Nashua, NH DCYF's Failed Assessment's of 2010 with Comment's

http://childwelfare.net/cfsreview/hhs_docs/statereports/NH/Statewideassessment2ndRoundCFSR.pdf
State of New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Division for Children, Youth and Families Child and Family Services Review Statewide Assessment -July 2010

Page 71- Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment. How effective is the agency in responding to incoming reports of child maltreatment in a timely manner? New Hampshire continues to make progress in responding timely and effectively to reports of child maltreatment. In FFY 07, the average response time was 60 hours; in FFY 08, the response time had declined to 49.9 hours. The response time was even more improved in FFY 09, with the average being 40.5 hours.
In 2008, in Nashua, a neighbor called in reports of abuse for over one year against Teresa Bergeron of Salem St. for allegedly torturing her daughter. DCYF never went to the home to investigate. Assessment worker Melissa Deane was sent to the house once, but she never went there. She instead sat around at a Foster parent's house for the day. The school that the child attended, was the one to finally get help after the abuse had continued for well over one year. Nashua scored 75, well below the 95% compliance.

Page 72-
CALENDAR YEAR REPORTS CALLED IN REPORTS SCREENED IN PERCENT SCREENED IN
2005 16472 6819 41.4
2006 16413 6954 42.4
2007 16786 7550 45
2008 17164 7880 45.9
2009 17631 7906 44.8
Timeliness of Initiating Assessments
CALENDAR ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENTS # INITIATED WITHIN % PERCENTAGE
YEAR ASSIGNED TIMEFRAMES TIMELY
2005 6400 3266 51
2006 6649 3431 51.6
2007 7459 3996 53.6
2008 7643 4248 55.6
2009 7636 5273 69.1


Page 73- Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua-August 2010-75


Page 75- Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Item 2: Repeat maltreatment. How effective is the agency in reducing the recurrence of maltreatment of children? New Hampshire has been above the national standard of 94.6% for Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment in FY 2007 and 2008 as reported in the NCANDS data. In FY 2009 the data showed New Hampshire‟s performance as slightly below the standard at 92.9%.
In 2008, my husband and I were told by a Nashua CPSW, that once a child is taken by DCYF the child is never returned, so how is it even possible for “repeat maltreatment” to occur? By the look’s of the scores on this one, is it possible that other town’s in NH don’t return children either? Nashua got a Star on this one. False report’s get called in all the time. An ex-friend retaliates against the former friend and DCYF is knocking at the door. It’s too bad DCYF doesn’t have time to investigate REAL cases of abuse. If they weren’t so busy railroading innocent parent’s, they might have saved a few of the children they let slip by! How can there be Repeat maltreatment when the children are NEVER returned? I guess that’s the reason Nashua got a “star”!
Page 77- Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
Percent Rated as a Strength

Nashua-August 2010-*

*In Rochester 10 cases were not applicable, one was rated strength, one ANI. In Nashua, eleven were not applicable and 1 was ANI.
Page 79- Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. Item 3: Services to family to protect children in the home and prevent removal or reentry into foster care. How effective is the agency in providing services, when appropriate, to prevent removal of children from their homes? The State‟s performance for absence of maltreatment recurrence in 2008 was 95.8%, which was above the national standard of 94.6% but has dropped slightly to 92.2%. New Hampshire‟s performance on Absence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care has continued to improve and in 2009 was 99.93%, which is above the national standard of 99.68%.

When did DCYF start providing services to prevent the removal of children from their homes? Even though this has been a Federal Mandate since the Adoption Promotion Act went into effect, it has NEVER been practiced in Nashua. Is 83.3 the REAL score for Nashua, or is this actually a false number? Aren’t ALL children in Nashua, with reports of abuse called in against their parents still considered to be in imminent danger and removed from their families whether the report is true or false? Isn’t it also much better for a child to be living with the parents and grandparents, knowing full well the grandparents are always there for support and needed help? Why does DCYF step in and tell a parent they are against help from the grandparents?

Page 81- Item 3: Services to family to protect children in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into Foster care
Percent Rated as a Strength

Nashua August 2010-83.3

Page 84-Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management. How effective is the agency in reducing the risk of harm to children, including those in foster care and those who receive services in their own homes.
New Hampshire continues to successfully focus on reducing the risk of harm to children, as evidenced by the data on repeat maltreatment and the absence of maltreatment in foster care. NCANDS Data for the Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment was at 92.2% in 2009 and exceeded the National Standard (99.68%) for absence of maltreatment in Foster Care at 99.93%
Is drugging a child in foster care to reduce the risk of harm the only way DCYF knows how to handle a traumatized child, such as the practice used on my six year old grandson after he tried to hang himself in the foster home? And what about children who receive services in their home? According to other parent’s, services to children at home are denied, just as they were denied for my family in 2005 and 2006.When a parent ask’s for help, they’re told the only way they’ll get help is if they sign their child over to the state. Nashua scored 66.7, still out of compliance.

