Nashua Telegraph Letter to the Editor-November 6,2009
Recently, two bills of address to remove a judge and a marital master were introduced to the House of Representatives.
Several citizens brought complaints to the redress of grievance caucus at the Statehouse. The violations were so egregious and numerous that the representatives involved were left with no choice but to submit bills to get them off the bench.
There is very strong and abundant evidence that the chief justice and administrative director of the Family Division need to be taken out of position as well. Their abuses are impressive and intolerable.
The Judicial Conduct Committee has proven to be a mirage. It is a division of the Judicial Branch, which is why members don’t punish themselves for their own wrongdoing. The redress caucus enables a mechanism to make those who wrong us to be accountable to the people.
The court corruption harms Democrats and Republicans. No one is safe from this, especially not our children.
The chairman of the redress of grievance caucus is Rep. Paul Ingbretson, R-Pike.
David Johnson
Derry
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
Friday, November 6, 2009
DCYF strikes again!-SJC says newborn removed too fast
SJC says newborn removed too fast
Seeks to clarify emergency cases involving custody
By John R. Ellement
Globe Staff / November 5, 2009
In a sharply worded rebuke, the state’s high court yesterday said that a judge and the state Department of Children and Families moved too fast to remove a newborn from a Western Massachusetts mother who had already lost custody of two older children because they were not being properly cared for.
In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Supreme Judicial Court said that judges handling emergency custody cases must wipe from their minds any information gleaned from other cases involving the same mother or family.
The baby was identified only as Zita.
“It may be impossible to erase a judge’s memory of the prior case,’’ Marshall wrote. “But each party is entitled to an impartial magistrate and a decision based on the evidence presented in her case . . . Zita’s removal by the Commonwealth from her custodial parent implicates constitutional rights of the highest order.’’
The high court ruled that a new custody hearing that could lead to the mother regaining custody of the girl must be held “forthwith.’’
The SJC said it took on the case because it wanted to clearly spell out the rules that judges must follow.
Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said she feared that the decision may lead judges to completely ignore the history of a mother or a family.
“Parental history is a factor in child abuse and neglect cases,’’ Sudders said. “It doesn’t predict the future, but it is obviously an issue.’’
The Department of Children and Families, she said, “first and foremost has to be a child protection agency.’’
She added: “It is concerning, if, over time, courts do not take into account prior history that is properly introduced in court hearings. Without appreciation for the history, I think that will not be in a child’s best interest.’’
The attorney for the mother, whose name was not released, said she could not discuss specifics because she had not been given permission by her client.
Speaking generally, attorney Dorothy Meyer Storrow said the SJC was right to force judges to rule only on evidence presented in individual cases and to require the Department of Children and Families to meet basic legal rules, especially since the agency has the information at its fingertips.
“There are issues that are specific to one child that aren’t specific to another,’’ said Meyer Storrow, of Greenfield. “If you don’t know what the judge is relying on, she may be relying on something that is inaccurate and you have no way to fix that.’’
She added: “When you are dealing with constitutional rights, we want to make sure that it’s done in a fair way. Sometimes, the fact that a parent can’t meet the needs of one child is actually not relevant to whether she can meet the needs of a different child with different needs.’’
Alison Goodwin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Families, said the SJC ruling does not limit the agency’s efforts to protect children.
“We have an obligation to evaluate each individual situation on its own merits at that time,’’ Goodwin said in an e-mail. “However, there is nothing in this ruling that prevents the department or the courts from considering a past history on fitness nor is the department or the courts required to wait until a child is harmed before custody is granted.’’
In its ruling, the SJC gave an outline of the woman’s history that led the department to decide three months before the child was born that it needed to take emergency action to protect the newborn.
The court said the woman had two children who were removed from her care on May 23, 2008. Two days after the child was born on Dec. 18, 2008, the DCF took emergency custody of the child and prepared to justify its actions at a hearing required by law to be held no more than 72 hours later.
The high court said the most powerful evidence the department provided at the hearing was an unsworn letter from a department social worker that discussed the woman’s prior failures as a mother. The hearing was held before Hampshire-Franklin Juvenile Court Judge Lillian Miranda, who had ordered the older children taken from the home, according to court records.
Miranda granted temporary custody of Zita to the department, a decision the SJC reversed yesterday.
“The judge erred, and therefore violated Zita’s substantive rights, in both respects: her reliance on the petition that was not in evidence, and her reliance on her recollection of the facts of the earlier proceedings involving the other children,’’ Marshall wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeks to clarify emergency cases involving custody
By John R. Ellement
Globe Staff / November 5, 2009
In a sharply worded rebuke, the state’s high court yesterday said that a judge and the state Department of Children and Families moved too fast to remove a newborn from a Western Massachusetts mother who had already lost custody of two older children because they were not being properly cared for.
In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Supreme Judicial Court said that judges handling emergency custody cases must wipe from their minds any information gleaned from other cases involving the same mother or family.
The baby was identified only as Zita.
