in rural areas.
Rick Casey: Judge's adoption express had one final run
Rick Casey: Judge's adoption express had one final run | Rick Casey | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
This time Juvenile District Judge Pat Shelton and CPS may get away with it.
As regular readers know, Shelton was stopped by a higher court last week from paving the way for the adoption of a pair of twins by foster parents while a home study of relatives who wanted to adopt them was under way.
But last Wednesday — two days later and two days before he stepped down from the bench - Shelton granted a fast-track adoption of a baby to foster parents over the objections of lawyers for the mother's aunt and uncle, who also wanted to adopt.
On both occasions, the babies' mothers wanted their aunts and uncles to adopt. And in both cases the aunt and uncle appeared well-qualified.
This time Juvenile District Judge Pat Shelton and CPS may get away with it.
As regular readers know, Shelton was stopped by a higher court last week from paving the way for the adoption of a pair of twins by foster parents while a home study of relatives who wanted to adopt them was under way.
But last Wednesday — two days later and two days before he stepped down from the bench - Shelton granted a fast-track adoption of a baby to foster parents over the objections of lawyers for the mother's aunt and uncle, who also wanted to adopt.
On both occasions, the babies' mothers wanted their aunts and uncles to adopt. And in both cases the aunt and uncle appeared well-qualified.
Is a child born bad or do they become so?
Is a child born bad or do they become so?
It has been asked, "Is a child born bad or do they become so?"
Is it nature or nurture?
I, myself, do not believe a child is born bad, however I have seen things that have led me to question that position. On the other hand, I have witnessed a perfectly healthy child become bad, on a number of occasions through the interference of the CPS ( Child Protection System ).
There was a time when necessity was the mother of the invention; that of the Child Protection System.
However, be it through much better communications, more research performed by parents and about to become parents, and many standards that have been imposed by law, the necessity of the CPS has become less of a necessity and more of an anxiety, in our society today.
If a child is beaten, starved of food, clothing, a decent place to live and sleep, I believe such things are within the purview and necessity of the Child Protection System, and indeed they should act. However, when superiors command their subordinates to find fault with a family over trivialities and invented causes, the entire system becomes counter productive to that for which it was originally founded.
Some claim it is a communist plot, with the State imposing itself to the extent that families live in fear of their mighty autocracy. Others claim they once had an extreme necessity in our midst, but that necessity has diminished but the system still grows to serve itself.
Whatever your opinion, it is a well based fact that the CPS in Canada, as well as in the United States is now exaggerating its' importance.
Reports have alleged that field agents of the CPS are overworked and have filled out fraudulent reports to cover themselves, because they claim to be overworked.
When their superiors hunker down and demand these workers spend a majority of their time chasing shadows rather than tending to real cases, it's no wonder these field agents find themselves so overworked.
Recently, a case has come across my desk, where a child in the kinship care of her grandmother accused grandmother of grabbing her coat collar. The workers panicked and sprung into action, removing the child from the grandmother's home, alleging an escalation of violence. When one person grabs another's coat collar, is that really child abuse? Can the grandmother really be charged with assault?
Further, the child has repeatedly lied to the CPS in the past. Can what she now claims be accepted, on its' face as truth? The CPS agent claims they investigated and further claim the grandmother did grab the child by the coat collar. Their investigative technique- "They asked the child if this happened". When the child repeated her tale, the worker claimed this was verification. So much for investigative technique.
Apparently this grandmother had kinship custody of her granddaughter, under a supervision order by the agency. So where was this supervision when this alleged attack took place? If this was evidence of growing tension and escalating events in the grandmother's household, then why didn't CPS step in and try to work with the grandmother and granddaughter to try and diffuse the situation?
Where were they and their high and mighty supervision?
In truth, in reality, and as a matter of fact, the CPS is no more than a glorified policing agency, least concerned with protecting children and moreover concerned with condemning parents. However, unlike other policing agencies, there seems insufficient oversight and control of this agency to grant the god given rights of every parent, as proclaimed in the United States Constitution and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The CPS is a practical example of people doing all the wrong things for allegedly all the right reasons. But when the dust settles, at the end of the millennium, how will our children and our children's children fare in this very oppressive environment?
Through the use of perception, just about everything can be made to seem unlawful, unholy and even just plain wrong. I guess that's why there are so countless many law books in a lawyer's office. And a jaunt through the family courts can reveal the grand pomp and circumstance, displaying that which may seem like royalty, amidst the hallowed halls of great institutions. In Family Court, much of this is merely masquerade, to cover up a host of improprieties, indiscretions and the violation of even the most sacred of our tenets.
And so, with so many families being necessarily subjected to the onslaught of oppression, and so many children being funneled through the system, how many of them will turn out, "BAD", and how many of them will be able to attribute that to the mismanagement, mishandling and just plain old abuse of the system?
How many Jeffrey Dahmers, David Berkowitzs, Ted Bundies, and Charles Mansons will society have to deal with, in the future, because of indignations through the Child Protection System?
Charles Manson was quoted as saying, "The System made me what I am!"
Through the Child Protection System, this could be quite plausible.
What of the collateral damage to the friends and families of the victims as well as the perpetrators, who must suffer, as a result of this Child Protection System allegedly protecting children from abuse and neglect- where such abuse and neglect is more a matter of perception and perspective than a matter of fact?
And finally, what does it take to make it, as a caseworker for the Child Protection System?
Is there any special bread or qualification to become such a blight on our society?
If child protection workers find it necessary to lie, cheat, and manipulate their way through cases, just to substantiate their own existence, then what possible good can be derived from their very existence?
Sincerely,
Carolynn J. Middleton BA BSc
( Executive Secretary )
================================
THE COMMITTEE ( People - 4 - People )
================================
tp4pc@sympatico.ca
tp4pc@hotmail.com
tp4pc@yahoo.ca
It has been asked, "Is a child born bad or do they become so?"
Is it nature or nurture?
I, myself, do not believe a child is born bad, however I have seen things that have led me to question that position. On the other hand, I have witnessed a perfectly healthy child become bad, on a number of occasions through the interference of the CPS ( Child Protection System ).
There was a time when necessity was the mother of the invention; that of the Child Protection System.
However, be it through much better communications, more research performed by parents and about to become parents, and many standards that have been imposed by law, the necessity of the CPS has become less of a necessity and more of an anxiety, in our society today.
If a child is beaten, starved of food, clothing, a decent place to live and sleep, I believe such things are within the purview and necessity of the Child Protection System, and indeed they should act. However, when superiors command their subordinates to find fault with a family over trivialities and invented causes, the entire system becomes counter productive to that for which it was originally founded.
Some claim it is a communist plot, with the State imposing itself to the extent that families live in fear of their mighty autocracy. Others claim they once had an extreme necessity in our midst, but that necessity has diminished but the system still grows to serve itself.
Whatever your opinion, it is a well based fact that the CPS in Canada, as well as in the United States is now exaggerating its' importance.
Reports have alleged that field agents of the CPS are overworked and have filled out fraudulent reports to cover themselves, because they claim to be overworked.
When their superiors hunker down and demand these workers spend a majority of their time chasing shadows rather than tending to real cases, it's no wonder these field agents find themselves so overworked.
Recently, a case has come across my desk, where a child in the kinship care of her grandmother accused grandmother of grabbing her coat collar. The workers panicked and sprung into action, removing the child from the grandmother's home, alleging an escalation of violence. When one person grabs another's coat collar, is that really child abuse? Can the grandmother really be charged with assault?
Further, the child has repeatedly lied to the CPS in the past. Can what she now claims be accepted, on its' face as truth? The CPS agent claims they investigated and further claim the grandmother did grab the child by the coat collar. Their investigative technique- "They asked the child if this happened". When the child repeated her tale, the worker claimed this was verification. So much for investigative technique.
Apparently this grandmother had kinship custody of her granddaughter, under a supervision order by the agency. So where was this supervision when this alleged attack took place? If this was evidence of growing tension and escalating events in the grandmother's household, then why didn't CPS step in and try to work with the grandmother and granddaughter to try and diffuse the situation?
Where were they and their high and mighty supervision?
In truth, in reality, and as a matter of fact, the CPS is no more than a glorified policing agency, least concerned with protecting children and moreover concerned with condemning parents. However, unlike other policing agencies, there seems insufficient oversight and control of this agency to grant the god given rights of every parent, as proclaimed in the United States Constitution and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The CPS is a practical example of people doing all the wrong things for allegedly all the right reasons. But when the dust settles, at the end of the millennium, how will our children and our children's children fare in this very oppressive environment?
Through the use of perception, just about everything can be made to seem unlawful, unholy and even just plain wrong. I guess that's why there are so countless many law books in a lawyer's office. And a jaunt through the family courts can reveal the grand pomp and circumstance, displaying that which may seem like royalty, amidst the hallowed halls of great institutions. In Family Court, much of this is merely masquerade, to cover up a host of improprieties, indiscretions and the violation of even the most sacred of our tenets.
And so, with so many families being necessarily subjected to the onslaught of oppression, and so many children being funneled through the system, how many of them will turn out, "BAD", and how many of them will be able to attribute that to the mismanagement, mishandling and just plain old abuse of the system?
How many Jeffrey Dahmers, David Berkowitzs, Ted Bundies, and Charles Mansons will society have to deal with, in the future, because of indignations through the Child Protection System?
Charles Manson was quoted as saying, "The System made me what I am!"
Through the Child Protection System, this could be quite plausible.
What of the collateral damage to the friends and families of the victims as well as the perpetrators, who must suffer, as a result of this Child Protection System allegedly protecting children from abuse and neglect- where such abuse and neglect is more a matter of perception and perspective than a matter of fact?
And finally, what does it take to make it, as a caseworker for the Child Protection System?
Is there any special bread or qualification to become such a blight on our society?
If child protection workers find it necessary to lie, cheat, and manipulate their way through cases, just to substantiate their own existence, then what possible good can be derived from their very existence?
Sincerely,
Carolynn J. Middleton BA BSc
( Executive Secretary )
================================
THE COMMITTEE ( People - 4 - People )
================================
tp4pc@sympatico.ca
tp4pc@hotmail.com
tp4pc@yahoo.ca
Placement of Children With Relatives
Placement of Children With Relatives
Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2010
Current Through July 2010
This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law under title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards."1 Title IV-E further requires States to exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, explains the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and describes the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.2
Approximately 41 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.3 In nine States, the statutes specifically require State agencies to make reasonable efforts to identify and locate a child's relative when out-of-home placement is needed.4 Approximately four States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.5 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives.
(Back to Top)
Preference to Relatives
Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, eight States allow members of the child's Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.6
In most States, the placing agency must do an assessment to determine that the relative is "fit and willing" to provide a suitable placement for the child, able to ensure the child's safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Three States require the relative to complete requirements for licensure as a foster parent.7 Illinois and Wisconsin require the relative to be licensed before he or she can receive foster care assistance payments. Approximately 21 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.8
(Back to Top)
Financial Support
Approximately 15 States and the District of Columbia have established kinship care or relative caregiver programs to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.9 Statutes in 13 States address foster care payments and financial support for kin caregivers.10 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services.
(Back to Top)
Adoption by Relatives
In approximately seven States, State agencies must give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements for children in their custody.11 However, in four States, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for significant period of time when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent may be given first preference to adopt.12
In approximately 31 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.13 In 12 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.14 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adopting relatives and other adult household members.15
To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
(Back to Top)
1 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2010). Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center. back
2 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29) (LexisNexis 2010), as amended by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. back
3 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current only through July 2010. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back
4 California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon. back
5 South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
6 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back
7 Connecticut, Minnesota, and South Carolina. back
8 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
9 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back
10 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. back
11 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. back
12 California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. back
13 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back
14 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back
15 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. For more information on the requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents, see Information Gateway's Criminal Background Checks for Prospective Foster and Adoptive Parents. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2010
Current Through July 2010
This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law under title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards."1 Title IV-E further requires States to exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, explains the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and describes the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.2
Approximately 41 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.3 In nine States, the statutes specifically require State agencies to make reasonable efforts to identify and locate a child's relative when out-of-home placement is needed.4 Approximately four States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.5 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives.