Page 86- Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 10th-66.7

The Rochester and Nashua offices have had challenges engaging families in conversations relative to the need for services and the practice of referring families for services, especially as it relates to domestic violence and counseling services for children. They have been and continue to work on improveing documentation of these practices as well as more timely use of the SDM tools. Through their program improvement initiatives each office has identified improved supervisory monitoring of SDM and case reads.Monitoring data trends illustrated below show movement toward fewer removals, which demonstrates more efforts to provide services and prevent removal in those two offices.
% Children in Placement 2007 2008 2009
Nashua 60% 57% 55%
Rochester 66% 51% 44%

The data demonstrates a significant link between offices that use SDM timely and refer timely to services and the rating on this Item. Continued focus in the two identified offices has begun to show improvement in this area. In the chart below statewide data also demonstrates a decrease in the removals indicating an improved ability to maintain children in their home. The alignment of data showing that fewer children are being placed and the continued ability to minimize repeat maltreatment demonstrates overall improved practices in this area.
# Children in # Children in % Children in In #Children in % Children in
Open Case Home Case Home Case Placement Placement

July 2005 1747 667 38.2 1080 61.8
January 2006 1710 636 37.2 1074 62.8
July 2006 1680 608 36.2 1072 63.8
January 2007 1738 689 39.6 1049 60.4
July 2007 1792 744 41.5 1048 58.5
January 2008 1816 803 44.2 1013 55.8
July 2008 1874 867 46.3 1007 53.7
January 2009 1670 760 45.5 910 54.5
July 2009 1650 820 49.7 830 50.3
January 2010 1688 897 53.1 791 46.9
Page 99- Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations. Item 5: Foster care re-entries. How effective is the agency in preventing multiple entries of children into foster care? How can these children have permanency and stability grieving the loss of their entire family? New Hampshire has seen an increase in re-entry of children and is currently above the national median (15%). We have seen an increase from 17.0% in 2007, 19.5% in 2008 and 21.30% in 2009. Page 101- Item 5: Foster care re-entries
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-N/A
*Claremont and Nashua DO’s had N/A for all cases
Page 104- Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in their Living Situations Item 6: Stability of foster care placement. How effective is the agency in providing placement stability for children in foster care? New Hampshire continues to improve in placement stability, rating slightly below the National Standard (101.5) with a score of 101.1. It is important to note that in the last three years New Hampshire has demonstrated improvement in placement stability and ranks as the 11th highest scoring state in the 2009 AFCARS data profile. Nashua can’t answer this one because once a child is taken in Nashua, the child is never returned to his/her family. Word’s of a former caseworker.
Page 105- Changes since Round 1 As part of the overall focus on permanency New Hampshire has worked diligently to avoid conditions that lead to disruptions in foster care and result in multiple placements. Extensive work has been done to improve practice in this area: By decreasing the number of children in placement through better identification/targeting of children who truly need placement. Nashua is still non-compliant in this area. Christian Jackson of Nashua was murdered in 2011, even after several reports of abuse, DCYF did nothing!
Conducting placements in a planned way utilizing natural resources that come with children and families Both DCYF and DJJS have adopted a practice and policy shift that assures that the agency utilizes the natural resources of children and families. This allows for children to be placed with relatives or other caregivers that have an established investment in the child and the family. This minimizes the likelihood that a child will disrupt or be asked to move, with the premise being that caretakers are less likely to disrupt a placement of a relative or family friend.
Page 106-
Adjusting recruitment efforts to assure stability of placements for children who cannot be returned home. New Hampshire shifted their activities with recruitment and retention of foster parents to focus on stability of children‘s placements. We advertised the need for ―resource families‖, first placements being last placements for children and researching relatives immediately at removal.
Page 107- Item 6: Stability of foster care placement
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-77.8

Page 109-Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in their Living Situations.
Item 7: Permanency goal for child. How effective is the agency in determining the appropriate permanency goals for children on a timely basis when they enter foster care

DCYF continues to emphasize the importance of establishing timely and appropriate permanency goals for children and families. The State Data Profile shows that 81.6% of all children in New Hampshire have an identified permanency goal. It also demonstrates an increase in the permanency goals of reunification from 25.9% to 38.4% from the FFY 2007 to FFY 2009. The permanency/case plan goal must be identified within 30 days of placement for all cases. The case plan policy is used by DCYF staff and the family to ensure the continued safety, permanency and well-being of children. Effective case planning is achieved when done in collaboration with families; is based on family strengths, and resources; and is time-limited, goal-oriented, and solution-focused.
On paper DCYF and the court’s state reunification, but they know at the onset of the case, your child will NOT be returned. Nashua DCYF and CASA made the statement,”when your rights are terminated,” NOT, “if your right’s are terminated.” When questioned, “Don’t you mean if her rights are terminated”? The CPSW said “No, WHEN her rights are terminated.” What sense does it make to hold TPR hearings, when the parent’s are going to lose anyway, according to DCYF.
Page 111- Data Considerations
The Case Practice Reviews have identified inconsistency in New Hampshire‘s rating on this Item. As indicated below, district offices range from 44% to 100% success in this area.
Item 7: Permanency Outcome Percent Rated as a Strength

Nashua August 2010-44.4

When reunification is not the identified permanency goal, there needs to be ongoing work and contact with parents to reassess permanency options.
Page 114-
Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in their Living Situations
Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives. How effective is the agency in helping children in foster care return safely to their families when appropriate?New Hampshire has worked diligently to improve outcomes relative to timely reunification. We continue to show improvement in this area as noted in the Permanency Composite for Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification [standard: 122.6 or higher] and New Hampshire is at 102.8. Although New Hampshire is not yet at or above the standard, the data continues to demonstrate a trend that is consistently moving toward achievement of that standard.
Page 116- Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-66.7

The Nashua District Office continues to display inconsistent reunification practices. Extensive office reviews have identified training and practice issues that are being addressed relative to achieving more consistent approaches. Nashua has a history of being more compliance focused than other offices and this is being included in their ongoing practice improvement initiatives, as it is not consistent with the performance in other offices. There is NO Reunification in Nashua, only Family Destruction. Another item DCYF will Never comply with. Nashua is well known for NOT returning children and for terminating EVERY parent’s rights. No matter what hoops the parent jumps through, reunification is the furthest from Nashua DCYF’s minds. As for relative placement, even though this is a federal mandate, Nashua does NOT place children with relatives. They don’t even look for relatives and relatives who contact Nashua DCYF are told 'Relative placement is NOT an option."