“It may be impossible to erase a judge’s memory of the prior case,’’ Marshall wrote. “But each party is entitled to an impartial magistrate and a decision based on the evidence presented in her case . . . Zita’s removal by the Commonwealth from her custodial parent implicates constitutional rights of the highest order.’’
The high court ruled that a new custody hearing that could lead to the mother regaining custody of the girl must be held “forthwith.’’
The SJC said it took on the case because it wanted to clearly spell out the rules that judges must follow.
Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said she feared that the decision may lead judges to completely ignore the history of a mother or a family.
“Parental history is a factor in child abuse and neglect cases,’’ Sudders said. “It doesn’t predict the future, but it is obviously an issue.’’
The Department of Children and Families, she said, “first and foremost has to be a child protection agency.’’
She added: “It is concerning, if, over time, courts do not take into account prior history that is properly introduced in court hearings. Without appreciation for the history, I think that will not be in a child’s best interest.’’
The attorney for the mother, whose name was not released, said she could not discuss specifics because she had not been given permission by her client.
Speaking generally, attorney Dorothy Meyer Storrow said the SJC was right to force judges to rule only on evidence presented in individual cases and to require the Department of Children and Families to meet basic legal rules, especially since the agency has the information at its fingertips.
“There are issues that are specific to one child that aren’t specific to another,’’ said Meyer Storrow, of Greenfield. “If you don’t know what the judge is relying on, she may be relying on something that is inaccurate and you have no way to fix that.’’
She added: “When you are dealing with constitutional rights, we want to make sure that it’s done in a fair way. Sometimes, the fact that a parent can’t meet the needs of one child is actually not relevant to whether she can meet the needs of a different child with different needs.’’
Alison Goodwin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Families, said the SJC ruling does not limit the agency’s efforts to protect children.
“We have an obligation to evaluate each individual situation on its own merits at that time,’’ Goodwin said in an e-mail. “However, there is nothing in this ruling that prevents the department or the courts from considering a past history on fitness nor is the department or the courts required to wait until a child is harmed before custody is granted.’’
In its ruling, the SJC gave an outline of the woman’s history that led the department to decide three months before the child was born that it needed to take emergency action to protect the newborn.
The court said the woman had two children who were removed from her care on May 23, 2008. Two days after the child was born on Dec. 18, 2008, the DCF took emergency custody of the child and prepared to justify its actions at a hearing required by law to be held no more than 72 hours later.
The high court said the most powerful evidence the department provided at the hearing was an unsworn letter from a department social worker that discussed the woman’s prior failures as a mother. The hearing was held before Hampshire-Franklin Juvenile Court Judge Lillian Miranda, who had ordered the older children taken from the home, according to court records.
Miranda granted temporary custody of Zita to the department, a decision the SJC reversed yesterday.
“The judge erred, and therefore violated Zita’s substantive rights, in both respects: her reliance on the petition that was not in evidence, and her reliance on her recollection of the facts of the earlier proceedings involving the other children,’’ Marshall wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJC rebukes state agency and judge for emergency removal of newborn
November 4, 2009 12:07 PM
By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff
In a sharply worded rebuke, the state’s high court today said that a judge and the Department of Children and Families moved too fast to remove a newborn from a Western Massachusetts mother – who had already lost custody of two older children because they were not being properly cared for.
In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Supreme Judicial Court said that judges handling emergency custody cases must wipe from their minds any information gleaned from other cases involving the same mother or family. The girl was identified only as Zita.
“It may be impossible to erase a judge's memory of the prior case,’’ Marshall wrote. “But each party is entitled to an impartial magistrate and a decision based on the evidence presented in her case… Zita's removal by the Commonwealth from her custodial parent implicates constitutional rights of the highest order.’’
Marshall added, “the availability of emergency hearings is not an invitation to the department or a judge to ignore the rules of evidence or overlook the burdens of proof to meet the statutory grounds for temporary removal of a child from her parent.’’
The SJC said it took on this particular case because it wanted to clearly spell out the rules that judges must follow in the courtroom.
The mother’s name and that of her children are not publicly available because the case files were impounded. But the SJC gave an outline of the woman’s history that led the DCF to decide three months before the child was born that they needed to take emergency action to protect the newborn.
The court said the woman had two children – a 9-year-old boy and a 7-year-old girl – who were removed from her care on May 23, 2008
Two days after the child was born on Dec. 18, 2008, the DCF took emergency custody of the child and prepared to justify its actions at a hearing which is required by law to happen no more than 72 hours later.
At that hearing, the SJC said the most powerful evidence the DCF provided was an unsworn letter from a DCF social worker that discussed the woman’s prior failures as a mother. The hearing was held before Hampshire-Franklin Juvenile Court Judge Lillian Miranda, who had ordered the older children taken from the home, according to court records.
Miranda granted temporary custody of Zita to the DCF, a decision the SJC has now reversed.
“The judge erred, and therefore violated Zita's substantive rights, in both respects: her reliance on the petition that was not in evidence, and her reliance on her recollection of the facts of the earlier proceedings involving the other children,’’ Marshall wrote. “It was an unsworn petition filed by a social worker that commenced Zita's care and protection proceedings. The judge should not have relied on its contents.’’