(Back to Top)
Preference to Relatives
Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, eight States allow members of the child's Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.6
In most States, the placing agency must do an assessment to determine that the relative is "fit and willing" to provide a suitable placement for the child, able to ensure the child's safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Three States require the relative to complete requirements for licensure as a foster parent.7 Illinois and Wisconsin require the relative to be licensed before he or she can receive foster care assistance payments. Approximately 21 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.8
(Back to Top)
Financial Support
Approximately 15 States and the District of Columbia have established kinship care or relative caregiver programs to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.9 Statutes in 13 States address foster care payments and financial support for kin caregivers.10 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services.
(Back to Top)
Adoption by Relatives
In approximately seven States, State agencies must give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements for children in their custody.11 However, in four States, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for significant period of time when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent may be given first preference to adopt.12
In approximately 31 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.13 In 12 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.14 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adopting relatives and other adult household members.15
To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
(Back to Top)
1 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2010). Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center. back
2 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29) (LexisNexis 2010), as amended by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. back
3 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current only through July 2010. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back
4 California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon. back
5 South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
6 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back
7 Connecticut, Minnesota, and South Carolina. back
8 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
9 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back
10 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. back
11 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. back
12 California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. back
13 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back
14 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back
15 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. For more information on the requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents, see Information Gateway's Criminal Background Checks for Prospective Foster and Adoptive Parents. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses by Social Workers, Police
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses by Social Workers, Police - Standard Newswire
Contact: Pacific Justice Institute, 916-857-6900
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2011 /Standard Newswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases that could restrict the authority of social workers to interview and examine children without their parents' knowledge and consent. Pacific Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the cases in support of parental rights.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "For years, we have heard from outraged parents whose children have been subjected to invasive questioning and embarrassing physical examinations at school and elsewhere, without the parents' knowledge or consent. These cases are a critical opportunity to restrict unchecked governmental power and reassert parental authority."
The cases arose in Oregon, where a social worker and police officer went to a child's elementary school, pulled her out of class, and interrogated her for more than an hour about alleged abuse by her father. The child later said she only agreed that her father had abused her because the social worker would not accept any other response. The child was later removed from the home by the social worker and subjected to being undressed and invasively examined, and her mother was refused permission to be anywhere near her during the exam.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home.
The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California's Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged-much less convicted-of child abuse or any other crime.
Dacus noted, "There is no question our society has a problem with child abuse that should be aggressively prosecuted and punished. The problem is that, unlike every other type of crime, parents are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the government often destroys good families based on unfounded allegations that are never proved. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will restore the balance that is currently missing in this important area of the law."
The amicus brief filed on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute was authored by prominent California parental rights attorneys Dennis Atchley, Donnie Cox, Shawn McMillan, David Beauvais and Paul Leehey.
About The Pacific Justice Institute: Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need. Pacific Justice Institute's strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, "The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened." "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches... without charge.
Contact: Pacific Justice Institute, 916-857-6900
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2011 /Standard Newswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases that could restrict the authority of social workers to interview and examine children without their parents' knowledge and consent. Pacific Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the cases in support of parental rights.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "For years, we have heard from outraged parents whose children have been subjected to invasive questioning and embarrassing physical examinations at school and elsewhere, without the parents' knowledge or consent. These cases are a critical opportunity to restrict unchecked governmental power and reassert parental authority."
The cases arose in Oregon, where a social worker and police officer went to a child's elementary school, pulled her out of class, and interrogated her for more than an hour about alleged abuse by her father. The child later said she only agreed that her father had abused her because the social worker would not accept any other response. The child was later removed from the home by the social worker and subjected to being undressed and invasively examined, and her mother was refused permission to be anywhere near her during the exam.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home.
The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California's Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged-much less convicted-of child abuse or any other crime.
Dacus noted, "There is no question our society has a problem with child abuse that should be aggressively prosecuted and punished. The problem is that, unlike every other type of crime, parents are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the government often destroys good families based on unfounded allegations that are never proved. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will restore the balance that is currently missing in this important area of the law."
The amicus brief filed on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute was authored by prominent California parental rights attorneys Dennis Atchley, Donnie Cox, Shawn McMillan, David Beauvais and Paul Leehey.
About The Pacific Justice Institute: Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need. Pacific Justice Institute's strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, "The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened." "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches... without charge.
DCF Investigator Arrested On Cocaine Charges-Do as I say, not as I do!
DCF Investigator Arrested On Cocaine Charges - County By County News Story - WFTV Orlando
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Officials with the Orange County Sheriff's Office say an investigator for Florida's Department of Children and Families was arrested for possession of cocaine on Saturday.
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Officials with the Orange County Sheriff's Office say an investigator for Florida's Department of Children and Families was arrested for possession of cocaine on Saturday.
15 year old Girl from Texas speaks out against Child protection services in Dallas | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty
15 year old Girl from Texas speaks out against Child protection services in Dallas | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsecjAlQhQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5Enu3NLqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gXED76b_A&feature=related
These children traveled to Washington DC on July the 23rd to speak of the abuse they suffered from Texas cps and Dallas CASA workers.
They Talk about Social workers and police showing up in the middle of the night- how their little brother and sisters where ripped out of there arms , and have not seen them in over a year!
This is the America we live in, this is what these children well always rember about Dallas Texas, and the so called help and abuse they suffered because they would not be brainwashed to pressure and interrogation techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsecjAlQhQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5Enu3NLqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gXED76b_A&feature=related
These children traveled to Washington DC on July the 23rd to speak of the abuse they suffered from Texas cps and Dallas CASA workers.
They Talk about Social workers and police showing up in the middle of the night- how their little brother and sisters where ripped out of there arms , and have not seen them in over a year!
This is the America we live in, this is what these children well always rember about Dallas Texas, and the so called help and abuse they suffered because they would not be brainwashed to pressure and interrogation techniques.
KANSAS HEADS UP: Sit In at the State Office Bldg.
KANSAS HEADS UP:
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A SIT IN AT THE SRS
AT THE DOCKING STATE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE 6TH FLOOR 915 S.W. HARRISON STREET TOPEKA KANSAS. (10TH AND TOPEKA BLVD)
We need all sit in's to be present at 9:00 am Tuesday 29th 2011, bring your own sack lunch and any flyers or posters that will get the attention for your concerns to hand out or show the people for the kansas issue's of children being removed without reintegration.
we are encouraging your support for the many year's of our Legislatures not doing anything to correct the problem. This is just another attempt to do a sit in with the mission to get our message out. We will do this sit in, proclaiming our constitutional rights as parents and grandparents to remind them, that we want all kids returned back to their families, that were wrongfully removed in non abuse cases. Since this is adoption month, this is the best time to come out and do a sit in. We need everyone's help to continue to push for change in our state, join us in this event. Let your voice echo for the many children, without your efforts being in vain from not fighting for them by your actions.
ANY QUESTION ABOUT THIS EVENT PLEASE CONTACT KATHY WINTERS AT 913 782-8642 AND
FRED AND SADIE CARPENTER AT 913 839-1119
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A SIT IN AT THE SRS
AT THE DOCKING STATE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE 6TH FLOOR 915 S.W. HARRISON STREET TOPEKA KANSAS. (10TH AND TOPEKA BLVD)
We need all sit in's to be present at 9:00 am Tuesday 29th 2011, bring your own sack lunch and any flyers or posters that will get the attention for your concerns to hand out or show the people for the kansas issue's of children being removed without reintegration.
we are encouraging your support for the many year's of our Legislatures not doing anything to correct the problem. This is just another attempt to do a sit in with the mission to get our message out. We will do this sit in, proclaiming our constitutional rights as parents and grandparents to remind them, that we want all kids returned back to their families, that were wrongfully removed in non abuse cases. Since this is adoption month, this is the best time to come out and do a sit in. We need everyone's help to continue to push for change in our state, join us in this event. Let your voice echo for the many children, without your efforts being in vain from not fighting for them by your actions.
ANY QUESTION ABOUT THIS EVENT PLEASE CONTACT KATHY WINTERS AT 913 782-8642 AND
FRED AND SADIE CARPENTER AT 913 839-1119
Saturday, February 26, 2011
ADHD Medication: Can Your Child Go Without? Yes, but my Grandson is worth more to DCYF doped up!
ADHD Medication: Can Your Child Go Without? - US News and World Report
Before my grandson was stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF, he was tested at school. There were no sign's of ADHD. After he tried to hang himself, he was fed drug's for violent behavior. A few moth's later, he was diagnosed with ADHD and fed more drug's.Since he's been ILLEGALLY adopted, God only know's what drug's he's being fed.
Children DON'T need these drug's if parent's know how to parent their children. DCYF doesn't have a clue. They have absolutely no idea how to deal with a child longing for his family and they have no idea what it takes to be a parent. They need to get out of the Child Protection business because they don't even know how to protect a child. All they know is how to DESTROY!!!!!
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be a distressing diagnosis, but families have more treatment options than they might realize. Although Ritalin and other stimulant drugs are the most common prescription, ADHD treatments that don't involve medication have a proven track record. And here's a surprise: One of the most beneficial options treats the parents, not the child. For children, skills training programs and ADHD summer camps can help teach techniques to overcome everyday problems that often make life miserable, such as remembering to bring assignments home from school or to listen without interrupting.
How training parents helps the child. Parent skills training has been used for years to improve the behavior of children, and multiple clinical trials have validated its effectiveness. Those same programs improve the behavior of kids with ADHD.
Before my grandson was stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF, he was tested at school. There were no sign's of ADHD. After he tried to hang himself, he was fed drug's for violent behavior. A few moth's later, he was diagnosed with ADHD and fed more drug's.Since he's been ILLEGALLY adopted, God only know's what drug's he's being fed.
Children DON'T need these drug's if parent's know how to parent their children. DCYF doesn't have a clue. They have absolutely no idea how to deal with a child longing for his family and they have no idea what it takes to be a parent. They need to get out of the Child Protection business because they don't even know how to protect a child. All they know is how to DESTROY!!!!!
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be a distressing diagnosis, but families have more treatment options than they might realize. Although Ritalin and other stimulant drugs are the most common prescription, ADHD treatments that don't involve medication have a proven track record. And here's a surprise: One of the most beneficial options treats the parents, not the child. For children, skills training programs and ADHD summer camps can help teach techniques to overcome everyday problems that often make life miserable, such as remembering to bring assignments home from school or to listen without interrupting.
How training parents helps the child. Parent skills training has been used for years to improve the behavior of children, and multiple clinical trials have validated its effectiveness. Those same programs improve the behavior of kids with ADHD.
Family's lawsuit challenges run-away child protection law
Family's lawsuit challenges run-away child protection law
Please click on the link above to read the decision's in this case.
Mueller v. Auker
Parents' right to make medical decisions at stake in lawsuit
Corissa Mueller and her daughter Taige
CIR's case on behalf of Eric and Corissa Mueller is one of the most important civil liberties cases now pending and the only one concerned with child protection law.
In recent years, the body of law protecting the institution of marriage and family has yielded to efforts by the government to regulate and recreate these institutions. On the one hand, judges busy themselves re-writing the laws of marriage to accommodate a broad array of individual partnerings. Yet on the other hand state child protection laws routinely sanction the removal children from traditional families for even slight deviations from current fashions in education, child rearing, and medical treatment.