Page 117- Opportunities For Improvement
As much as New Hampshire has truly focused on timely reunification the opportunity to engage parents more in our policy development and practice initiatives is an area we are excited about improving.


Page 118- Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in their Living Situations Item 9: Adoption. How effective is the agency in achieving timely adoption when that is appropriate for the child?
New Hampshire’s efforts to improve its adoption practice has resulted in some notable achievements in the numbers of adoptions as well as a decrease in median length of stay for children exiting to adoption. Based on the Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (standard: 106.4 or higher), our state score for FFY 2009 is 121.4, which is well over average. New Hampshire has made significant improvements in most areas, specifically: The length of time to achieve adoption has decreased from 35.4 months in FFY 2007 to 3.8 months in FFY 2009. New Hampshire exits to adoption in less than 24 months is at 20.8% for FFY 2009 compared to the national median of 26.8%. In FFY 2009, 78.3% of legally free children were adopted in less than 12 months compared to the national median of 45.8%. Town by town scores are what really matter’s and Nashua continues to fail.


Page 120-
St. Charles Children‟s Home: The Division has been working with the Director of St. Charles Children‘s Home in Rochester New Hampshire, an intermediate level children‘s congregate care environment to provide weekend retreats for resource families, relatives, birth or adoptive families of children placed in their care. The concept behind the model is to provide families who have children placed at St. Charles an opportunity to work with the staff and their children in a therapeutic milieu so that behavioral interventions may be practiced and utilized before a child leaves the group home to live with their adoptive family or reunite with their birth family.
St. Charles does absolutely NOTHING for families. All they’re good for is sucking the state dry. If you were being paid $300.00 a day per child, would you help the parent’s of a child at St. Charles? The state can afford to pay St. Charles $300.00 per day, per child, but they can’t afford services to keep a child in his/her own home?
Page 121- Data Considerations The results of our case practice reviews conducted in each DO between June 2006 and August 2009 are listed below. We have found that although New Hampshire has been successful in getting children adopted out of foster care, the timeliness to adoption still needs to improve.
Item 9: Adoption Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-25

As a result of the previously mentioned initiatives the number of adoptions in New Hampshire has steadily increased. There has also been an increase in adoptions of children age 12 or older from 17% in 2007 to 22 % in FFY 2009. Last year 16 children were featured on the "waiting children‖ DVD initiative and of those, 12 were placed or matched in permanent homes.
Of course there are more adoption’s in New Hampshire, thank’s to the Adoption Promotion Act. It makes no sense to reward the state with federal incentive money for every family DCYF destroy’s. Incentive money should only be paid for every family kept together. If you were getting paid for every child taken into custody, would you try to help the family?
Page 123- Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

Item 10: Other planned permanent living arrangement. How effective is the agency in establishing planned permanent living arrangements for children in foster care, who do not have the goal of reunification,adoption, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives, and providing services consistent with the goal.
Page 124- Item 10: Other permanent planned living arrangement
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-75

In January 2005, 29.5% of children in placement had a primary goal of APPLA. This has dropped over the years, with our January 2010 data reflecting only 18% of children in placement having APPLA as a primary goal. In 2008, 40 youth in DCYF/DJJS care received services from the Finding Connections Program. In 70% (28) of the cases, the Case Connection specialist found new adult connections previously unknown to DCYF or DJJS. In 75% (30) of the cases, the youth‘s adult connections increased their face-to-face contact as a result of the work of the Case Connection specialist. Demonstrating further progress in 2009, 45 youth referred to the ―Finding Connections ― Specialist received new adult connections increasing to 71% and face-to-face contacts with connections increasing to 78%. The data is identifying improvements in practice and that the policy and practice changes are impacting practice for youth who have APPLA goals.
Page 125-
In January 2007 DCYF established the Finding Connections Program that places a contracted Connection Specialist in each of the District Offices. The Connection Specialist has expertise in researching achild/youth‘s case file (case mining) to identify relatives and other supports and working collaboratively with the child/youth‘s caseworker and Permanency Planning Team (PPT) to identify positive resources for the child/youth. Increasing the connections available to children and youth in care has greatly enhanced the post care support networks.
No-one looked into relative placement for my grandchildren. Isabella was taken in 2005 and Austin in 2006. We tried to intervene at the beginning. DCYF and the court’s knew from the onset of both cases, we wanted our grandchildren, but due to a proven false report against my son-in-law, we were denied custody and have endured the slander and defamation of our family ever since. When other relatives contacted Nashua DCYF for placement of my grandchildren, Tracey Gubbins told them relative placement was NOT an option. When the Judge asked if there were any relatives willing to take the children, DCYF told him nobody wanted them. My daughter’s were NOT allowed to speak up in court to tell the Judge DCYF was providing false information.
Page 127- Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Item 11: Proximity of foster care placement. How effective is the agency in placing foster children close to their birth parents or their own communities or counties? New Hampshire continues to demonstrate successful efforts to place children closer to their families and community, as demonstrated by a consistent decline in out of state placements. In 2007, DJJS and DCYF had a combined total of 45 children in residential out of state placements. DJJS had 34 and DCYF had 11. Currently DJJS has only 11 and DCYF has only 2 children in residential out of state placements
My grandson was placed almost 70 miles away, which made it very hard for even his mother to visit. When we were finally allowed to visit my grandson, we were not allowed to talk about his mother or other family member’s. In fact, he was told he no longer had a mother, close to one year before his mother’s rights were terminated. Nashua DCYF definitely does NOT want children to to have any connection with their relatives. Even the relatives the child has an extremely strong bond with. Even after DCYF, CASA, the child’s therapist and everyone else involved, speak up and admit to the Judge that the child has this strong bond and want’s to live with his grandparent’s, yet they recommend he be adopted by a stranger. So continuity of connections and family relationships is definitely not a strong point for Nashua DCYF.
Finding Connections Program
In January 2007, DCYF contracted with Easter Seals to establish the Finding Connections Program that places a contracted Connection Specialist in each of the District Offices. When a child is removed from his or her parent‘s care and no relative has been identified as a possible resource for the child, a referral is made to the Connection Specialist. The Connection Specialist reaches out to the parent to further explore with them the names and contact information for relatives or others who may be a connection for the child (ren). The Connection Specialist then begins the process of locating and contacting those potential resources to determine the extent to which they may be a positive connection for the child (ren). When it is determined a resource is available this information is shared with the assigned CPSW or JPPO and their Supervisor to make an informed decision about how this individual can be utilized as a viable placement or other supportive resource for the child (ren.
Page 130-Item 11: Proximity of out of home placement
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2009-88.9