In a footnote, the SJC said that despite problems with the older children, during the pregnancy of her third child the mother kept her medical appointments and that no traces of illegal substances were found in the infant or the mother following birth.
“Much time has passed since Zita was taken from her mother, time that is formative in the life of an infant,’’ Marshall wrote as the court ruled that a new custody hearing that could lead to the mother regaining custody of her third child must be held “forthwith.’’
By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff
In a sharply worded rebuke, the state’s high court today said that a judge and the Department of Children and Families moved too fast to remove a newborn from a Western Massachusetts mother – who had already lost custody of two older children because they were not being properly cared for.
In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the Supreme Judicial Court said that judges handling emergency custody cases must wipe from their minds any information gleaned from other cases involving the same mother or family. The girl was identified only as Zita.
“It may be impossible to erase a judge's memory of the prior case,’’ Marshall wrote. “But each party is entitled to an impartial magistrate and a decision based on the evidence presented in her case… Zita's removal by the Commonwealth from her custodial parent implicates constitutional rights of the highest order.’’
Marshall added, “the availability of emergency hearings is not an invitation to the department or a judge to ignore the rules of evidence or overlook the burdens of proof to meet the statutory grounds for temporary removal of a child from her parent.’’
The SJC said it took on this particular case because it wanted to clearly spell out the rules that judges must follow in the courtroom.
The mother’s name and that of her children are not publicly available because the case files were impounded. But the SJC gave an outline of the woman’s history that led the DCF to decide three months before the child was born that they needed to take emergency action to protect the newborn.
The court said the woman had two children – a 9-year-old boy and a 7-year-old girl – who were removed from her care on May 23, 2008
Two days after the child was born on Dec. 18, 2008, the DCF took emergency custody of the child and prepared to justify its actions at a hearing which is required by law to happen no more than 72 hours later.
At that hearing, the SJC said the most powerful evidence the DCF provided was an unsworn letter from a DCF social worker that discussed the woman’s prior failures as a mother. The hearing was held before Hampshire-Franklin Juvenile Court Judge Lillian Miranda, who had ordered the older children taken from the home, according to court records.
Miranda granted temporary custody of Zita to the DCF, a decision the SJC has now reversed.
“The judge erred, and therefore violated Zita's substantive rights, in both respects: her reliance on the petition that was not in evidence, and her reliance on her recollection of the facts of the earlier proceedings involving the other children,’’ Marshall wrote. “It was an unsworn petition filed by a social worker that commenced Zita's care and protection proceedings. The judge should not have relied on its contents.’’
In a footnote, the SJC said that despite problems with the older children, during the pregnancy of her third child the mother kept her medical appointments and that no traces of illegal substances were found in the infant or the mother following birth.
“Much time has passed since Zita was taken from her mother, time that is formative in the life of an infant,’’ Marshall wrote as the court ruled that a new custody hearing that could lead to the mother regaining custody of her third child must be held “forthwith.’’
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Central Registry of Welfare Fraud
Please register your agency today. They want to put parents on a register. Now it's their turn! Let the world see the fraud against parents, children and families!
http://sites.google.com/site/cpsfilessite/
Sunday, November 1, 2009
This is an Outrage-The States are Selling our Children
This law is an outrage. The States are selling our children for $4,000.00 per child who is in foster care. They are forcing the parents to sign over their children to adoptive parents in order to get the money. This is an outrage, and a crime. This must be stopped. They remove children for little or no reason then put them up for bid to the highest bidder. Right your congressman and let them know this must be stopped. It provides incentives alright- it is baby selling at it finest.
Detailed Summary of the
The Adoption and Safe Families Act
Stresses Child’s Safety in all Placement Decisions,
and Provides Incentives for Adoptions
Document Author: Carmela Welte, Deputy Director, National CASA Association
Posted: 12/97
Emphasizes the Safety of the Child – in home and in foster care
First the law clarifies the intent of the “reasonable efforts” requirement which appears in the Family Preservation and Support Services Act (P.L. 96-272). The 1984 law states that the state must make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing a child from his home, or if the child has been removed, then the state must make reasonable efforts to reunify the child with his family in a timely manner. The new statute now stresses that the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern in determining what is reasonable, and consistent with the plan for timely, permanent placement of a child. The “reasonable efforts” requirement can be waived entirely in certain circumstances, such as if the parent had committed a felony assault causing serious bodily injury to the child or sibling; committed or attempted murder or voluntary manslaughter of a sibling; aggravated circumstances including abandonment, torture, chronic abuse or sexual abuse; or if the parental rights to a sibling had been terminated involuntarily.
The law also emphasizes that the safety of children in foster care must be considered in case plans and case reviews. Dual planning is allowed. That is, reasonable efforts may be made to reunify the child with his family concurrently with efforts to place a child in an adoptive family or with a legal guardian.