CIR’s effort to restore principle to this area of the law continues to focus on its representation of the Mueller family in their efforts to hold child protection officials and police officers accountable for the unconstitutional seizure of their infant child Taige. In August 2002, a few weeks after birth, she came down with a temperature. As a newborn child is especially vulnerable to infection, her mother, Corissa Mueller, was advised to take her to nearby St. Luke's Medical Center.
Corissa—who has a degree in chemical engineering—discussed Taige's treatment with the physician, including the risks and benefits of treating her for meningitis. Thinking Taige was suffering the aftereffects of the family's recent bout with the flu,
"THE RIGHT TO FAMILY ASSOCIATION INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO MAKE IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND OF CHILDREN TO HAVE THOSE DECISIONS MADE BY THEIR PARENTS RATHER THAN BY THE STATE"
WALLIS V. SPENCER, 202 F.3D 1125 (9TH CIR. 1999)
she asked to defer a spinal tap until other, less invasive (and less risky) treatments had been tried. The doctor agreed.
Unbeknownst to Corissa, though, the concerns she voiced about the risks of a spinal tap triggered a call to Child Protective Services (CPS), which then spiraled into the forcible seizure of Taige. The police officers restrained Corissa (one on each arm) and took her down the hall while the doctor performed the spinal tap. This happened despite the fact that, by then, Taige’s temperature had returned to normal.
Read what happened next....
The problem: no limits to child protective services
Though child protective services is supposed to protect chidren against neglect and abuse, it is not well situated to settle differences of opinion between a conscientious mother and an aggressive doctor. Corissa Mueller's "neglect" in this case consisted in nothing more than discussing Taige's treatment step by step and insisting on approving each procedure only when
needed.
A child protective services system that countenances the seizure of a child to preempt further discussion about the risks of an invasive medical procedure no longer serves the interests of the children it was designed to protect.
At the root of the problem is the fact that the Idaho child protection law—and the laws of many other states—immunizes doctors, police and CPS workers from negligently applying the requirements of the CPS law. As a result, city and state officials and even private doctors know there is no penalty for assume custody of a child, even over a parent's reasonable efforts to direct medical treatment.
Restoring limits and accountability to the system
In late August 2004, CIR filed suit in federal court in Boise, asserting that the Muellers possess a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children without unreasonable intrusion from state authorities.
CIR’s case hinges on the principle that the federal Constitution
provides a fundamental guarantee of parental rights—including the
right to make important medical decisions and the right to be informed of their children’s status and whereabouts.
On February 26, 2007, Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with CIR that the federal Constitution does not permit state officials to assume custody of a minor child over a difficult medical decision:
[A] DIFFICULT CHOICE -- A CHOICE THAT POSES RISKS EITHER WAY -- SHOULD NEVER TRIGGER INTERVENTION BY THE STATE. WITH NO SAFE ALTERNATIVE, THE STATE...LOSES ALL CLAIM TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD.
In addition, Winmill ruled that police officer Dale Rogers is liable in his personal capacity for failing to call Eric Mueller (who was at home with the couple's other two children) to inform him of the state's intention to assume custody fo Taige. Officer Rogers appealed his liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard argument on this question on September 15, 2008. You can read CIR's brief on this issue here.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the
Von and Taige Mueller
case will be remanded to the district court for a trial to settle various factual disputes about what happened that night in the emergency room.
The Mueller case could spell out the federal constitutional limits on the authority of state officials to interfere with family decisions about medical, educational or other difficult issues. State officials no longer could presume a child to be in imminent danger solely to settle a disagreement over a complex decision.
Read the decisions:
Decision by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Detective Rogers shielded by doctrine of qualified immunity
Opinion denying in part and granting in part parties motions to reconsider an'd clarify earlier opinion (June 7, 2007)
Opinion granting in part plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment(February 26, 2007)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 14, 2006)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 13, 2005)
Read the amended complaint (October 13, 2004)
Read press releases:
CIR press release (October 30, 2006)
CIR press release (April 18, 2006)
CIR press release (August 10, 2005)
CIR press release (September 29, 2004)
Read Idaho Statesman article about the case
Learn more about CIR's history, mission and other groundbreaking CIR cases.
Help CIR protect the family: donate to the cause!
Please click on the link above to read the decision's in this case.
Mueller v. Auker
Parents' right to make medical decisions at stake in lawsuit
Corissa Mueller and her daughter Taige
CIR's case on behalf of Eric and Corissa Mueller is one of the most important civil liberties cases now pending and the only one concerned with child protection law.
In recent years, the body of law protecting the institution of marriage and family has yielded to efforts by the government to regulate and recreate these institutions. On the one hand, judges busy themselves re-writing the laws of marriage to accommodate a broad array of individual partnerings. Yet on the other hand state child protection laws routinely sanction the removal children from traditional families for even slight deviations from current fashions in education, child rearing, and medical treatment.
CIR’s effort to restore principle to this area of the law continues to focus on its representation of the Mueller family in their efforts to hold child protection officials and police officers accountable for the unconstitutional seizure of their infant child Taige. In August 2002, a few weeks after birth, she came down with a temperature. As a newborn child is especially vulnerable to infection, her mother, Corissa Mueller, was advised to take her to nearby St. Luke's Medical Center.
Corissa—who has a degree in chemical engineering—discussed Taige's treatment with the physician, including the risks and benefits of treating her for meningitis. Thinking Taige was suffering the aftereffects of the family's recent bout with the flu,
"THE RIGHT TO FAMILY ASSOCIATION INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO MAKE IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND OF CHILDREN TO HAVE THOSE DECISIONS MADE BY THEIR PARENTS RATHER THAN BY THE STATE"
WALLIS V. SPENCER, 202 F.3D 1125 (9TH CIR. 1999)
she asked to defer a spinal tap until other, less invasive (and less risky) treatments had been tried. The doctor agreed.
Unbeknownst to Corissa, though, the concerns she voiced about the risks of a spinal tap triggered a call to Child Protective Services (CPS), which then spiraled into the forcible seizure of Taige. The police officers restrained Corissa (one on each arm) and took her down the hall while the doctor performed the spinal tap. This happened despite the fact that, by then, Taige’s temperature had returned to normal.
Read what happened next....
The problem: no limits to child protective services
Though child protective services is supposed to protect chidren against neglect and abuse, it is not well situated to settle differences of opinion between a conscientious mother and an aggressive doctor. Corissa Mueller's "neglect" in this case consisted in nothing more than discussing Taige's treatment step by step and insisting on approving each procedure only when
needed.
A child protective services system that countenances the seizure of a child to preempt further discussion about the risks of an invasive medical procedure no longer serves the interests of the children it was designed to protect.
At the root of the problem is the fact that the Idaho child protection law—and the laws of many other states—immunizes doctors, police and CPS workers from negligently applying the requirements of the CPS law. As a result, city and state officials and even private doctors know there is no penalty for assume custody of a child, even over a parent's reasonable efforts to direct medical treatment.
Restoring limits and accountability to the system
In late August 2004, CIR filed suit in federal court in Boise, asserting that the Muellers possess a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children without unreasonable intrusion from state authorities.
CIR’s case hinges on the principle that the federal Constitution
provides a fundamental guarantee of parental rights—including the
right to make important medical decisions and the right to be informed of their children’s status and whereabouts.
On February 26, 2007, Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with CIR that the federal Constitution does not permit state officials to assume custody of a minor child over a difficult medical decision:
[A] DIFFICULT CHOICE -- A CHOICE THAT POSES RISKS EITHER WAY -- SHOULD NEVER TRIGGER INTERVENTION BY THE STATE. WITH NO SAFE ALTERNATIVE, THE STATE...LOSES ALL CLAIM TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD.
In addition, Winmill ruled that police officer Dale Rogers is liable in his personal capacity for failing to call Eric Mueller (who was at home with the couple's other two children) to inform him of the state's intention to assume custody fo Taige. Officer Rogers appealed his liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard argument on this question on September 15, 2008. You can read CIR's brief on this issue here.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the
Von and Taige Mueller
case will be remanded to the district court for a trial to settle various factual disputes about what happened that night in the emergency room.
The Mueller case could spell out the federal constitutional limits on the authority of state officials to interfere with family decisions about medical, educational or other difficult issues. State officials no longer could presume a child to be in imminent danger solely to settle a disagreement over a complex decision.
Read the decisions:
Decision by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Detective Rogers shielded by doctrine of qualified immunity
Opinion denying in part and granting in part parties motions to reconsider an'd clarify earlier opinion (June 7, 2007)
Opinion granting in part plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment(February 26, 2007)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 14, 2006)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 13, 2005)
Read the amended complaint (October 13, 2004)
Read press releases:
CIR press release (October 30, 2006)
CIR press release (April 18, 2006)
CIR press release (August 10, 2005)
CIR press release (September 29, 2004)
Read Idaho Statesman article about the case
Learn more about CIR's history, mission and other groundbreaking CIR cases.
Help CIR protect the family: donate to the cause!
Foster kids over-prescribed ADHD drugs | Courier Mail
Foster kids over-prescribed ADHD drugs | Courier Mail
DAMAGING: Experts are concerned that children in foster care are being over prescibed ADHD drugs such as Ritalin. Source: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
TRAUMATISED children in state care are missing out on crucial counselling and other services, says the peak body for child protection in Queensland.
PeakCare executive director Gail Slocombe said the lack of support could be fuelling the high level of ADHD medication among kids under government guardianship.
The Sunday Mail last week reported that the rate of medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among young people in foster homes is more than double the general population.
And the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian has raised alarm that many children under six - some as young as one - are being given the powerful drugs against the advice of the manufacturers.
Ms Slocombe says desperate carers may be turning to medical solutions because there is insufficient access to services such as counselling and remedial education.
"There's a need for any child coming into the care system to have good psycho-social assessment and treatment," she said.
"By the time they get into the care system, they need services that will begin to undo the damage done by the issues in their family that brought them to the system or the trauma of being removed."
But the demand from the growing number of children in care meant it was often difficult to get suitable help.
"I find it very difficult to think there would be a situation where adults who have enough support would need to contemplate behaviour modification or psyotropic drugs," said Ms Slocombe.
"But if you are a parent without a lot of suppport and this very young child is not sleeping, is running around in danger of hurting themselves or others and there does not seem to be any other way and a doctor says 'this might help' they would take medical advice."
Child Safety MInister Phil Reeves said: "The Government does not prescribe any medication. The diagnosis and treatment of any medical condition must be made by a qualified doctor.
"The Government's role is to ensure children and young people in care have access to health services."
But Youth Affairs Network of Queensland director Siyavash Dhoostkhah says the minister is failing in his duty of care to vulnerable children by allowing the high use of medications among young children despite manufacturers' recommendations.
Adelaide Women and Children's Hospital head of psychological medicine Dr Jon Jureidini, a campaigner against the over-prescription of ADHD drugs, agrees.
"The government is completely responsible. Would you let a medical practitioner make whatever decision they wanted for your child?"
Dr Jureidini said there was no evidence of ADHD mediciation having long-term benefits and there could be dangers for young children.
"The brain is still developing and we know these drugs have an impact on neural growth."
DAMAGING: Experts are concerned that children in foster care are being over prescibed ADHD drugs such as Ritalin. Source: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
TRAUMATISED children in state care are missing out on crucial counselling and other services, says the peak body for child protection in Queensland.
PeakCare executive director Gail Slocombe said the lack of support could be fuelling the high level of ADHD medication among kids under government guardianship.
The Sunday Mail last week reported that the rate of medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among young people in foster homes is more than double the general population.
And the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian has raised alarm that many children under six - some as young as one - are being given the powerful drugs against the advice of the manufacturers.
Ms Slocombe says desperate carers may be turning to medical solutions because there is insufficient access to services such as counselling and remedial education.
"There's a need for any child coming into the care system to have good psycho-social assessment and treatment," she said.
"By the time they get into the care system, they need services that will begin to undo the damage done by the issues in their family that brought them to the system or the trauma of being removed."