Opportunities for Improvement
New Hampshire needs to continue the focus on providing support to relative caregivers and on recruitment efforts to build the pool of needed resource homes, particularly for children and youth with special needs. Increasing our resources in this area is necessary to permanency efforts, as we know that proximity is critical to maintaining the sufficient level of connection and contact that is needed to effectively support reunification.

Page 131- Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. Item 12: Placement With Siblings. How effective is the agency in keeping brothers and sisters together in foster care?
The Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) recognizes that sibling relationships are emotionally powerful and critically important not only in childhood but over the course of a lifetime. Another one of Nashua’s failures. Sibling relationships are NOT a strong point for Nashua DCYF either, any more than other relative relationships are.
Page 132- Item 12: Placement with siblings
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-75

Page 134- Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care. How effective is the agency in planning and facilitating visitation between children in foster care and their parents and siblings placed separately in foster care?

Policy Considerations New Hampshire acknowledges that when children are placed in out-of-home care, it is essential that they maintain contact with their family. Family visitation practice is as ―least restrictive‖ as possible and takes into consideration what type of visitation is safe and appropriate given any ongoing risk factors. As noted previously, child protection in New Hampshire can be a litigious process and the decisions around visitation cannot and should not be a part of that litigiousness. When a child is placed in out-ofhome care, the CPSW or JPPO and supervisor make the determination about the level and frequency of visitation after consultation with the parents, children, the guardian ad litem, and mental health providers currently involved with a family. Compliance or non-compliance with the case plan should not be, but is the sole deciding factor regarding visitation, and visitation should never be punitive. Visits are only supervised when the CPSW or JPPO and supervisor determine that the child may continue to be unsafe if left unsupervised with the visiting parent. When siblings are placed separately, a visitation plan includes the frequency of contact between them. Non-compliance is definitely punitive in Nashua and always has been. A mother was court-ordered out of methadone treatment, court-ordered medical methadone detox, which didn’t even exist in the state of NH and lost her visitation with her daughter for being in a legal methadone treatment program. CFSR Round 1 Findings During the 2003 CFSR, this Item was rated am area needing improvement because reviewers determined that the agency had not made concerted efforts to ensure that visitation between parents and children and between siblings was of sufficient frequency to meet the needs of the child.

Page 134- Changes since Round 1 The Creation of an Absent Parent Affidavit was established in 2006 to address the need to assure and monitor efforts to locate absent parents. Through the CIP activities DCYF and the courts created this affidavit, which outlines at every hearing the agency efforts to locate parents. There were NO absent parent affidavit’s in two mother's case files. DCYF knew where and who the father’s of the children were, but never contacted them. Page 136- Data Considerations New Hampshire has made numerous changes both in practice and systems to address the known barriers to visitation. The challenging part of this Item is for workers to promote and maintain connections with the child‘s father and paternal relatives. In addition, Case Practice Reviews pointed out the systemic challenge of working with the corrections system. Reviewers discussed the excellent work done with mothers and siblings insuring regular and frequent visitation. However, in several offices identified below efforts need to be made to reach out to the child‘s father to engage him in visitation and the child‘s progress. Although improvements have been made the data as indicated below does not yet demonstrate a significant impact statewide. Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-55.6

Page 137- Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Item 14: Preserving Connections: How effective is the agency in preserving important connections for children in foster care, such as connections to neighborhood, community, faith, family, tribe and friends? Policy Considerations New Hampshire has incorporated the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Action (HR 6893) which was passed to provide New Hampshire‘s children support by increasing connections through relative involvement. It is New Hampshire‘s belief that by identifying, locating and engaging relatives or supportive connections, it can greatly impact the well-being of children in care and significantly enhance permanency outcomes. In November 2009, New Hampshire implemented a 30-day relative notification policy where CPSW‘s work with the birth parents to identify all relatives and send a letter to the reported relatives within 30-days of the child‘s removal from the home. This notification gives relatives timely notification of placement and to explore the opportunity to work with the parents and the Division to become involved in the child‘s life. The Division will look at all relatives as placement options for the child.
Nashua has a problem with preserving connections for children in foster care still. DCYF, CASA, Lucy Hall, Witt Undser(Therapist) and the foster parents were all aware my grandson Austin wanted to live with his grandparents , but DCYF,Judge Cloutier AND Judge Patten denied him that right. Isabella was also denied the right to be with her family due to DCYF’s slander
Page 138- Item 14: Preserving connections Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2009-55.6