Criminal records checks must be conducted for prospective foster and adoptive parents before they are approved for placement of a child who qualifies them to receive maintenance or adoption assistance payments. Prospective caretakers are disqualified if their record check reveals a felony conviction of child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, or violent crime at any time, or a conviction of physical assault, battery or drug-related offense within the last 5 years. States are able to override the requirement for criminal records checks by passing state legislation or providing written notification by the governor to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Shortens Time Frame for Permanent Placement
Services to reunify families funded under Title IV-B should not extend beyond 15 months. These services include counseling, substance abuse treatment services, domestic violence services, temporary child care and related services.
A petition to terminate parental rights shall be filed for parents whose child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months; if a court has determined a child is an abandoned infant; or in the circumstances described under “reasonable efforts” above. The state may proceed to recruit and process a qualified family for adoption when the petition is filed. The law allows for exceptions, such as if the child is being cared for by a relative; the case plan documents a compelling reason that termination would not be in the best interests of the child; or if the state did not make reasonable efforts or provide services to the family within the time period of the case plan.
The beginning of foster care is determined as either the date of the first judicial finding that a child has been abused or neglected; or 60 days after the child is removed from home, whichever is earlier. The new time frame in which to terminate parental rights is effective immediately for all children entering foster care after November 19, 1997, the date of enactment. In the cases of children already in foster care before the law was enacted, there is a formula by which states can transition into compliance. The formula allows the states a total of 18 months after the end of the first state legislative session to fully comply. For each six month period after the close of the state legislative session, states shall select 1/3 of the children who have been in foster care prior to 11/19/97, giving priority to children in foster care the greatest length of time and for whom adoption is the permanency plan.
The role of the CASA or guardian ad litem becomes even more critical with the shorter time frame that a child can remain in foster care. The courts and child welfare agencies will still be dealing with overwhelming caseloads, yet have less time to devote to an individual child’s’ case. CASA’s can be an assurance that the child has an advocate that will take the time to thoroughly research the child’s situation, and important facts are not overlooked.
The new law allows foster parents, relative caregivers or preadoptive parents to receive notice of, and the opportunity to be heard at, any review or hearing concerning the child. The provision does not intend that these individuals should be made parties to the review or hearing.
Incentives for Adoptions or Other Permanency Placements
The new law provides states with cash incentives to find permanent homes for children in foster care. A state will receive $4,000 in federal funds for each foster child adoption which exceeds a base number of foster care adoptions in a fiscal year, and an additional $2,000 for special needs adoptions. In fiscal 1998, the base number will be the average of adoptions in the previous 3 fiscal years. In succeeding years, through 2002, the base is the number of adoptions of the preceding fiscal year. States are to use the federal funds to provide post-adoption services to children and families.
Permanency planning hearings must be held within 12 months of a child’s placement, rather than 18-month “dispositional hearing” as currently required under federal law. At the hearing, a determination shall be made on a permanency plan. That is, whether and when to reunify the child with his family; place the child in adoption, legal guardianship, or other permanent living arrangement; or to petition for termination of parental rights. When reasonable efforts are not required to unify a child with his parents, a permanency planning hearing must be held within 30 days of such determination.
For children whose permanency plan is adoption or placement in another permanent home, the child welfare agency must document the steps it has taken to locate a permanent home for the child, whether that be with an adoptive family, relative, legal guardian or other permanent living arrangement. At a minimum, the state the should conduct child-specific recruitment efforts such as the use of state, regional and national adoption exchanges.
HHS will provide technical assistance, directly or through grants, to states and local communities to reach their targets for increased adoptions or alternative permanent placements for children in foster care. At least of 50% of the funds available for technical assistance will be targeted to help courts. Priorities for technical assistance will be to: 1) develop best practice guidelines to expedite termination of parental rights; 2) models to encourage dual planning; 3) develop specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal; 4) develop risk assessment tools for early identification of children at risk of harm if returned home; 5) models to encourage fast tracking of children under age 1 into pre-adoptive homes; and 6) develop programs which place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.
Addresses Geographic Barriers to Adoptions
In order to facilitate timely adoptions for waiting children across state and county jurisdictions, states are required to develop plans to utilize cross-jurisdictional resources. Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance payments to the state are also predicated upon a state’s cooperation in processing a child’s adoptive placement if an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction. In addition, the Office of the Comptroller General has been instructed to study cross-jurisdictional adoption issues, and consider procedures and policies to facilitate timely and permanent adoptions. Recommendations to improve cross-jurisdictional placements must be reported to Congress by November, 1998.
Outcome Measures to Assess State Performance
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with public officials and child advocates, will develop outcome measures, and rating system, to assess states’ performance in child protection and child welfare programs. Measures should include length of stay in foster care, the number of placements and number of adoptions, and to the extent possible, utilize data available from the established Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). States will report their performance on each outcome measure, and the Secretary of HHS will provide an annual report to Congress beginning on May 1, 1999.
Congress is also requesting a recommendation for a performance-based incentive system from the Secretary of HHS, again in consultation with public officials and child advocates. The incentive system could provide Title IV-B and IV-E payments to states based upon their outcome performance.
The law also expands to 10 the number of states which may receive child welfare waivers to demonstrate new approaches to child welfare reform. Consideration will be given to state applications which: identify and address barriers to adoptions; parental substance abuse problems which endanger children and result in the placement of children in foster care; or kinship care. The states must provide health insurance to adopted children with special needs.