But the demand from the growing number of children in care meant it was often difficult to get suitable help.
"I find it very difficult to think there would be a situation where adults who have enough support would need to contemplate behaviour modification or psyotropic drugs," said Ms Slocombe.
"But if you are a parent without a lot of suppport and this very young child is not sleeping, is running around in danger of hurting themselves or others and there does not seem to be any other way and a doctor says 'this might help' they would take medical advice."
Child Safety MInister Phil Reeves said: "The Government does not prescribe any medication. The diagnosis and treatment of any medical condition must be made by a qualified doctor.
"The Government's role is to ensure children and young people in care have access to health services."
But Youth Affairs Network of Queensland director Siyavash Dhoostkhah says the minister is failing in his duty of care to vulnerable children by allowing the high use of medications among young children despite manufacturers' recommendations.
Adelaide Women and Children's Hospital head of psychological medicine Dr Jon Jureidini, a campaigner against the over-prescription of ADHD drugs, agrees.
"The government is completely responsible. Would you let a medical practitioner make whatever decision they wanted for your child?"
Dr Jureidini said there was no evidence of ADHD mediciation having long-term benefits and there could be dangers for young children.
"The brain is still developing and we know these drugs have an impact on neural growth."
Nashua, NH DCYF handled allegations 3 months ago - NashuaTelegraph.com
DCYF handled allegations 3 months ago - NashuaTelegraph.com
By ANDREW WOLFE
Staff Writer
Nashua boy’s death ruled homicide
NASHUA – State child welfare officials investigated allegations that someone was abusing Christian Jackson less than three months before the toddler was murdered, court records show.
Three-year-old Jackson stopped breathing late Saturday night at his father’s house in Nashua, and was later declared dead. Authorities have deemed his death a homicide, caused by blunt force trauma, and police and the attorney general’s office are investigating.
Authorities had investigated Christian’s parents before, family court records show.
On Nov. 29, Shawn Ganley filed emergency petitions in both Nashua District Court and the Hillsborough County Family Court in Merrimack, seeking custody of his son.
Ganley had been taking the boy on weekends, from Friday evening through Sunday evenings, for about a month at that point, while his mother, Latoya Jackson, cared for him during the week, according to court records.
“Since I have separated from my son’s mother I have been taking him every weekend,” Ganley wrote. “He has come with bite marks on his face, choke marks on his neck and this past weekend he has come with a black eye and the whole side of his head and face bruised. He has also in the past year had a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder.”
Ganley asked the court to let him keep Christian, writing, “I’m afraid she’ll take him back and something bad will happen to him.”
The court allowed Ganley to keep Christian for a week while caseworkers from the Division of Children Youth and Families investigated, court records show, and Marital master Alice Love heard testimony on the matter Dec. 6.
“DCYF confirms bruising but is unable to determine the source,” Love wrote after the hearing. “Based upon the testimony, the court is unable to find that the child should be taken from his mother.”
Love, DCYF and the parents agreed to continue the custody arrangement, that Jackson keep Christian during the week, and Ganley take his son on weekends. The case was scheduled for trial in May.
DCYF officials have repeatedly stated that they cannot comment on individual cases or investigations, and The Telegraph did not seek a comment on this one.
The prosecutor in the homicide case, Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati also said he could not comment on the prior DCYF investigation, or whether it had any bearing on the murder investigation.
A friend of Latoya Jackson, Shelly Kendzerski, said she believes Ganley exaggerated Christian’s injuries, and lied about alleged abuse cited in his petition “just to get at Latoya, to hurt Latoya, because she did not want to be with him.”
“That is all a bunch of bull,” Kendzerski said of Ganley’s petition. “Latoya does not beat her children. She may yell at them a little when they are doing something they shouldn’t do.... None of her children are in any danger being with her.”
Kendzerski said she has known Jackson since before any of Jackson’s children were born. Jackson has matured considerably since her arrest as a teenager in 2004, when she was accused and later convicted of helping a boyfriend hide the injuries he’d inflicted on their daughter, Kendzerski said.
Kendzerski said Jackson has always kept a clean home, and kept her children in good health, well-fed and well-clothed.
“Latoya is a great mother, she does everything she can for her kids. She’s a single mother of three. She doesn’t go out, she stays with her kids,” Kendzerski said.
Jackson has been in shock since Christian’s death, and hasn’t been eating or sleeping well, Kendzerski said. Kendzerski recalled at one point she kept repeating, “I want my baby boy back. I want him back.”
“She’s trying her best to keep it together for her other two children,” Christian’s five-year-old brother and infant sister, Kendzerski said.
Family and friends have set up a fund to help pay for Christian’s funeral: donations to the Christian Jackson Funeral Fund can be made at any TD Bank branch.
Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410 or awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com.
By ANDREW WOLFE
Staff Writer
Nashua boy’s death ruled homicide
NASHUA – State child welfare officials investigated allegations that someone was abusing Christian Jackson less than three months before the toddler was murdered, court records show.
Three-year-old Jackson stopped breathing late Saturday night at his father’s house in Nashua, and was later declared dead. Authorities have deemed his death a homicide, caused by blunt force trauma, and police and the attorney general’s office are investigating.
Authorities had investigated Christian’s parents before, family court records show.
On Nov. 29, Shawn Ganley filed emergency petitions in both Nashua District Court and the Hillsborough County Family Court in Merrimack, seeking custody of his son.
Ganley had been taking the boy on weekends, from Friday evening through Sunday evenings, for about a month at that point, while his mother, Latoya Jackson, cared for him during the week, according to court records.
“Since I have separated from my son’s mother I have been taking him every weekend,” Ganley wrote. “He has come with bite marks on his face, choke marks on his neck and this past weekend he has come with a black eye and the whole side of his head and face bruised. He has also in the past year had a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder.”
Ganley asked the court to let him keep Christian, writing, “I’m afraid she’ll take him back and something bad will happen to him.”
The court allowed Ganley to keep Christian for a week while caseworkers from the Division of Children Youth and Families investigated, court records show, and Marital master Alice Love heard testimony on the matter Dec. 6.
“DCYF confirms bruising but is unable to determine the source,” Love wrote after the hearing. “Based upon the testimony, the court is unable to find that the child should be taken from his mother.”
Love, DCYF and the parents agreed to continue the custody arrangement, that Jackson keep Christian during the week, and Ganley take his son on weekends. The case was scheduled for trial in May.
DCYF officials have repeatedly stated that they cannot comment on individual cases or investigations, and The Telegraph did not seek a comment on this one.
The prosecutor in the homicide case, Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati also said he could not comment on the prior DCYF investigation, or whether it had any bearing on the murder investigation.
A friend of Latoya Jackson, Shelly Kendzerski, said she believes Ganley exaggerated Christian’s injuries, and lied about alleged abuse cited in his petition “just to get at Latoya, to hurt Latoya, because she did not want to be with him.”
“That is all a bunch of bull,” Kendzerski said of Ganley’s petition. “Latoya does not beat her children. She may yell at them a little when they are doing something they shouldn’t do.... None of her children are in any danger being with her.”
Kendzerski said she has known Jackson since before any of Jackson’s children were born. Jackson has matured considerably since her arrest as a teenager in 2004, when she was accused and later convicted of helping a boyfriend hide the injuries he’d inflicted on their daughter, Kendzerski said.
Kendzerski said Jackson has always kept a clean home, and kept her children in good health, well-fed and well-clothed.
“Latoya is a great mother, she does everything she can for her kids. She’s a single mother of three. She doesn’t go out, she stays with her kids,” Kendzerski said.
Jackson has been in shock since Christian’s death, and hasn’t been eating or sleeping well, Kendzerski said. Kendzerski recalled at one point she kept repeating, “I want my baby boy back. I want him back.”
“She’s trying her best to keep it together for her other two children,” Christian’s five-year-old brother and infant sister, Kendzerski said.
Family and friends have set up a fund to help pay for Christian’s funeral: donations to the Christian Jackson Funeral Fund can be made at any TD Bank branch.
Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410 or awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com.
Oklahoma couple accused in abuse received $4,500 a month from Wisconsin for adopted children, sheriff says | NewsOK.com
Oklahoma couple accused in abuse received $4,500 a month from Wisconsin for adopted children, sheriff says | NewsOK.com
YUKON — The Canadian County couple accused of abusing their three children were receiving $4,500 a month support money from the state of Wisconsin, where they adopted the children before moving to Oklahoma, Canadian County Sheriff Randall Edwards said Thursday.
Oklahoma couple accused in abuse received $4,500 a month from Wisconsin for adopted children, sheriff says
John Edward Kluth, 50, and Sonja K. Kluth, 57, were charged Tuesday with child abuse and neglect and are accused by prosecutors of severe abuse of their two adopted sons and adopted daughter. They are free on bail.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-couple-accused-in-abuse-received-4500-a-month-from-wisconsin-for-adopted-children-sheriff-says/article/3543816#ixzz1F6IRpX1o
YUKON — The Canadian County couple accused of abusing their three children were receiving $4,500 a month support money from the state of Wisconsin, where they adopted the children before moving to Oklahoma, Canadian County Sheriff Randall Edwards said Thursday.
Oklahoma couple accused in abuse received $4,500 a month from Wisconsin for adopted children, sheriff says
John Edward Kluth, 50, and Sonja K. Kluth, 57, were charged Tuesday with child abuse and neglect and are accused by prosecutors of severe abuse of their two adopted sons and adopted daughter. They are free on bail.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-couple-accused-in-abuse-received-4500-a-month-from-wisconsin-for-adopted-children-sheriff-says/article/3543816#ixzz1F6IRpX1o
Nashua, NH Death of 3-year-old boy ruled homicide
Death of 3-year-old boy ruled homicide
ONLY ON FOX: Interview with boy's father
Updated: Friday, 25 Feb 2011, 12:20 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 24 Feb 2011, 10:58 AM EST
Nikoletta Banushi
Web Producer
NASHUA, N.H. (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The death of a 3-year-old boy in Nashua has been ruled a homicide, New Hampshire Attorney General Michael A. Delaney and Nashua Police Chief Donald F. Conley announced Thursday.
Christian Jackson was rushed to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center from a home on Chestnut Street on Saturday night while in the care of his father. He was pronounced dead on Sunday.
In an exclusive interview with the boy’s father, Shawn Ganley tells Fox 25’s Bob Ward that his son stopped breathing around 11:30 p.m. on Saturday. Ganley says he tried to revive his son, but could not. He denies hitting or hurting him and has no idea why his son died.
New Hampshire's Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jennie D. Duval, completed an autopsy on February 21 and determined that the cause of the boy's death was blunt force trauma.
Meanwhile, FOX 25 has learned the boy's parents have criminal records.
According to police, Christian's mother, Latoya Jackson, was convicted of child abuse in 2005 because the father of another baby she has repeatedly broke their daughter's bones and she later admitted she hid her daughter's wounds from police. She lost custody of that little girl.
Ganley has been convicted of assault and a few drug charges. On Nov. 29, he filed a petition alleging that the mother or someone in her household was abusing Christian. Child Welfare investigated, but never determined the cause of his injuries and did not change the conditions of the custody agreement.
Police say the child was in Jackson's care most of the time, while the father had him on the weekends.
The victim's family set up the Christian Jackson Fund, held by Jennifer Dorval at the TD Bank branch at 191 Main St., to help pay for the funeral expenses.
Death of 3-year-old boy ruled homicide: MyFoxBOSTON.com
ONLY ON FOX: Interview with boy's father
Updated: Friday, 25 Feb 2011, 12:20 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 24 Feb 2011, 10:58 AM EST
Nikoletta Banushi
Web Producer
NASHUA, N.H. (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The death of a 3-year-old boy in Nashua has been ruled a homicide, New Hampshire Attorney General Michael A. Delaney and Nashua Police Chief Donald F. Conley announced Thursday.