Strength
New Hampshire does not have any federally registered tribes. When DCYF has an applicable ICWA case, the CPSW/JPPO assigned to the case works with the attorney in their district office to ensure that appropriate ICWA procedures are met. DCYF never contacted anyone regarding Austin and Isabella’s Indian heritage. CPSW Anna Salvatore was told at the onset of Austin’s case that his family have an Indian heritage.
Page 140- Permanency Outcome 2: The Continuity of Family Relationships and Connections is Preserved for Children.
Item 15: Relative Placements: How effective is the agency in identifying relatives who could care for children entering foster care, and using them as placement resources when appropriate? New Hampshire has focused on the use of relatives as placement resources with positive results in placement, stability, and permanency. Data for first time cohorts in 2009 shows that 90% of children discharged are reunified or in a relative home. To date, New Hampshire has a total of 155 relative homes serving children in DCYF custody. DCYF was supposed to be actively searching for relatives all along, per Federal mandates, so why did they just start “diligently” searching in 2008? Why have grandparents been denied the rights of custody to their grandchildren.? Why have grandparent’s been denied foster care licenses and given “incomplete” Home Studies and then denied Administrative Hearing’s?

Policy Considerations

As of November 2009 DCYF developed new policy addressing this Item in conjunction with the Foster Connections Legislation in 2008. This new policy requires due diligence to identify and locate relatives for placement by the Child Protection Social Worker (CPSW) as early as possible at the time of the child‘s removal and throughout the first 30 days of the child‘s removal. CPSWs are directed to continue to make efforts beyond the first 30 days of removal to identify and locate all adult relatives until all appropriate adult relatives have been given notice. All correspondence and efforts to identify and locate relatives is to be documented in the case contact logs in Bridges. Due to the timeframes in which this policy was released, efforts to locate relatives may or may not be reflected in the documentation during the period under review. The CPSW is to engage both maternal and paternal parent or guardians as early as possible whenever placement becomes a possibility and for in-home cases to identify family members using the Family Inquiry Tool (Form 2264). The tool is to be transferred to the joining caseworker and kept in the file for reference. Relatives are notified in writing of a child‘s removal. Workers are required to send each identified relative Form 2263, The Relative Notification letter along with a self addressed stamped envelope to assist the ease of response from the relative. Bridges is to be used to document the CPSWs effort to identify relatives with family members as well as all correspondence.
According to DCYF's relative care policy #734, placement with a relative care provider, who does not pursue licensure, may be approved under the following conditions: the relative care provider meets the definition of relative; meets all safety needs of the child or youth; provides for the child‘s educational, financial, physical and emotional needs; completes the Relative Care Agreement (RCA, Form 2273); and Resource Care Enrollment Form (Form 2104); completes central registry and criminal background checks of all household members age 17 and over; participates in a home study; and cooperates by providing any additional information as deemed appropriate by the Resource Worker e.g. fire and health inspection. Relative Caregivers are required to apply for Healthy Kids Gold for the child (ren) and are eligible for a ―child only‖ TANF grant through the Division of Family Assistance.
Page 141- CFR Round 1 Findings During the 2003 CFSR, relative placements were found to be an area of strength in 76% of cases. This Item was assigned an overall rating of area needing improvement because reviewers determined that DCYF had not made diligent efforts to locate and assess relatives as potential placement resources. The key concern pertained to inconsistent efforts on the part of the agency to seek paternal relatives as well as maternal relatives. Of course Nashua had the lowest score in the state for relative placement. This is just one item they will NEVER comply with. The only way grandparent’s get custody of their grandchildren in Nashua, is if the children are signed over by their parent’s. Other than that, Nashua will NEVER comply. When relatives ask for placement, their told,”Relative placement is not an option. The child is going into foster care, period!” Changes Since Round 1
Starting in January 2007, DCYF contracted with Easter Seals to establish the Finding Connections Program that places a contracted Connections Specialist in each District Office. The Connection Specialist has expertise in researching (case mining) a child‘s case file to identify relatives and other supports and working collaboratively with the child‘s caseworker and Permanency Planning Team (PPT) to identify positive resources for the child.
New Hampshire hired a Relative Care Specialist in April 2008. In 2009 the Relative Care Policy Item 734 was revised along with Form 2162 Guide to Home Study for Relative Care and Form 2273 the Relative Care Agreement. Item 697 Notification of Relatives was written and implemented, along with Form 2264 the Family Inquiry Tool, Form 2263 the Notification Letter, and a ―Welcome Letter‖ to be sent to new relative care providers. Searches for both paternal and maternal relatives Due diligence is required in all efforts to identify, locate and notify all adult relatives of each child that comes into care. CPSWs may contact schools and medical offices to request any identifying information provided by the parent. The use of advanced search engines and other technology has been implemented within DCYF. Relative placement in most cases in Nashua, does NOT exist. Even when relatives take foster care classes, they’re still denied placement. We were told to send a letter to our grandson, telling him good-bye and that he could now move on. We were told by Lorraine Bartlett to move on with our lives and forget our grandchildren. How can anyone be so insensitive? We will never move on without them. Nashua DCYF has ruined our lives, our grandchildrens lives and so many more families. When will they ever be held accountable?
Page 142-
Data Considerations
Item 15: Relative placement
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua 2010-33.3
A Case Practice Review (CPR) was conducted in each district office between June 2006 and August 2009. In our most recent CPR‘s, the strength of this Item, relative placements, had a varied range between DO‘s from, 33.3% to 100%, with the state average being 76.1%. As noted in the chart above, Manchester and Nashua have struggled with consistent practice around the identification of extended family and placement with relative caregivers. Historically both offices would locate relatives but then take up to 30 days to assess them as a placement resource. Current practice is to do conduct an initial assessment of the home in an effort to determine the appropriateness of an immediate placement. This has led to an increase in relative placements as demonstrated by recent data; the proportion of children placed with relatives in New Hampshire has increased from 15% to more than 20%.
Strengths
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 was timely and instrumental in the development of new and improved policy and practice for relative placements. DCYF‘s Relative Care Specialist has worked diligently on projects targeting relative caregivers with the New Hampshire Relative as Parents Program (NH RAPP) and Vermont Kin as Parents, along with New Hampshire‘s Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services, Division of Family Assistance and Easter Seals.
Page 143- Opportunities for Improvement
The Fostering Connections Legislation makes way for the expansion and implementation of more programs that will benefit relative caregivers. Many states have implemented a Kinship Navigator program and Family Decision Making has become an increasingly popular approach to identify and involve relatives in case planning at the beginning of a child‘s placement.
Page 145- Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents. How effective is the agency in promoting or helping to maintain the parent-child relationship for children in foster care, when it is appropriate to do so? New Hampshire has been focused on efforts to maintain the parent-child relationship for children in foster care. Initiatives have are in place to assure improved practices at initial removal and throughout the life of a case. Nashua DCYF does everything in their power to sever all parent/child relationships.

