Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies

Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies
Guest editorial by by Barbara C. Johnson
June 11, 2011

Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies

The entire so-called child protection system MUST be stopped. The original purpose of these agencies has long been gone.

The multi billionsssssssss of dollars that the federal government gives toward the alleged upkeep of these agencies are misspent. Children should be kept with their biological parents. If their bio parents are unfit, there should be a TRIAL to prove it with CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. If the bio parents are NOT unfit, but need to learn more parenting skills or need to address their problems, then the bio parents should be required to attend certain classes or seminars or programs to teach them

BUT BUT BUT at all times the children are to remain with them. There are many children who grew up in troubled homes, and many of them survived and became constructive citizens. The goal should be FIX THE BIO HOME, NOT DESTROY BOTH THE HOME AND THE CHILDREN'S LIVES BY REMOVING THEM. Children must stay with their BIO parents, NOT foster parents.

Let’s look at what the existing law is and then ask ourselves whether the benefits the children allegedly receive from Title IV outweigh the risk to the children’s welfare. We must also look at the explicit statutory obstacles folks are facing.

States tend to describe Title IV-E programs as being Gardens of Roses Without Thorns. For example, the State of Maryland describes the purpose of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the foster care and subsidized adoption program, as follows—in an excerpt further abridged:

The purpose of the Title IV-E foster care program is to prevent the unnecessary placement of children from low-income families by offering states fiscal incentives for providing preventive services. The purpose of the Title IV-E subsidized adoption program is to ensure that "special needs" children who are difficult to place in adoptive homes do not remain in foster care solely for financial reasons.

The US government pays 50% of costs of the two programs and 75% of the training costs for caseworkers and administrators involved with administering the Title IV-E program.

Removal of Children from Bio Families

We see that to remove children from their bio home and transfer them to a foster home, a court must declare that staying in their bio home would be contrary to the children’s welfare and that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the children’s removal. But the experiences of millions of bio parents have taught us that the courts, with few exceptions, do not follow constitutionally correct procedures—procedures that constitute due process and equally protect the targets (both children and parents)—before removing the children. And the program as described confirms the general belief that “low-income families” are the States’ primary targets . . . that is, people who cannot afford to fight the Goliath State governments. Classic selective discrimination based, at the very least, on economic status.

Unfortunately, people of low-economic status are not in a “protected class,” a class of folks who legally may not be—but, also unfortunately, can or might be—discriminated against based on their race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex, familial status (housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing), sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others), gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others), disability status, veteran status, genetic information. For more explanation, see http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/title7/protclas.htm

Of specific interest to folks concerned with child-protection agencies and/or States receiving federal funds should be Title VI of the Federal Civil Right Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 “Title VI [p]revents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.”

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009 ). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Again unfortunately, the classes protected by Title VI are only race, color, and national origin. What the folks need are (1) statistics showing how the targeted low-income folks fall into the categories of race, color, or national origin and/or (2) legislative action to add “low-income stature” as a protected class under Title VI

Adoption of Children Removed from Bio Families

To be eligible for being adopted under Title IV-E . . . and for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) (formerly AFDC) to kick in . . .

A monthly financial benefit for disabled and/or functionally delayed children. Children are considered disabled if they are unable to function at an age-appropriate level. As the custodial parent of foster children, the State receives the foster child’s SSI benefit, amounting to many millions of dollars yearly, in order to offset the state’s cost of foster placement.

.... a child must be declared to be a child having “special needs.” What constitutes a “special need” might differ from State to State. A decade ago in Maryland, for instance, a child had to be of a certain age, of a minority race, of a sibling group, physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, or at a high risk of physical or mental disease.

What about children who are in a majority race in a given area? What about children who, when they are removed from their bio families, are not physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, or at a high risk of physical or mental disease?

Again from anecdotal evidence, we have learned that when the children are removed from their homes, the children might act out, whereupon the agencies put them on some drug. Those drugs, such as Ritalin, are mind-altering drugs. The moment a child is put on drugs, he or she is deemed a “special needs” child . . . and the State will receive a premium payment from the feds for that child. The child’s welfare is clearly sacrificed so that the State’s financial benefit will be enhanced.

The Hypocrisy

The purpose of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program [42 U.S.C. §629(b)] is:

. . . to enable States to develop and establish, or expand, and to operate coordinated programs of community-based family support services, family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services to accomplish the following objectives:

(1) To prevent child maltreatment among families at risk through the provision of supportive family services.
(2) To assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been maltreated, when the family’s problems can be addressed effectively.
(3) To address the problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care so that reunification may occur in a safe and stable manner in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
(4) To support adoptive families by providing support services as necessary so that they can make a lifetime commitment to their children.

Because I do not hear from folks who have gotten their kids back from foster care as often as I hear from those who cannot get them back, I hesitate to write much here. I feel more comfortable asking only questions:

What coordinated programs of community-based family support services have been developed, established, or expanded, and operated?
What family preservation services have been developed, established, or expanded, and operated?
What is the time limit put on family reunification services?
Is the time limit on family reunification services reasonable?
What supportive family services have been provided to prevent child maltreatment among families at risk?
What supportive family services have been provided to assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been maltreated, when the family’s problems can be addressed effectively?
Which of the family problems are those which can be addressed effectively?
What supportive family services have been provided to address the problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care so that reunification may occur in a safe and stable manner in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997?
What supportive family services have been provided to adoptive families so that they can make a lifetime commitment to their children?
Someone must address the above questions. I see no articles written about the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, 42 U.S.C. §629. Curious will be the comparison of the support services provided to achieve family reunification and services provided to adoptive families. Congress itself has written in §629(a)(4):

The rapid increases in the annual number of adoptions since the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 have created a growing need for postadoption services and for service providers with the particular knowledge and skills required to address the unique issues adoptive families and children may face.

When ASFA amended Title IV-E in 1997, the fundamental change in child welfare thinking was remarkable. The emphasis towards children's health and safety concerns shifted away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents to a policy in favor of non-reunification and adoption.

One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Rhode Island Republican Senator John H. Chafee, now deceased, said, “We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. . . . It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.”

The needs of children and their families began to be sacrificed on the Altar of Failed Justice.

Thus visible from Chafee’s position is the States’ preferential incentive to make easy money by adopting out the children. Supporting the human needs of children and families became passé. The deck being stacked against parents and their children, we must do away with ALL the childprotection agencies. We have no choice. The risk to the children being removed from their bio families is far greater than letting them be raised by their bio families, whether perfect or imperfect.

Our friend Barbara C. Johnson is a retired attorney from Massachusetts. She is now living in Puerto Rico.