Christian Jackson was rushed to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center from a home on Chestnut Street on Saturday night while in the care of his father. He was pronounced dead on Sunday.
In an exclusive interview with the boy’s father, Shawn Ganley tells Fox 25’s Bob Ward that his son stopped breathing around 11:30 p.m. on Saturday. Ganley says he tried to revive his son, but could not. He denies hitting or hurting him and has no idea why his son died.
New Hampshire's Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jennie D. Duval, completed an autopsy on February 21 and determined that the cause of the boy's death was blunt force trauma.
Meanwhile, FOX 25 has learned the boy's parents have criminal records.
According to police, Christian's mother, Latoya Jackson, was convicted of child abuse in 2005 because the father of another baby she has repeatedly broke their daughter's bones and she later admitted she hid her daughter's wounds from police. She lost custody of that little girl.
Ganley has been convicted of assault and a few drug charges. On Nov. 29, he filed a petition alleging that the mother or someone in her household was abusing Christian. Child Welfare investigated, but never determined the cause of his injuries and did not change the conditions of the custody agreement.
Police say the child was in Jackson's care most of the time, while the father had him on the weekends.
The victim's family set up the Christian Jackson Fund, held by Jennifer Dorval at the TD Bank branch at 191 Main St., to help pay for the funeral expenses.
Police: Toddler Raped At SeaWorld
Police: Toddler Raped At SeaWorld - Orlando News Story - WESH Orlando
Sick this pedophile should be locked away for the rest of his miserable life!
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A 2-year-old was raped at SeaWorld Orlando and the images of the incident were saved on the suspect’s cell phone, investigators said Friday.
Michael Grzybowicz, 26, is accused of raping the girl on Feb. 17, after her mother asked him to watch the toddler.
Sick this pedophile should be locked away for the rest of his miserable life!
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A 2-year-old was raped at SeaWorld Orlando and the images of the incident were saved on the suspect’s cell phone, investigators said Friday.
Michael Grzybowicz, 26, is accused of raping the girl on Feb. 17, after her mother asked him to watch the toddler.
Friday, February 25, 2011
DCYF Screw's up Again!-7-month-old found dead in foster home
7-month-old found dead in foster home - FOX19.com and FOX19 News, weather, traffic, and sports for Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky |
NORTH COLLEGE HILL, OH (FOX19) - Job and Family Services and the North College Hill Police Department are investigating the death of a 7-month-old foster child.
Brian Gregg, a spokesman with Job and Family Services tells FOX19 the Child, Ty'ionna Barfield, died in her foster home on February 18th. Police were called to the foster home just before 10 p.m. on the 18th after a report that Ty'ionna was not breathing. An officer performed CPR on the child until emergency workers got there and took over. The infant died in the home.
NORTH COLLEGE HILL, OH (FOX19) - Job and Family Services and the North College Hill Police Department are investigating the death of a 7-month-old foster child.
Brian Gregg, a spokesman with Job and Family Services tells FOX19 the Child, Ty'ionna Barfield, died in her foster home on February 18th. Police were called to the foster home just before 10 p.m. on the 18th after a report that Ty'ionna was not breathing. An officer performed CPR on the child until emergency workers got there and took over. The infant died in the home.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
February 24, 2011yvonnemason
This article just came over my alerts for the Palm Beach Post. This office needs to be investigated from the top down. The corruption, lies, falisfing of records and cover ups is the norm in all offices all over the country. This is the tip of the iceberg. It is time to stop the murder of our children. Ms.Fleary should be criminally charged for her part in the death of Nubia and the near death of Victor. It is past time to take back our children
By Ana M. Valdes Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 5:14 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011
Posted: 5:08 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011
Post a Comment E-mail Print ShareLarger Type Small Type
The state child abuse investigator currently under fire for not following up on an allegation that twins Victor and Nubia Barahona were being tied and confined to a bathroom by their adoptive parents was given a final notice for a similar mishandling of a case last year, according to state Department of Children and Families documents released this afternoon.
Andrea Fleary, who was placed under paid administrative leave Feb. 17, two days after the twins were found in West Palm Beach – Nubia’s dead body in the back of the truck and Victor seizing and covered in toxic chemicals – was given a final conseling notice Feb. 15 of last year, for failing to find a home for a child removed from his or her biological family by the 24 hour deadline established by DCF.
“Your neglect placed this child at risk of additional harm,” wrote Kevin Ramos, a DCF child protective investigator supervisor. “Further, you interviewed the child without law enforcement present. Even more disturbing, you failed to document notification with the Child Protection Team.”
Fleary refused to sign the notice, according to DCF documents.
Last year’s reprimand, however, was not the first time Fleary was called out by the agency for her performance.
In 2003, the department issued her first final counseling notice for taking 11 days to interview the person who reported the abuse of six children. The notice also said Fleary failed to find shelter for one of the children, despite a knowing that the child was living with the mother even though a court order denied the mother custody. Some of the children were also allowed to visit with their maternal grandmother without proper authorization.
In 1992, Fleary was also given a written reprimand for punching a colleague in the face.
DCF officials are now looking into whether Andrea Fleary did enough to find the 10-year-old Barahona twins before Nubia was found dead in a truck owned by her adoptive father, Jorge Barahona, and Victor was hospitalized with life-threatening burns.
The 48-year-old investigator gave a brief explanation about how she handled the case at a court hearing two days after the twins were found in Palm Beach County.
She said she had visited the Barahona home in western Miami-Dade County Feb. 10, when the abuse allegation was reported to DCF’s abuse hotline.
After Flearly failed to locate the twins or their father, she visited the home a second time the next day, but she did not find the children again. When the judge asked why she had not tried to locate other relatives or contact the reporter of the abuse, Fleary said it was 9:30 p.m. on a Friday night, and that she was not allowed to work weekends.
Since then, DCF is investigating Fleary’s actions. Officials will not comment on whether Fleary violated any steps in the abuse investigation at the Barahona home.
ana_valdes@pbpost.com
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/barahona-child-abuse-investigator-mishandled-previous-cases-1279186.html?showComments=true&postingId=1279398#commentsList
Categories: Murdered Children at the Hands of Foster Parents and CPSTags: Abuse by CPS, abuse in florida dcf, andrea fleary, corruption by florida dcf, florida dcf, greed by florida dcf, murder by florida dcf, yvonne mason
February 24, 2011yvonnemason
This article just came over my alerts for the Palm Beach Post. This office needs to be investigated from the top down. The corruption, lies, falisfing of records and cover ups is the norm in all offices all over the country. This is the tip of the iceberg. It is time to stop the murder of our children. Ms.Fleary should be criminally charged for her part in the death of Nubia and the near death of Victor. It is past time to take back our children
By Ana M. Valdes Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 5:14 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011
Posted: 5:08 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011
Post a Comment E-mail Print ShareLarger Type Small Type
The state child abuse investigator currently under fire for not following up on an allegation that twins Victor and Nubia Barahona were being tied and confined to a bathroom by their adoptive parents was given a final notice for a similar mishandling of a case last year, according to state Department of Children and Families documents released this afternoon.
Andrea Fleary, who was placed under paid administrative leave Feb. 17, two days after the twins were found in West Palm Beach – Nubia’s dead body in the back of the truck and Victor seizing and covered in toxic chemicals – was given a final conseling notice Feb. 15 of last year, for failing to find a home for a child removed from his or her biological family by the 24 hour deadline established by DCF.
“Your neglect placed this child at risk of additional harm,” wrote Kevin Ramos, a DCF child protective investigator supervisor. “Further, you interviewed the child without law enforcement present. Even more disturbing, you failed to document notification with the Child Protection Team.”
Fleary refused to sign the notice, according to DCF documents.
Last year’s reprimand, however, was not the first time Fleary was called out by the agency for her performance.
In 2003, the department issued her first final counseling notice for taking 11 days to interview the person who reported the abuse of six children. The notice also said Fleary failed to find shelter for one of the children, despite a knowing that the child was living with the mother even though a court order denied the mother custody. Some of the children were also allowed to visit with their maternal grandmother without proper authorization.
In 1992, Fleary was also given a written reprimand for punching a colleague in the face.
DCF officials are now looking into whether Andrea Fleary did enough to find the 10-year-old Barahona twins before Nubia was found dead in a truck owned by her adoptive father, Jorge Barahona, and Victor was hospitalized with life-threatening burns.
The 48-year-old investigator gave a brief explanation about how she handled the case at a court hearing two days after the twins were found in Palm Beach County.
She said she had visited the Barahona home in western Miami-Dade County Feb. 10, when the abuse allegation was reported to DCF’s abuse hotline.
After Flearly failed to locate the twins or their father, she visited the home a second time the next day, but she did not find the children again. When the judge asked why she had not tried to locate other relatives or contact the reporter of the abuse, Fleary said it was 9:30 p.m. on a Friday night, and that she was not allowed to work weekends.
Since then, DCF is investigating Fleary’s actions. Officials will not comment on whether Fleary violated any steps in the abuse investigation at the Barahona home.
ana_valdes@pbpost.com
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/barahona-child-abuse-investigator-mishandled-previous-cases-1279186.html?showComments=true&postingId=1279398#commentsList
Categories: Murdered Children at the Hands of Foster Parents and CPSTags: Abuse by CPS, abuse in florida dcf, andrea fleary, corruption by florida dcf, florida dcf, greed by florida dcf, murder by florida dcf, yvonne mason
CPS Adoptions: Were Relatives Considered First?
CPS Adoptions: Were Relatives Considered First?
RANDY WALLACE
Investigative Reporter
HOUSTON - She was only 19 when Amber Chenault gave birth to her daughter.
"She called her Mommy every time she saw her," said Sophia Peters, Amber's grandmother.
But now the baby calls someone else mommy and it's tearing Amber apart.
"I cry myself to sleep every night," Amber said. "I've got her pictures all over my wall at home. She's my every thing."
When she was just a few months old, the baby was taken into the custody of Child Protective Services. The reasons, CPS said, include her father's lengthy criminal history, unsafe living conditions and Amber's lack of stability.
Amber's family members agree CPS needed to get involved.
"According to the situation they were in, it was necessary," Amber's aunt Julia Kaptchinski said.
CPS got the baby's father to sign away his parental rights, but not Amber.
"I was thinking maybe, just maybe, she just might come home," Amber said.
"CPS is there for reunification first and foremost," Kaptchinski said. "We were told that a number of times and that was another reason we felt everything was going really well."
But things couldn't have gone more wrong, the family said.
"I was one of those people who believed CPS was there to help, and they’re not," Susan Peters, Amber's mother, said.
After a year, CPS said it saw no changes in Amber's life so the agency moved to have her parental rights terminated. Her baby was later adopted by foster parents.
"I do believe she should have been adopted into the family," Amber said. "There was no reason for her to be adopted outside of the family."
"It was a shock," Amber's mother said.
"They just took a great-grandbaby away from me and gave it to strangers for someone else and it hurts," Amber's grandmother said.
They keep telling us she's in a good foster home and she's fine, but that's a foster home. We're her family," Tina Porter said.
Just like Amber's family, Tina and Brian Porter said CPS ignored state law when it allowed their great niece to be adopted by foster parents instead of blood relatives.
"I would never in my life believe, in this country, this kind of behavior is allowed," Brian Porter said.
Tina's niece, the baby's mother, is mentally disabled. Relatives describe her mental capacity as that of a 12-year-old.
"Being mentally disabled doesn't mean you don't have feelings," Tina Porter said. "She does love her children and wanted her children to remain with family versus foster care."
The Porters, who've raised six kids are in the process of adopting their niece's little boy and planned on adopting his baby sister. They've even got a room waiting for her.
"And I walk by that room everyday and we're still waiting. It's not fair," Tina Porter said.
According to the couple's attorney CPS talked Tina's niece into signing away her parental rights with no attorney present.