Continues Court Improvement and Family Preservation Programs
The Family Preservation and Support Services Act is reauthorized in the law through the year 2001, and now renamed as “Promoting Safe and Stable Families.” Funding is increased by approximately $20 million each year, which can be utilized by states for programs to prevent child abuse and neglect, assist families in crisis, and is now expanded to include reunification services and adoption promotion and support services. Federal support for the State Court Improvement Program is also authorized through the year 2001.
Expands Health Coverage for Special Needs Children and Independent Living Services
States must provide health insurance coverage for any child with special needs for whom the state determines cannot be placed without assistance to provide for the child’s medical, mental health or rehabilitative care and there is an adoption assistance agreement with an adoptive parent. States can provide health coverage, including mental health, through the Medicaid option or another program which is at least equivalent to Medicaid. Children who were eligible for Title IV-E will also have their payments reinstated if their adoption was dissolved, or their adoptive parents died.
Independent Living Services are extended to young people whose assets do not exceed $5,000, rather than the current $1,000 cap. Services are designed to assist young people prepare for living independently when they leave foster care.
Kinship Care, Substance Abuse Subjects for Future Study
A national Advisory Panel on Kinship Care will be convened by the Secretary of HHS, which will report to Congress by June, 1999, the extent to which children in foster care are placed in the care of a relative. The report should include information on state policies regarding kinship care; demographics of relative caregivers; costs and funding; services provided to the kinship caregiver; and the circumstances under which children enter kinship care.
The extent of substance abuse as a factor in child welfare families will be a reviewed by Congress in 1998. The Secretary of HHS will submit a report describing the scope of the problem, services provided to families, and the outcomes of such services. The Secretary may also submit legislative recommendations to improve coordination of substance abuse and child protective services.
Legal and Standby Guardianship
The term “legal guardian” is defined in the statute as a permanent relationship between child and caretaker and transfers parental rights to the caretaker for the child’s protection, education, care, custody and decision-making.
The new law urges states to adopt laws and procedures to allow parents who are chronically ill or near death to designate a standby guardian for their children, without surrendering their parental rights.
Published on October 30, 2009 at 1:55 am
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://avoiceforthevictims.wordpress.com/about/this-is-an-outrage-the-states-are-selling-our-children/trackback/
Please check this out and comment
Detailed Summary of the
The Adoption and Safe Families Act
Stresses Child’s Safety in all Placement Decisions,
and Provides Incentives for Adoptions
Document Author: Carmela Welte, Deputy Director, National CASA Association
Posted: 12/97
Emphasizes the Safety of the Child – in home and in foster care
First the law clarifies the intent of the “reasonable efforts” requirement which appears in the Family Preservation and Support Services Act (P.L. 96-272). The 1984 law states that the state must make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing a child from his home, or if the child has been removed, then the state must make reasonable efforts to reunify the child with his family in a timely manner. The new statute now stresses that the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern in determining what is reasonable, and consistent with the plan for timely, permanent placement of a child. The “reasonable efforts” requirement can be waived entirely in certain circumstances, such as if the parent had committed a felony assault causing serious bodily injury to the child or sibling; committed or attempted murder or voluntary manslaughter of a sibling; aggravated circumstances including abandonment, torture, chronic abuse or sexual abuse; or if the parental rights to a sibling had been terminated involuntarily.
The law also emphasizes that the safety of children in foster care must be considered in case plans and case reviews. Dual planning is allowed. That is, reasonable efforts may be made to reunify the child with his family concurrently with efforts to place a child in an adoptive family or with a legal guardian.
Criminal records checks must be conducted for prospective foster and adoptive parents before they are approved for placement of a child who qualifies them to receive maintenance or adoption assistance payments. Prospective caretakers are disqualified if their record check reveals a felony conviction of child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, or violent crime at any time, or a conviction of physical assault, battery or drug-related offense within the last 5 years. States are able to override the requirement for criminal records checks by passing state legislation or providing written notification by the governor to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Shortens Time Frame for Permanent Placement
Services to reunify families funded under Title IV-B should not extend beyond 15 months. These services include counseling, substance abuse treatment services, domestic violence services, temporary child care and related services.
A petition to terminate parental rights shall be filed for parents whose child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months; if a court has determined a child is an abandoned infant; or in the circumstances described under “reasonable efforts” above. The state may proceed to recruit and process a qualified family for adoption when the petition is filed. The law allows for exceptions, such as if the child is being cared for by a relative; the case plan documents a compelling reason that termination would not be in the best interests of the child; or if the state did not make reasonable efforts or provide services to the family within the time period of the case plan.
The beginning of foster care is determined as either the date of the first judicial finding that a child has been abused or neglected; or 60 days after the child is removed from home, whichever is earlier. The new time frame in which to terminate parental rights is effective immediately for all children entering foster care after November 19, 1997, the date of enactment. In the cases of children already in foster care before the law was enacted, there is a formula by which states can transition into compliance. The formula allows the states a total of 18 months after the end of the first state legislative session to fully comply. For each six month period after the close of the state legislative session, states shall select 1/3 of the children who have been in foster care prior to 11/19/97, giving priority to children in foster care the greatest length of time and for whom adoption is the permanency plan.