Page 145- Policy Considerations
DCYF has addressed policy and practices that work toward maintaining the parent/child relationship while children are placed in foster care. They include worker visits, child and parent visits, searches for missing parents and researching connections as a placement resource. We recognize that the role of the parent in their child‘s life should continue to be of great importance during the time that a child is in out of-home care.

CFSR Round 1 Findings
During the 2003 CFSR, Item 16 was rated as an area needing improvement because reviewers determined that the agency had not made concerted efforts to support the parent-child relationships of children in foster care. In particular, reviewers noted agency had not made sufficient efforts to promote the father child and that in some instances, when a worker was rebuffed by a parent, or the parent was resistant to services, the agency did not continue to make adequate efforts to support that parent‘s relationship with his or her child. However, this Item was rated strength when reviewers determined that the agency promoted the parent-child relationship by facilitating and encouraging frequent visitation/contact or continued involvement of the parents in the child‘s life.

Page 146- The most significant change, however, is in our practice philosophy. In 2003 DCYF practice was to use visitation as a reward for compliance with court orders and treatment. This has been significantly changed to a philosophy that the parent- child relationship is significant and needs to be maintained regardless of a parents compliance and should only be limited for safety concerns.
Data Considerations
A Case Practice Review was conducted in each district between June 2006 and August 2009. These reviews found that staff continues to struggle with maintaining consistent practice in promoting and maintaining children‘s relationships with parents. The CPR findings related to this Item as documented below. Of course Nashua fails this assessment also. The CPSW’s falsify records and testimony to keep parents and their children apart because they know they can get away with it. In 2005-2008, visitation was still being used as a reward. When it was impossible for a parent to follow a court order, such as a court ordered program that didn’t exist in NH, so of course it was impossible to comply, the parent lost ALL visit’s with her child and her right’s were ILLEGALLY terminated.
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents
Percent Rated as a Strength
August 2010-55.6

Page 147-
Opportunities For Improvement We anticipate seeing improvements through more support for connections to family and friends. The shift in practice that assures the consistent valuing of the parent-child relationship will be key to our creation and roll out of a practice model and is a key opportunity for improvement across the state on this Item.
Page 152- Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children‟s needs.

Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents. How effective is the agency in assessing the needs of children, parents, and foster parents, and in providing needed services to children in foster care, to their parents and foster parents, and to children and families receiving in-home services? New Hampshire continues to work on its assessment capabilities, through the application of Structured Decision Making tools and through policy. We also have invested substantially in services to meet the needs of children, families, and caregivers. In home services? Never heard of any such thing in Nashua. DCYF consider’s every report called in, to be a child in “imminent” danger. So of course, they failed this one also. Aren’t services also supposed to be provided to parent’s in order to regain custody? Not in Nashua! Parent’s ask for help and all they get is drug tested and very minimal visit’s with their children. So where is all the money going that is supposed to be used for services for these families?