"She definitely has mental disabilities that were recognized in CPS's own paperwork and no precautions were taken," the Porters’ attorney Don Robinowitz said. "Somebody should have made sure that she was competent to make a decision of this magnitude."
What’s more, the couple accuses CPS of stringing them along for months, making them think they would be adopting the baby girl.
"I trusted em,” Tina Porter said. "I trusted everyone I spoke to."
Then, Tina said she got a call from CPS telling her in 24 hours the baby would be adopted by her foster parents.
"Unbelievable," Tina said. "I still can't believe it. How could this be allowed to happen?"
Amber's aunt Denise Arsement was more than willing to adopt Amber's baby girl.
"In a heartbeat," Arsement said. "And I told them that in court, I told them I would take her."
Out of more than half a dozen relatives CPS knew would take the baby, none were contacted by the state agency, Arsement said.
Even though CPS's own policy states relatives are always considered first, the number of CPS adoptions statewide to relatives is less than 50 percent. In fact, according to the state agency's own figures, in 2008, 61 percent of CPS adoptions were non-relative adoptions. In 2009 it was 57 percent and last year 55 percent of all CPS adoptions were non-relative adoptions.
“CPS knew what they were doing to tell me enough stories to keep stringing me along," Tina Porter said.
The Porters have filed suit and hope a court battle will undo the foster parent adoption so they can adopt their niece's baby girl.
Meanwhile Amber's family has an appeal on file and prays somehow her baby will someday be part of their family.
"I don't go a day without thinking about what she might be doing or where she's at," Amber said.
CPS told FOX 26 Investigates, they originally placed Amber's baby with two different relatives, but at the request of those relatives the child was removed because they were no longer able to care for her.
The state agency said it didn't consider any other relatives because it was ordered by the court to leave the baby with the foster parents who adopted her.
As for the Porters, CPS declined comment due to pending court proceedings.
"Something needs to be changed," Amber's aunt Denise said. "This just can't keep happening to family after family."
CPS Adoptions: Were Relatives Considered First?: MyFoxHOUSTON.com
RANDY WALLACE
Investigative Reporter
HOUSTON - She was only 19 when Amber Chenault gave birth to her daughter.
"She called her Mommy every time she saw her," said Sophia Peters, Amber's grandmother.
But now the baby calls someone else mommy and it's tearing Amber apart.
"I cry myself to sleep every night," Amber said. "I've got her pictures all over my wall at home. She's my every thing."
When she was just a few months old, the baby was taken into the custody of Child Protective Services. The reasons, CPS said, include her father's lengthy criminal history, unsafe living conditions and Amber's lack of stability.
Amber's family members agree CPS needed to get involved.
"According to the situation they were in, it was necessary," Amber's aunt Julia Kaptchinski said.
CPS got the baby's father to sign away his parental rights, but not Amber.
"I was thinking maybe, just maybe, she just might come home," Amber said.
"CPS is there for reunification first and foremost," Kaptchinski said. "We were told that a number of times and that was another reason we felt everything was going really well."
But things couldn't have gone more wrong, the family said.
"I was one of those people who believed CPS was there to help, and they’re not," Susan Peters, Amber's mother, said.
After a year, CPS said it saw no changes in Amber's life so the agency moved to have her parental rights terminated. Her baby was later adopted by foster parents.
"I do believe she should have been adopted into the family," Amber said. "There was no reason for her to be adopted outside of the family."
"It was a shock," Amber's mother said.
"They just took a great-grandbaby away from me and gave it to strangers for someone else and it hurts," Amber's grandmother said.
They keep telling us she's in a good foster home and she's fine, but that's a foster home. We're her family," Tina Porter said.
Just like Amber's family, Tina and Brian Porter said CPS ignored state law when it allowed their great niece to be adopted by foster parents instead of blood relatives.
"I would never in my life believe, in this country, this kind of behavior is allowed," Brian Porter said.
Tina's niece, the baby's mother, is mentally disabled. Relatives describe her mental capacity as that of a 12-year-old.
"Being mentally disabled doesn't mean you don't have feelings," Tina Porter said. "She does love her children and wanted her children to remain with family versus foster care."
The Porters, who've raised six kids are in the process of adopting their niece's little boy and planned on adopting his baby sister. They've even got a room waiting for her.
"And I walk by that room everyday and we're still waiting. It's not fair," Tina Porter said.
According to the couple's attorney CPS talked Tina's niece into signing away her parental rights with no attorney present.
"She definitely has mental disabilities that were recognized in CPS's own paperwork and no precautions were taken," the Porters’ attorney Don Robinowitz said. "Somebody should have made sure that she was competent to make a decision of this magnitude."
What’s more, the couple accuses CPS of stringing them along for months, making them think they would be adopting the baby girl.
"I trusted em,” Tina Porter said. "I trusted everyone I spoke to."
Then, Tina said she got a call from CPS telling her in 24 hours the baby would be adopted by her foster parents.
"Unbelievable," Tina said. "I still can't believe it. How could this be allowed to happen?"
Amber's aunt Denise Arsement was more than willing to adopt Amber's baby girl.
"In a heartbeat," Arsement said. "And I told them that in court, I told them I would take her."
Out of more than half a dozen relatives CPS knew would take the baby, none were contacted by the state agency, Arsement said.
Even though CPS's own policy states relatives are always considered first, the number of CPS adoptions statewide to relatives is less than 50 percent. In fact, according to the state agency's own figures, in 2008, 61 percent of CPS adoptions were non-relative adoptions. In 2009 it was 57 percent and last year 55 percent of all CPS adoptions were non-relative adoptions.
“CPS knew what they were doing to tell me enough stories to keep stringing me along," Tina Porter said.
The Porters have filed suit and hope a court battle will undo the foster parent adoption so they can adopt their niece's baby girl.
Meanwhile Amber's family has an appeal on file and prays somehow her baby will someday be part of their family.
"I don't go a day without thinking about what she might be doing or where she's at," Amber said.
CPS told FOX 26 Investigates, they originally placed Amber's baby with two different relatives, but at the request of those relatives the child was removed because they were no longer able to care for her.
The state agency said it didn't consider any other relatives because it was ordered by the court to leave the baby with the foster parents who adopted her.
As for the Porters, CPS declined comment due to pending court proceedings.
"Something needs to be changed," Amber's aunt Denise said. "This just can't keep happening to family after family."
Attorney General Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit, Appoints Kevin Ohlson Chief
Attorney General Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit, Appoints Kevin Ohlson Chief
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASETuesday, January 18, 2011
Attorney General Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit, Appoints Kevin Ohlson Chief
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder announced today the creation of a new Professional Misconduct Review Unit to handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at the Department of Justice that arise from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations and appointed Kevin Ohlson to be its Chief.
The Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) will be responsible for all disciplinary and state bar referral actions relating to OPR findings of professional misconduct against career attorneys.
“The current procedures for resolving these disciplinary matters consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolutions, but this new Unit will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases,” said Attorney General Holder. “In the vast majority of cases, Department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution. This Unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the Department’s mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case.”
“Through his lengthy career at the Department of Justice, Kevin Ohlson has been an extraordinary prosecutor and public servant, and I know that he will bring the high standards of professionalism and integrity that he has always demonstrated to this new position,” the Attorney General said.
OPR is responsible for investigating allegations of professional misconduct involving Department attorneys.
The Unit will review only those cases involving findings of intentional or reckless professional misconduct by OPR and determine whether those findings are supported by the evidence and the applicable law. OPR findings of poor judgment or mistake will continue to be referred to the component head or through the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) to the relevant U.S. Attorney for appropriate action.
The Unit was created as a result of a comprehensive review of existing disciplinary procedures and processes with the aim of creating a more efficient and uniform system. OPR, EOUSA, the Criminal Division, the Justice Management Division and the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management conducted the review and recommended the creation of the Unit. At the outset, the Unit will focus on cases involving career attorneys from the recommending components though the Department expects to expand the jurisdiction of the Unit to cover other litigating components over time.
Ohlson has served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General since February 2009. He has previously served as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant U.S. Attorney. A former officer in the U.S. Army where he served as both a judge advocate and as a paratrooper, Ohlson was awarded the Bronze Star in 1990 for his service during the Persian Gulf War.
A copy of the memorandum is available at:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pmru-creation.pdf.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASETuesday, January 18, 2011
Attorney General Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit, Appoints Kevin Ohlson Chief
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder announced today the creation of a new Professional Misconduct Review Unit to handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at the Department of Justice that arise from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations and appointed Kevin Ohlson to be its Chief.
The Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) will be responsible for all disciplinary and state bar referral actions relating to OPR findings of professional misconduct against career attorneys.
“The current procedures for resolving these disciplinary matters consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolutions, but this new Unit will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases,” said Attorney General Holder. “In the vast majority of cases, Department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution. This Unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the Department’s mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case.”
“Through his lengthy career at the Department of Justice, Kevin Ohlson has been an extraordinary prosecutor and public servant, and I know that he will bring the high standards of professionalism and integrity that he has always demonstrated to this new position,” the Attorney General said.
OPR is responsible for investigating allegations of professional misconduct involving Department attorneys.
The Unit will review only those cases involving findings of intentional or reckless professional misconduct by OPR and determine whether those findings are supported by the evidence and the applicable law. OPR findings of poor judgment or mistake will continue to be referred to the component head or through the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) to the relevant U.S. Attorney for appropriate action.
The Unit was created as a result of a comprehensive review of existing disciplinary procedures and processes with the aim of creating a more efficient and uniform system. OPR, EOUSA, the Criminal Division, the Justice Management Division and the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management conducted the review and recommended the creation of the Unit. At the outset, the Unit will focus on cases involving career attorneys from the recommending components though the Department expects to expand the jurisdiction of the Unit to cover other litigating components over time.
Ohlson has served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General since February 2009. He has previously served as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant U.S. Attorney. A former officer in the U.S. Army where he served as both a judge advocate and as a paratrooper, Ohlson was awarded the Bronze Star in 1990 for his service during the Persian Gulf War.
A copy of the memorandum is available at:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pmru-creation.pdf.
Nashua DCYF Screw's Up Again!!-Nashua child’s death ruled a homicide
Nashua child’s death ruled a homicide - NashuaTelegraph.com
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Nashua child’s death ruled a homicide
NASHUA – Autopsy results reveal 3-year-old Christian Jackson died of “blunt force trauma” and his death has been ruled a homicide, according to the state Attorney General’s office.
Christian Jackson stopped breathing late Saturday night, and was later declared dead.
No arrests have been made in the case. Nashua Police Department and the Attorney General’s office continue to investigate the child’s death.
Court records show state child welfare officials had investigated allegations that someone was abusing Christian Jackson less than three months before he died.
On Saturday night, someone in his father’s home at 63 Chestnut St. in Nashua called 911, authorities have said, and Christian was taken to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, where he was declared dead.
Both of Christian Jackson’s parents, 30-year-old Shawn Ganley and 23-year-old Latoya Jackson, who lives at 46 Myrtle St. in Nashua, have prior criminal records.
Ganley was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to 2½ to seven years in prison on charges of first-degree assault, attempted first-degree assault, burglary, possession of heroin, and four counts of simple assault.
Ganley admitted to trying to stab his girlfriend after she confronted him about his drug use, and then stabbing his cousin in the chest after the cousin tried to break up a fight between him and his girlfriend. He was released from the prison April 27, officials said, and he remains on parole, with an additional, suspended sentence.
Latoya Jackson was convicted in 2005 on a hindering apprehension charge stemming from a child abuse case against her boyfriend, Jose Meza, who was convicted of repeatedly breaking the bones of their infant daughter Mariah Meza because he was frustrated by her crying. Meza pleaded guilty to felony assault charges, and was sentenced in 2007 to at least 12 years in prison.