The role of the CASA or guardian ad litem becomes even more critical with the shorter time frame that a child can remain in foster care. The courts and child welfare agencies will still be dealing with overwhelming caseloads, yet have less time to devote to an individual child’s’ case. CASA’s can be an assurance that the child has an advocate that will take the time to thoroughly research the child’s situation, and important facts are not overlooked.
The new law allows foster parents, relative caregivers or preadoptive parents to receive notice of, and the opportunity to be heard at, any review or hearing concerning the child. The provision does not intend that these individuals should be made parties to the review or hearing.
Incentives for Adoptions or Other Permanency Placements
The new law provides states with cash incentives to find permanent homes for children in foster care. A state will receive $4,000 in federal funds for each foster child adoption which exceeds a base number of foster care adoptions in a fiscal year, and an additional $2,000 for special needs adoptions. In fiscal 1998, the base number will be the average of adoptions in the previous 3 fiscal years. In succeeding years, through 2002, the base is the number of adoptions of the preceding fiscal year. States are to use the federal funds to provide post-adoption services to children and families.
Permanency planning hearings must be held within 12 months of a child’s placement, rather than 18-month “dispositional hearing” as currently required under federal law. At the hearing, a determination shall be made on a permanency plan. That is, whether and when to reunify the child with his family; place the child in adoption, legal guardianship, or other permanent living arrangement; or to petition for termination of parental rights. When reasonable efforts are not required to unify a child with his parents, a permanency planning hearing must be held within 30 days of such determination.
For children whose permanency plan is adoption or placement in another permanent home, the child welfare agency must document the steps it has taken to locate a permanent home for the child, whether that be with an adoptive family, relative, legal guardian or other permanent living arrangement. At a minimum, the state the should conduct child-specific recruitment efforts such as the use of state, regional and national adoption exchanges.
HHS will provide technical assistance, directly or through grants, to states and local communities to reach their targets for increased adoptions or alternative permanent placements for children in foster care. At least of 50% of the funds available for technical assistance will be targeted to help courts. Priorities for technical assistance will be to: 1) develop best practice guidelines to expedite termination of parental rights; 2) models to encourage dual planning; 3) develop specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal; 4) develop risk assessment tools for early identification of children at risk of harm if returned home; 5) models to encourage fast tracking of children under age 1 into pre-adoptive homes; and 6) develop programs which place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.
Addresses Geographic Barriers to Adoptions
In order to facilitate timely adoptions for waiting children across state and county jurisdictions, states are required to develop plans to utilize cross-jurisdictional resources. Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance payments to the state are also predicated upon a state’s cooperation in processing a child’s adoptive placement if an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction. In addition, the Office of the Comptroller General has been instructed to study cross-jurisdictional adoption issues, and consider procedures and policies to facilitate timely and permanent adoptions. Recommendations to improve cross-jurisdictional placements must be reported to Congress by November, 1998.
Outcome Measures to Assess State Performance
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with public officials and child advocates, will develop outcome measures, and rating system, to assess states’ performance in child protection and child welfare programs. Measures should include length of stay in foster care, the number of placements and number of adoptions, and to the extent possible, utilize data available from the established Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). States will report their performance on each outcome measure, and the Secretary of HHS will provide an annual report to Congress beginning on May 1, 1999.
Congress is also requesting a recommendation for a performance-based incentive system from the Secretary of HHS, again in consultation with public officials and child advocates. The incentive system could provide Title IV-B and IV-E payments to states based upon their outcome performance.
The law also expands to 10 the number of states which may receive child welfare waivers to demonstrate new approaches to child welfare reform. Consideration will be given to state applications which: identify and address barriers to adoptions; parental substance abuse problems which endanger children and result in the placement of children in foster care; or kinship care. The states must provide health insurance to adopted children with special needs.
Continues Court Improvement and Family Preservation Programs
The Family Preservation and Support Services Act is reauthorized in the law through the year 2001, and now renamed as “Promoting Safe and Stable Families.” Funding is increased by approximately $20 million each year, which can be utilized by states for programs to prevent child abuse and neglect, assist families in crisis, and is now expanded to include reunification services and adoption promotion and support services. Federal support for the State Court Improvement Program is also authorized through the year 2001.
Expands Health Coverage for Special Needs Children and Independent Living Services
States must provide health insurance coverage for any child with special needs for whom the state determines cannot be placed without assistance to provide for the child’s medical, mental health or rehabilitative care and there is an adoption assistance agreement with an adoptive parent. States can provide health coverage, including mental health, through the Medicaid option or another program which is at least equivalent to Medicaid. Children who were eligible for Title IV-E will also have their payments reinstated if their adoption was dissolved, or their adoptive parents died.
Independent Living Services are extended to young people whose assets do not exceed $5,000, rather than the current $1,000 cap. Services are designed to assist young people prepare for living independently when they leave foster care.