Page 153-
DCYF has worked since 2005 to enhance our "Individual Service Options" (ISO) service which is a service specifically created for children in placement or in their own home in which a variety of intensive therapeutic, social, and community-based services are provided or coordinated to meet the individual needs of a child and his or her family. This service demonstrates the increased focus on individualizing the services provided in order to meet the specific needs of the children and families and not trying to fit the needs into the existing services.
Who are they trying to kid? There is NO variety of any kind of services for family’s caught in the DCYF web. The only ones that get any kind of services are the foster stranger’s. The biological parents get absolutely NOTHING!
Page 154- Data Considerations
Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2009-33.3

A Case Practice Review (CPR) was conducted in each district office between June 2006 and August 2009. Findings from the case practice reviews are noted in the table above.
The Nashua District Office rating was particularly concerning. The results of the 2009 CPR in Nashua identified several areas needing improvement. Services must be clearly linked to an identified need and family‘s capacity and preferences. Practice changes are necessary regarding staff questioning the appropriateness of services when things aren‘t going well rather than simply attributing the problem to the family. Staff needs to be more concrete in identifying supports/services to families proactively to avoid removal. Also identified was the need to improve documentation significantly to adequately reflect the work that is being done to identify and provide for the needs and services of families and youth. During the debriefing sessions and stakeholder interviews in most offices, it was noted that the needs and services for children were being assessed and provided, but not always for the child‘s biological parents and in some instances foster parents. Focus group participants discussed the need for support of the entire family and not just the child who is in care.

Page 157- Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children‟s needs
Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning. Were concerted efforts made to involve parents and children (if developmentally appropriate) in the case planning process on an ongoing basis?
CFSR Round 1 Findings During the 2003 CFSR this item was rated overall an area needing improvement based on the finding that, in 41 percent of the cases, reviewers determined that DCYF had not made diligent efforts to involve parents and/or children in the case planning process. Prior to the CFSR in 2003 the Division completed case plans but with limited input or collaboration from the families and children.
Page 158-
Data Considerations The Case Practice Review data below identifies inconsistency in New Hampshire‘s rating of this item. Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning. There IS NO child and family involvement in case planning in Nashua. The CPSW draws up the case plan, the parent is threatened into signing it and then the CPSW order’s the parent to follow the plan and if they don’t, it’s up to the CPSW if the child and parent will ever be reunited, NOT the Judge, because he has no say.
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-50

CPRs in the Concord, Keene, Laconia, Manchester, Nashua Rochester and Portsmouth Offices showed low scores primarily due to lack of engaging fathers in the case planning process. It was also noted in Keene that staff do not engage as well in case planning with incarcerated parents.
Opportunities for Improvement What we have learned through Case Practice Reviews, file scrubs and other informal reviews in each field office is that the case plan process is not consistent throughout the state. We are looking forward to the development of a practice model that we believe will assist with insuring that case practice is consistent statewide. While policy has been clear around the case planning process, practice varies depending on the office. Case plans are often created by the worker and then shared with the family and other parties instead of discussed and developed collaboratively.
Page 160-
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children‟s needs. Item 19: Caseworker visits with child. How effective are agency workers in conducting face to-face visits as often as needed with children in foster care and those who receive services in their own homes?
Page 161- CFSR Round 1 Finding During the 2003 CFSR, item 19, worker visits with child, was rated an area in need of improvement. This item finding was based on, in 26 percent of the cases; reviewers determined that caseworker visits with children were not of sufficient frequency and/or quality. A key concern raised was that the contact between the worker and the child often did not occur in the child‘s home. Some stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that workers visit children at least monthly and make concerted efforts to see the child alone. Other stakeholders, however, expressed the opinion that workers are not visiting children in foster care with sufficient frequency, although they acknowledged that the frequency of contact is driven by the size of the worker‘s caseload and worker turnover or reassignment.
Page 163- Item 19: Caseworker visits with child
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-75

Page 164- Opportunities for Improvement New Hampshire sees the future focus to be on establishing consistent practices within all aspects of family services. As we establish a practice model that identifies the beliefs, values and practice approaches guiding worker visits with children living at home and in foster care we will improve our overall ability to engage families and provide needed services. The more quality visits a worker can make, the greater probability each child will be safe, permanency will be achieved and the child‘s needs shall be met.

Page 165- Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children‟s needs. Item 20: Worker visits with parents. How effective are agency workers in conducting faceto-face visits as often as needed with parents of children in foster care and parents of children receiving in-home services? No face to face visit’s. The only time two mother's saw the CPSW’s was for random drug test’s.
Policy Considerations The new case planning process, that went into effect in 2006, includes the CPSW having very straight forward conversations with the family about the concerns and family strengths that have been identified by DCYF to facilitate the change that has to happen in order for their children to be safely cared for in their home. The case planning process is designed to be a very collaborative process wherein each family member is encouraged to identify needs as well as potential means (services, family resources, community support) to address their needs.
Any services two mother's asked for, were denied. The case plan’s were drawn up by the CPSW’s without input from the parent’s. Both Mothers were threatened into signing them. CPSW Kris Geno and CPSW Anna Salvatore told the Mother's if they didn’t sign them they would never see their kids again because DCYF wouldn’t get federal funding to pay for a Parent-aide for visitation. Both Mother's called me crying, asking what they should do. I told them it looked like they didn’t have a choice but to sign them. Of course, another Nashua failure.
CFSR Round 1 Finding During the 2003 CFSR, Item 20 was assigned an overall rating of area needing improvement because in 35 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that the frequency and/or quality of caseworker visits with parents were not sufficient to monitor the safety and well-being of the child or promote attainment of case goals. Stakeholders commenting on the issue of worker contacts with parents expressed concern that workers were not visiting parents as frequently as is necessary to attain case goals.
Page 166- Data Considerations Item 20: Worker visits with parents
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-50