Jackson was 16 when the abuse was discovered in 2004, and she later admitted helping Meza try to hide their daughter’s injuries. She agreed to testify against Meza, and was sentenced to five years on probation.
Mariah Meza was put into foster care, and Jackson has been unable to regain custody, according to one of Jackson’s friends.
Court records show that authorities had investigated accusations that Christian Jackson had been abused in the months before his death.
Christian Jackson was born Jan. 12, 2008. His parents never married.
Jackson had been raising Christian exclusively for most of his life with welfare assistance, according to court records.
On Nov. 29, Ganley filed emergency petitions in both Nashua District Court and the Hillsborough County Family Court in Merrimack, seeking custody of Christian. Ganley had been taking the boy on weekends, from Friday evening through Sunday evenings, for about a month at that point, according to court records.
“Since I have separated from my son’s mother I have been taking him every weekend,” Ganley wrote. “He has come with bite marks on his face, choke marks on his neck and this past weekend he has come with a black eye and the whole side of his head and face bruised. He has also in the past year had a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder.”
Ganley asked the court to let him keep Christian, writing, “I’m afraid she’ll take him back and something bad will happen to him.”
The court allowed Ganley to keep Christian for a week while caseworkers from the Division of Children Youth and Families investigated, court records show, and Marital Master Alice Love heard testimony on the matter Dec. 6.
“DCYF confirms bruising but is unable to determine the source,” Love wrote after the hearing. “Based upon the testimony, the court is unable to find that the child should be taken from his mother.”
Love, DCYF and the parents agreed to continue the custody arrangement – that Jackson keep Christian during the week and Ganley take his son on weekends. The trial was scheduled to begin in May.
A friend of Latoya Jackson, Shelly Kendzerski, said she believes Ganley exaggerated Christian’s injuries and lied about alleged abuse cited in his petition “just to get at Latoya, to hurt Latoya, because she did not want to be with him.”
“That is all a bunch of bull,” Kendzerski said of Ganley’s petition. “Latoya does not beat her children. She may yell at them a little when they are doing something they shouldn’t do…. None of her children are in any danger being with her.”
Layota Jackson has been in shock since Christian’s death, and hasn’t been eating or sleeping well, Kendzerski said.
“He didn’t even get to live his life,” Kendzerski said, adding later, “Christian was a happy child. He had the most gorgeous smile in the world that would just light up a room.”
Family and friends have set up a fund to help pay for Christian’s funeral: donations to the Christian Jackson Funeral Fund can be made at any TD Bank branch.
-- By Joseph Cote and Telegraph Staff
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Nashua child’s death ruled a homicide
NASHUA – Autopsy results reveal 3-year-old Christian Jackson died of “blunt force trauma” and his death has been ruled a homicide, according to the state Attorney General’s office.
Christian Jackson stopped breathing late Saturday night, and was later declared dead.
No arrests have been made in the case. Nashua Police Department and the Attorney General’s office continue to investigate the child’s death.
Court records show state child welfare officials had investigated allegations that someone was abusing Christian Jackson less than three months before he died.
On Saturday night, someone in his father’s home at 63 Chestnut St. in Nashua called 911, authorities have said, and Christian was taken to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, where he was declared dead.
Both of Christian Jackson’s parents, 30-year-old Shawn Ganley and 23-year-old Latoya Jackson, who lives at 46 Myrtle St. in Nashua, have prior criminal records.
Ganley was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to 2½ to seven years in prison on charges of first-degree assault, attempted first-degree assault, burglary, possession of heroin, and four counts of simple assault.
Ganley admitted to trying to stab his girlfriend after she confronted him about his drug use, and then stabbing his cousin in the chest after the cousin tried to break up a fight between him and his girlfriend. He was released from the prison April 27, officials said, and he remains on parole, with an additional, suspended sentence.
Latoya Jackson was convicted in 2005 on a hindering apprehension charge stemming from a child abuse case against her boyfriend, Jose Meza, who was convicted of repeatedly breaking the bones of their infant daughter Mariah Meza because he was frustrated by her crying. Meza pleaded guilty to felony assault charges, and was sentenced in 2007 to at least 12 years in prison.
Jackson was 16 when the abuse was discovered in 2004, and she later admitted helping Meza try to hide their daughter’s injuries. She agreed to testify against Meza, and was sentenced to five years on probation.
Mariah Meza was put into foster care, and Jackson has been unable to regain custody, according to one of Jackson’s friends.
Court records show that authorities had investigated accusations that Christian Jackson had been abused in the months before his death.
Christian Jackson was born Jan. 12, 2008. His parents never married.
Jackson had been raising Christian exclusively for most of his life with welfare assistance, according to court records.
On Nov. 29, Ganley filed emergency petitions in both Nashua District Court and the Hillsborough County Family Court in Merrimack, seeking custody of Christian. Ganley had been taking the boy on weekends, from Friday evening through Sunday evenings, for about a month at that point, according to court records.
“Since I have separated from my son’s mother I have been taking him every weekend,” Ganley wrote. “He has come with bite marks on his face, choke marks on his neck and this past weekend he has come with a black eye and the whole side of his head and face bruised. He has also in the past year had a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder.”
Ganley asked the court to let him keep Christian, writing, “I’m afraid she’ll take him back and something bad will happen to him.”
The court allowed Ganley to keep Christian for a week while caseworkers from the Division of Children Youth and Families investigated, court records show, and Marital Master Alice Love heard testimony on the matter Dec. 6.
“DCYF confirms bruising but is unable to determine the source,” Love wrote after the hearing. “Based upon the testimony, the court is unable to find that the child should be taken from his mother.”
Love, DCYF and the parents agreed to continue the custody arrangement – that Jackson keep Christian during the week and Ganley take his son on weekends. The trial was scheduled to begin in May.
A friend of Latoya Jackson, Shelly Kendzerski, said she believes Ganley exaggerated Christian’s injuries and lied about alleged abuse cited in his petition “just to get at Latoya, to hurt Latoya, because she did not want to be with him.”
“That is all a bunch of bull,” Kendzerski said of Ganley’s petition. “Latoya does not beat her children. She may yell at them a little when they are doing something they shouldn’t do…. None of her children are in any danger being with her.”
Layota Jackson has been in shock since Christian’s death, and hasn’t been eating or sleeping well, Kendzerski said.
“He didn’t even get to live his life,” Kendzerski said, adding later, “Christian was a happy child. He had the most gorgeous smile in the world that would just light up a room.”
Family and friends have set up a fund to help pay for Christian’s funeral: donations to the Christian Jackson Funeral Fund can be made at any TD Bank branch.
-- By Joseph Cote and Telegraph Staff
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Government Abuse IS Child Abuse U.S.A. PROTEST 8/12/2011
Government Abuse IS Child Abuse U.S.A. PROTEST 8/12/2011
OFFICIAL Children / Families Against Government Abuse Protest Group.
PLC's needed: (protest location coordinators) Government doesn't believe we are demanding
changes until 'We The People' UNITE in PROTEST 8/12/11
WEBSITE: www.govabuse.org
Name:
Government Abuse IS Child Abuse U.S.A. PROTEST 8/12/2011
Category:
Organizations - Advocacy Organizations
Description:
Save children / families from system abuse, child abuse for profit, abuse of tax payer dollars and more.
PROTESTING NATION WIDE to force changes in our family court system including but not limited to;
*Children's Rights
*Parental right's.
*Grandparents Right's
*Abuse Title IV funds
*Child Protective Services (aka; CPS, DSS, SS,DCFS).
*1997 Children / Safe Families Act
*Foster care
*Wrongful Termination of Parental Rights
*False Child Abuse Allegations/reports
*Wrongful denial of child / parent time
*Court appointed evaluators /Psychologist's
*Assigned Judges
*Court appointed guardian-ad-litem (GAL)
*Parental Alienation (actions executed to alienate a
parent are a crime-must be held accountable)
*Child Support
*Secret Family Courts / wrongful gag orders
*Abuse of emergency ex parte court orders
*Denial of trials, appointed counsel, transcripts (read less)
Save children / families from system abuse, child abuse for profit, abuse of tax payer dollars and more.
PROTESTING NATION WIDE to force changes in our family court system including but not limited to;
*Children's Rights
*Parental right's.
*Grandparents Right's
*Abuse Title IV funds
*Child Protective Services (aka; CPS, DSS, SS,DCFS).
*1997 Children / Safe Families Act
*Foster care
*Wrongful Termination of Parental Rights
*False Child Abuse Allegations/reports
*Wrongful denial of child /parent time
*Court appointed evaluators /Psychologist'
*Assigned Judges
*Court appointed guardian-ad-litem (GAL)
*Parental Alienation (actions executed to alienate a
*parent are a crime-must be held accountable)
*Child Support
*Secret Family Courts / wrongful gag orders
*Abuse of emergency ex parte court orders
*Denial of trials, appointed counsel, transcripts
Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public.
--
www.usconcernedparents.webs.com
CJ MARTON
OFFICIAL Children / Families Against Government Abuse Protest Group.
PLC's needed: (protest location coordinators) Government doesn't believe we are demanding
changes until 'We The People' UNITE in PROTEST 8/12/11
WEBSITE: www.govabuse.org
Name:
Government Abuse IS Child Abuse U.S.A. PROTEST 8/12/2011
Category:
Organizations - Advocacy Organizations
Description:
Save children / families from system abuse, child abuse for profit, abuse of tax payer dollars and more.
PROTESTING NATION WIDE to force changes in our family court system including but not limited to;
*Children's Rights
*Parental right's.
*Grandparents Right's
*Abuse Title IV funds
*Child Protective Services (aka; CPS, DSS, SS,DCFS).
*1997 Children / Safe Families Act
*Foster care
*Wrongful Termination of Parental Rights
*False Child Abuse Allegations/reports
*Wrongful denial of child / parent time
*Court appointed evaluators /Psychologist's
*Assigned Judges
*Court appointed guardian-ad-litem (GAL)
*Parental Alienation (actions executed to alienate a
parent are a crime-must be held accountable)
*Child Support
*Secret Family Courts / wrongful gag orders
*Abuse of emergency ex parte court orders
*Denial of trials, appointed counsel, transcripts (read less)
Save children / families from system abuse, child abuse for profit, abuse of tax payer dollars and more.
PROTESTING NATION WIDE to force changes in our family court system including but not limited to;
*Children's Rights
*Parental right's.
*Grandparents Right's
*Abuse Title IV funds
*Child Protective Services (aka; CPS, DSS, SS,DCFS).
*1997 Children / Safe Families Act
*Foster care
*Wrongful Termination of Parental Rights
*False Child Abuse Allegations/reports
*Wrongful denial of child /parent time
*Court appointed evaluators /Psychologist'
*Assigned Judges
*Court appointed guardian-ad-litem (GAL)
*Parental Alienation (actions executed to alienate a
*parent are a crime-must be held accountable)
*Child Support
*Secret Family Courts / wrongful gag orders
*Abuse of emergency ex parte court orders
*Denial of trials, appointed counsel, transcripts
Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public.
--
www.usconcernedparents.webs.com
CJ MARTON
Federal officials create Web site for courthouse corruption | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre & Scranton PA
Federal officials create Web site for courthouse corruption | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre & Scranton PA
Federal officials create Web site for courthouse corruption
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has created a Web site for the posting of all matters related to the ongoing probe of public corruption in Luzerne County.
Read more Luzerne County Judges articles
ON THE WEB
Direct link: Luzerne County Corruption Prosecutions Web Site
U.S. Attorney's Office Web site
Select images available for purchase in the
Times Leader Photo Store
The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Martin C. Carlson who is prosecuting the cases against former county judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan and former court administrator William Sharkey.
The Web site is http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pam/Victim_Witness/Luzerne_county_corruption.html
The Web site will provide summaries of the cases filed in connection with the investigation, links to court records including copies of all criminal charges and plea agreements as well as court dates.