Kinship Care, Substance Abuse Subjects for Future Study
A national Advisory Panel on Kinship Care will be convened by the Secretary of HHS, which will report to Congress by June, 1999, the extent to which children in foster care are placed in the care of a relative. The report should include information on state policies regarding kinship care; demographics of relative caregivers; costs and funding; services provided to the kinship caregiver; and the circumstances under which children enter kinship care.
The extent of substance abuse as a factor in child welfare families will be a reviewed by Congress in 1998. The Secretary of HHS will submit a report describing the scope of the problem, services provided to families, and the outcomes of such services. The Secretary may also submit legislative recommendations to improve coordination of substance abuse and child protective services.
Legal and Standby Guardianship
The term “legal guardian” is defined in the statute as a permanent relationship between child and caretaker and transfers parental rights to the caretaker for the child’s protection, education, care, custody and decision-making.
The new law urges states to adopt laws and procedures to allow parents who are chronically ill or near death to designate a standby guardian for their children, without surrendering their parental rights.
Published on October 30, 2009 at 1:55 am
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://avoiceforthevictims.wordpress.com/about/this-is-an-outrage-the-states-are-selling-our-children/trackback/
Please check this out and comment
Kidnapping for Profit-by Child Protective Services
Kidnapping for Profit- Child Protective Services
Posted By: kbcjedi
Date: Friday, 24-Jun-2005 12:21:03 Call a Spade a Spade. Here is a dynamite article on the usurpation of the rights of parents.
The wisdom, and the understanding of human nature evidenced by our Founding Fathers in their statement in the Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” continues to shine forth.
I receive requests from all over the country asking what to do about various problems. The most common request concerns the Child Protective Services, (CPS) or as Utah calls it, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).
Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ordered the Illinois Department of Family Services to redesign their entire program because their investigations of child abuse and neglect had too many false accusations. She judged the system to be unconstitutional because they threatened people with removal of their children unless the parents cooperate with every whim issued by DCFS. Judge Pallmeyer said this tactic was extortion, which is a felony. Utah uses exactly the same tactics. This is no different that Al Capone’s protection racket of the 1920’s – do what I want or I will destroy your business.
The favorite malady that DCFS uses to take away children is called Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy, It is interesting to note that the Irish Examiner, in a story on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, titled, “Theory puts ‘5,000’ in care,” had this to say about Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy and Professor Meadow who created the Syndrome.
“It is estimated that 5,000 British children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow’s theory of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The theory that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases.
Prof Meadow’s theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which he gave evidence of women who were wrongly accused of killing their children.
Prof Meadow is now facing an inquiry by the General Medical Council into allegations of serious professional misconduct.
The attorney general Lord Goldsmith is now examining a further 250 criminal cases involving Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy to see if more mothers may have been wrongly convicted.”
The purported mental “disease” does not exist and the Doctor that created the problem is losing his license. But DCFS doesn’t care, because it’s not about the children, it’s about money.
That̢۪s right, the Money.
According to an article in the Charlotte World by Angie Vineyard, the DCFS receives $4,000 for every child they place in their system. They get even more money if the child can be shown to be Special Needs. Ruling the child to have “Attention Deficit” qualifies the state for an increase in funding.
An investigation by The LA Daily News found that up to half of the 75,000 children in the California system and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because of financial incentives in state and federal laws. These laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed.
DCFS has a long history of judgment lapses and scandal. According to Angie Vineyard in the Charlotte World, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has placed so many children for adoption that the US Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gave them an award for “collaborating with the court system, mental health providers, the General Assembly, churches, business and private citizens and for doubling the number of special needs children adopted from the foster care system in just six years.” This all adds up to more money.
Troy Anderson of the LA Daily News reports Anthony Cavuoti, a DCFS social worker for 14 years, said the department does a poor job of protecting children.
“The nominal goal is to protect children, but the real goal is to make money,” he said. “A caseworker used to have 80 to 100 cases. If the workers put kids before paperwork and administration, they are going to be forced out or harassed. With such a mentality, children are always in danger.”
In Massachusetts, Anderson Consulting and Public Consulting Groups have been hired to “maximize federal revenue”. The companies have brought the state an additional 90 million a year. That’s 90 million tax dollars awarded for pulling children out of one home and placing them with another.
The problem is much deeper than that.
EVERY CHILD WHO HAS EVER BEEN REMOVED FROM THE HOME OF ITS PARENTS HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.
As proof of that statement I offer the following:
There is no person anywhere on earth that has the inherent right to take a child away from its parents. I can̢۪t do it. You can̢۪t do it. And neither can your neighbors or friends.
If nobody has that power and authority, and, if We, the People, are the ones who give the government its power and authority, then –
WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT THINK IT GETS THE POWER AND THE RIGHT TO TAKE KIDS AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS?
The government knows it does not have the power and the authority. The many well educated lawyers are not dumb about the Constitution – they don’t care, because of the money that can be made. To heck with the kids, the parents, and the Constitution.
This situation is a ticking time bomb.