A Case Practice Review (CPR) was conducted in each district office between June 2006 and August 2009. Worker visits with parents is a struggle statewide and was our lowest scoring Item in the most recent CPR round. Only 55% of cases reviewed were rated as strength, mostly due to a lack of visits with bio-fathers but there is documentation that workers had frequent phone and/or e-mail contact with parents where case plan goals were discussed. Opportunities for Improvement
The Division has made improvements with regard to worker visits with parents, and additional work continues to be warranted both in the area of identifying barriers when the visits do not happen as well as improving our efforts to effectively document the work that is occurring. Increased use of team meetings with parents as a participant is another opportunity for improved collaboration with parents, the agency and providers. As DCYF is working on improving permanency outcomes for children and youth in residential settings, the importance of parents being active participants in the process is crucial. In cases where the permanency goal has been changed to APPLA, we need to make better efforts to have regular contact with parents who are active with their children as well as those who are absent or unavailable. We need to improve our interactions with the Men‘s State prison system and overcome barriers to working with fathers. DCYF need’s to improve their interactions with mother’s in prison also. Is it fair to promise a mother she can have visits with her child if it’s NOT behind glass? So the mother takes a plea deal and goes to prison, believing she will have visits with her child. Little did she know, the CPSW lied, no surprise, and the mother was denied ever seeing her child again. So am I wrong, or isn’t the CPSW supposed to be working with the parent to help reunite the family? NOT in Nashua!
Page 168- Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. Item 21: Educational needs of the child. How effective is the agency in addressing the educational needs of children in foster care and those receiving services in their own home.
Page 169- Item 21: Educational needs of the child
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-81.8

The Nashua District Office received an 81.8% rating during their 2010 case practice review. Stakeholders commented that educational needs of the child get overlooked and parents don‘t know how to advocate for their children. In addition, stakeholders noted that in general, staff and foster parents struggle with school districts when a foster child‘s placement changes and they move to another school district. And I thought foster children were supposed to be kept in their own school district? Not in Nashua!
Page 171- Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. Item 22 Physical health of the Child: How effective is the agency in identifying and addressing the physical health and medical needs, including dental needs, of children receiving in-home and foster care services? Policy Considerations: The Foster Care Health Program Policies implementation is the responsibility of the CSPW, foster parents or other substitute caregiver, and biological parents.The nurse coordinators are available for consultation with the CPSWs and JPPOs and foster parents relative to any medical concerns, as well as assistance with the management and quality of the each child‘s medical, dental and mental health information. And what about the biological parent’s? Why are they left out? And why are biological parent’s NOT allowed at THEIR childrens medical appointments or when they are, the foster stranger’s don’t show up for the appointment’s? Why is a six year old child not allowed the comfort of his family when placed in a hospital full of strangers, yet the foster strangers are the only ones allowed contact? AND, why aren’t biological parent’s , many times NOT notified when their child is hospitalized and the parent goes to the hospital only to be told their child has been released? Still, DCYF denies the child was ever hospitalized. Why do PAID foster stranger’s have more right’s than the BIOLOGICAL PARENT? I can answer my own question: Because Biological Parent’s are ALWAYS considered guilty from the onset of the case. Even when PROVEN innocent, they are still considered guilty!

Page 172-Data considerations: Item 22: Physical health of the child
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua August 2010-100

Page 174- Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child. How effective is the agency in identifying, assessing, and addressing the behavioral, emotional, and mental health needs of children? Does this include drugging children to stop them from acting out and trying to commit suicide due to the pain and suffering DCYF has bestowed upon them and then all of a sudden changing their diagnosis from “violent behavior” to “ADHD “and put on stronger medication, even though the child was given IEP’s at his own school before being placed in captivity by DCYF and was diagnosed with NOTHING? No wonder this is just another one of Nashua’s failures! Policy Consideration The Foster Care Health Program Policies implementation is the responsibility of the CSPW, foster parents or other substitute caregiver, and biological parents. The nurse coordinators are available for consultation with the CPSWs and JPPOs and foster parents relative to any medical concerns, as well as assistance with the management and quality of the each child‘s medical, dental and mental health information.

CFSR Round 1 finding Item 23 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in 79 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that DCYF had not made sufficient efforts to address the mental health needs of children. Data Considerations: No DCYF has not made sufficient effort’s to address the mental health needs of children. And why would they when the children are worth more federal funding to DCYF being turned into special needs Zombies? Even though Austin’s mother’s right’s were NOT terminated at the time, Austin was put on Adderall without his mother’s signature. DCYF did whatever they wanted with both Austin and Isabella as if they had NO Biological parents or Biological relatives.
Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child
Percent Rated as a Strength

Nashua August 2010-63.6

Page 176-
Opportunities for Improvement: Over the past few years, there have been a number of studies conducted in regards to children‘s mental health in the State of New Hampshire. These reports and studies are providing the Division an opportunity to identify specific areas of need.

Nashua DCYF is not only turning children into emotional wrecks, but their succeeding at turning whole families into emotional wreck’s. Gee, I wonder why there are so many people on Social Security these day’s due to Depression, PTSD, Anxiety disorder’s, Panic Disorder’s, etc. If anyone would bother to check the statistic’s of families who have had the unfortunate displeasure of dealing with Nashua DCYF, I bet you’ll find out just home many people they have pushed over the edge or close to it! The budget can’t take too much more.
These studies include: The prevalence of mental illness and psychotropic medication use among the low income Medicaid group as compared to children in residential group home care and children in foster family care; The status of New Hampshire public Mental Health system; and The status of New Hampshire‘s Child and Infant Mental Health system.

NOTE: Many of the areas of Assessment were out of compliance in 2003 and still are.