The site also provides contact information for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for those who believe they have been victims of crime.
The Web site also provides contact numbers at the FBI and IRS for people who believe they may have information regarding criminal activity.
In announcing the Web site, Carlson said: “In undertaking this investigation we have been guided by a single, simple principle: public service is a public trust, and all public officials owe it to the people they serve to keep the public informed on matters of importance in the community.”
Federal officials create Web site for courthouse corruption
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has created a Web site for the posting of all matters related to the ongoing probe of public corruption in Luzerne County.
Read more Luzerne County Judges articles
ON THE WEB
Direct link: Luzerne County Corruption Prosecutions Web Site
U.S. Attorney's Office Web site
Select images available for purchase in the
Times Leader Photo Store
The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Martin C. Carlson who is prosecuting the cases against former county judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan and former court administrator William Sharkey.
The Web site is http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pam/Victim_Witness/Luzerne_county_corruption.html
The Web site will provide summaries of the cases filed in connection with the investigation, links to court records including copies of all criminal charges and plea agreements as well as court dates.
The site also provides contact information for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for those who believe they have been victims of crime.
The Web site also provides contact numbers at the FBI and IRS for people who believe they may have information regarding criminal activity.
In announcing the Web site, Carlson said: “In undertaking this investigation we have been guided by a single, simple principle: public service is a public trust, and all public officials owe it to the people they serve to keep the public informed on matters of importance in the community.”
Corruption: Tell the FBI | jacksonville.com
Corruption: Tell the FBI | jacksonville.com
Posted: February 23, 2011 - 12:00am
Contact the FBI
- FBI Jacksonville Public Corruption Tip Line: 1-888-722-1225
- Via e-mail: jacksonville@ic.fbi.gov. Place "Public Corruption Tip" in the subject line.
- For more on corruption the FBI is looking for, visit http://jacksonville.fbi.gov/priorities.htm
City Ethics Hotline
- (904) 630-1015
Corruption in government is a cancer for taxpayers that poisons the system for everyone.
That's a big reason why it's important to make it easy for the public to report it to authorities in a position to combat it.
The Jacksonville division of the FBI has launched a new corruption tip line that encourages people to report bribes, kickbacks or other illegal activities that involve people who use their public offices for personal gain.
And it doesn't matter if those officials are elected, appointed or under contract to do work for the government.
It's the law
The FBI notes it is a violation of federal law for officials at any level of government to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for - or because of - any official act.
But those secretive deals are often hard to detect and even more challenging to prove without the help of people who can alert authorities.
The FBI says contract fraud surrounding the federal stimulus money is of particular concern.
About half of the estimated $9.4 billion in contracts awarded in the state fall within the Jacksonville FBI Division's North Florida territory.
A city ethics hotline already exists for people to report problems or concerns with city government that can include misuse of public resources, concerns about accepting gifts, conflicts of interest in contracting and other issues.
City Ethics Officer Carla Miller says she fields about a call a day on the hotline, with many of those involving city workers or other officials seeking ethics advice.
Depending on the nature of the call, the matter can be referred to the city Ethics Commission for possible action or to the state attorney or federal authorities. The city ethics system can help diffuse problems before they reach the FBI's level of concern.
Strangely, some public officials think ethics should be self-policing, an attitude they don't take with other crimes.
Yet, there are more than enough examples of corruption among public officials.
The biggest city scandal in recent years involves allegations of bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering and lying to the FBI regarding the port and its former chairman Tony Nelson.
Nelson has pleaded innocent to the 44 counts against him.
State law on tap
Good legislation pending in the state Legislature includes expanding the city hotline to cover the Duval County school system, JEA, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority and the Jacksonville Port Authority.
Corruption in government shouldn't be tolerated.
If you have information about something illegal that's going on, give the authorities a call.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-02-23/story/corruption-tell-fbi#ixzz1EqFVaf2T
Posted: February 23, 2011 - 12:00am
Contact the FBI
- FBI Jacksonville Public Corruption Tip Line: 1-888-722-1225
- Via e-mail: jacksonville@ic.fbi.gov. Place "Public Corruption Tip" in the subject line.
- For more on corruption the FBI is looking for, visit http://jacksonville.fbi.gov/priorities.htm
City Ethics Hotline
- (904) 630-1015
Corruption in government is a cancer for taxpayers that poisons the system for everyone.
That's a big reason why it's important to make it easy for the public to report it to authorities in a position to combat it.
The Jacksonville division of the FBI has launched a new corruption tip line that encourages people to report bribes, kickbacks or other illegal activities that involve people who use their public offices for personal gain.
And it doesn't matter if those officials are elected, appointed or under contract to do work for the government.
It's the law
The FBI notes it is a violation of federal law for officials at any level of government to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for - or because of - any official act.
But those secretive deals are often hard to detect and even more challenging to prove without the help of people who can alert authorities.
The FBI says contract fraud surrounding the federal stimulus money is of particular concern.
About half of the estimated $9.4 billion in contracts awarded in the state fall within the Jacksonville FBI Division's North Florida territory.
A city ethics hotline already exists for people to report problems or concerns with city government that can include misuse of public resources, concerns about accepting gifts, conflicts of interest in contracting and other issues.
City Ethics Officer Carla Miller says she fields about a call a day on the hotline, with many of those involving city workers or other officials seeking ethics advice.
Depending on the nature of the call, the matter can be referred to the city Ethics Commission for possible action or to the state attorney or federal authorities. The city ethics system can help diffuse problems before they reach the FBI's level of concern.
Strangely, some public officials think ethics should be self-policing, an attitude they don't take with other crimes.
Yet, there are more than enough examples of corruption among public officials.
The biggest city scandal in recent years involves allegations of bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering and lying to the FBI regarding the port and its former chairman Tony Nelson.
Nelson has pleaded innocent to the 44 counts against him.
State law on tap
Good legislation pending in the state Legislature includes expanding the city hotline to cover the Duval County school system, JEA, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority and the Jacksonville Port Authority.
Corruption in government shouldn't be tolerated.
If you have information about something illegal that's going on, give the authorities a call.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-02-23/story/corruption-tell-fbi#ixzz1EqFVaf2T
> Improving child welfare services
The Times Record > Opinion > Editorials > Improving child welfare services
Published:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:07 PM EST
As lawmakers and Gov. Paul LePage undertake a top-to-bottom review of state government, with an eye toward improving services and also reducing costs, they might want to take a look at the latest Child Welfare Services Ombudsman’s report for inspiration.
The 2010 report, issued last Thursday by the Maine Children’s Alliance, offers a detailed analysis of the state’s child welfare services by Dean Crocker, president of Maine Children’s Alliance. In his additional role as ombudsman, Crocker investigates complaints regarding child welfare services overseen by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
His annual report, then, can be seen as a kind of report card on how well we’re doing — or not — in meeting the needs of children suffering from abuse, neglect or exploitation, or who might be awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home.
These, obviously, are children we would want to make sure our state government is doing everything it can to ensure their needs are fully met. We don’t want to “nickel and dime” the services that might be required, nor do we want to spend money needlessly paying for services that don’t work and might even put children at greater risk.
The good news, says Crocker, is that “fewer children enter state custody, more remain secure in their communities, and costs to the state are greatly reduced.”
He attributes those positive findings to a new emphasis on placing children referred to the state with “kinship families” whenever it is possible to do so safely.
“When children are placed with relatives, friends or neighbors, they have the continuity of staying in familiar surroundings with people they know and trust,” Crocker said in a release accompanying the 22-page report. “This sort of stability is crucial to helping children thrive during vulnerable periods.”
Caseworkers now emphasize this as a goal as they work closely with families to keep the child safe and the family intact. A key factor in ensuring that new approach succeeds is making sure child welfare services and support are provided in timely fashion as needed.
From 2004 to 2010, the number of Maine children in “kinship care” has jumped from 17.6 percent to 38.9 percent. With more children being placed in “kinship care,” rather than being placed in DHHS state care or custody, the state’s residential costs have dropped 86 percent from 2004 to 2010.
More effective care at less cost is exactly what we hope will take place elsewhere in state government. But let’s not attribute this one example to some kind of magic.
As Crocker notes throughout his 2010 report, the positive trends in child welfare services occurred because, first and foremost, advocates for children worked closely with DHHS and families to make sure the needs of children referred to the state were the top priority. And the very fact that Maine has an ombudsman — someone who independently investigates complaints and works with stakeholders to achieve what’s best for the child — obviously creates accountability for the state’s child welfare programs. But families must be held accountable, too.
The ombudsman’s yearly report provides, then, a benchmark for measuring ongoing improvements in Maine’s child welfare services. It also flags areas that still need improvement. In that regard, we urge lawmakers and the governor to heed Crocker’s call for further attention being paid to unresolved issues.
“Too often, youth in state custody still face uncertain futures when they leave the system,” he says. “Maine still fails to identify a large percent of children at risk. And we need to provide more support and education for the children’s caregivers and and community.”
In other words, we can — and must — do better.
letters@timesrecord.com
Published:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:07 PM EST
As lawmakers and Gov. Paul LePage undertake a top-to-bottom review of state government, with an eye toward improving services and also reducing costs, they might want to take a look at the latest Child Welfare Services Ombudsman’s report for inspiration.
The 2010 report, issued last Thursday by the Maine Children’s Alliance, offers a detailed analysis of the state’s child welfare services by Dean Crocker, president of Maine Children’s Alliance. In his additional role as ombudsman, Crocker investigates complaints regarding child welfare services overseen by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
His annual report, then, can be seen as a kind of report card on how well we’re doing — or not — in meeting the needs of children suffering from abuse, neglect or exploitation, or who might be awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home.
These, obviously, are children we would want to make sure our state government is doing everything it can to ensure their needs are fully met. We don’t want to “nickel and dime” the services that might be required, nor do we want to spend money needlessly paying for services that don’t work and might even put children at greater risk.
The good news, says Crocker, is that “fewer children enter state custody, more remain secure in their communities, and costs to the state are greatly reduced.”
He attributes those positive findings to a new emphasis on placing children referred to the state with “kinship families” whenever it is possible to do so safely.
“When children are placed with relatives, friends or neighbors, they have the continuity of staying in familiar surroundings with people they know and trust,” Crocker said in a release accompanying the 22-page report. “This sort of stability is crucial to helping children thrive during vulnerable periods.”
Caseworkers now emphasize this as a goal as they work closely with families to keep the child safe and the family intact. A key factor in ensuring that new approach succeeds is making sure child welfare services and support are provided in timely fashion as needed.
From 2004 to 2010, the number of Maine children in “kinship care” has jumped from 17.6 percent to 38.9 percent. With more children being placed in “kinship care,” rather than being placed in DHHS state care or custody, the state’s residential costs have dropped 86 percent from 2004 to 2010.
More effective care at less cost is exactly what we hope will take place elsewhere in state government. But let’s not attribute this one example to some kind of magic.
As Crocker notes throughout his 2010 report, the positive trends in child welfare services occurred because, first and foremost, advocates for children worked closely with DHHS and families to make sure the needs of children referred to the state were the top priority. And the very fact that Maine has an ombudsman — someone who independently investigates complaints and works with stakeholders to achieve what’s best for the child — obviously creates accountability for the state’s child welfare programs. But families must be held accountable, too.
The ombudsman’s yearly report provides, then, a benchmark for measuring ongoing improvements in Maine’s child welfare services. It also flags areas that still need improvement. In that regard, we urge lawmakers and the governor to heed Crocker’s call for further attention being paid to unresolved issues.
“Too often, youth in state custody still face uncertain futures when they leave the system,” he says. “Maine still fails to identify a large percent of children at risk. And we need to provide more support and education for the children’s caregivers and and community.”
In other words, we can — and must — do better.
letters@timesrecord.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)