Eventually the people will reach the point our Founders Fathers described and demand redress for the unconstitutional actions that have been perpetrated against them by the government.
There isn̢۪t enough money in the world to pay for the pain and suffering. And, it̢۪s not just the parents and the kids who have suffered, it̢۪s the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles, and the cousins.
Most of the children may be just returned to their parents, but what about the thousands who have been killed by abusive foster parents? What about the unlawful adoptions? The adoptive parents will now want redress, along with all of their extended families.
Who knows where this will go, or where it might end up.
Jim Barrus
CEO
Constitutional Concepts Foundation
Posted By: kbcjedi
Date: Friday, 24-Jun-2005 12:21:03 Call a Spade a Spade. Here is a dynamite article on the usurpation of the rights of parents.
The wisdom, and the understanding of human nature evidenced by our Founding Fathers in their statement in the Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” continues to shine forth.
I receive requests from all over the country asking what to do about various problems. The most common request concerns the Child Protective Services, (CPS) or as Utah calls it, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).
Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ordered the Illinois Department of Family Services to redesign their entire program because their investigations of child abuse and neglect had too many false accusations. She judged the system to be unconstitutional because they threatened people with removal of their children unless the parents cooperate with every whim issued by DCFS. Judge Pallmeyer said this tactic was extortion, which is a felony. Utah uses exactly the same tactics. This is no different that Al Capone’s protection racket of the 1920’s – do what I want or I will destroy your business.
The favorite malady that DCFS uses to take away children is called Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy, It is interesting to note that the Irish Examiner, in a story on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, titled, “Theory puts ‘5,000’ in care,” had this to say about Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy and Professor Meadow who created the Syndrome.
“It is estimated that 5,000 British children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow’s theory of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The theory that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases.
Prof Meadow’s theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which he gave evidence of women who were wrongly accused of killing their children.
Prof Meadow is now facing an inquiry by the General Medical Council into allegations of serious professional misconduct.
The attorney general Lord Goldsmith is now examining a further 250 criminal cases involving Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy to see if more mothers may have been wrongly convicted.”
The purported mental “disease” does not exist and the Doctor that created the problem is losing his license. But DCFS doesn’t care, because it’s not about the children, it’s about money.
That̢۪s right, the Money.
According to an article in the Charlotte World by Angie Vineyard, the DCFS receives $4,000 for every child they place in their system. They get even more money if the child can be shown to be Special Needs. Ruling the child to have “Attention Deficit” qualifies the state for an increase in funding.
An investigation by The LA Daily News found that up to half of the 75,000 children in the California system and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because of financial incentives in state and federal laws. These laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed.
DCFS has a long history of judgment lapses and scandal. According to Angie Vineyard in the Charlotte World, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has placed so many children for adoption that the US Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gave them an award for “collaborating with the court system, mental health providers, the General Assembly, churches, business and private citizens and for doubling the number of special needs children adopted from the foster care system in just six years.” This all adds up to more money.
Troy Anderson of the LA Daily News reports Anthony Cavuoti, a DCFS social worker for 14 years, said the department does a poor job of protecting children.
“The nominal goal is to protect children, but the real goal is to make money,” he said. “A caseworker used to have 80 to 100 cases. If the workers put kids before paperwork and administration, they are going to be forced out or harassed. With such a mentality, children are always in danger.”
In Massachusetts, Anderson Consulting and Public Consulting Groups have been hired to “maximize federal revenue”. The companies have brought the state an additional 90 million a year. That’s 90 million tax dollars awarded for pulling children out of one home and placing them with another.
The problem is much deeper than that.
EVERY CHILD WHO HAS EVER BEEN REMOVED FROM THE HOME OF ITS PARENTS HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.
As proof of that statement I offer the following:
There is no person anywhere on earth that has the inherent right to take a child away from its parents. I can̢۪t do it. You can̢۪t do it. And neither can your neighbors or friends.
If nobody has that power and authority, and, if We, the People, are the ones who give the government its power and authority, then –
WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT THINK IT GETS THE POWER AND THE RIGHT TO TAKE KIDS AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS?
The government knows it does not have the power and the authority. The many well educated lawyers are not dumb about the Constitution – they don’t care, because of the money that can be made. To heck with the kids, the parents, and the Constitution.
This situation is a ticking time bomb.
Eventually the people will reach the point our Founders Fathers described and demand redress for the unconstitutional actions that have been perpetrated against them by the government.
There isn̢۪t enough money in the world to pay for the pain and suffering. And, it̢۪s not just the parents and the kids who have suffered, it̢۪s the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles, and the cousins.
Most of the children may be just returned to their parents, but what about the thousands who have been killed by abusive foster parents? What about the unlawful adoptions? The adoptive parents will now want redress, along with all of their extended families.
Who knows where this will go, or where it might end up.
Jim Barrus
CEO
Constitutional Concepts Foundation
How Child Protective Services Works-Leonard Henderson-Manchester Examiner Article
"Most of the time, I was taking their kids away for no good reason" --A New York City CPS worker.
All it takes to begin the potential destruction of a family is a call to one of the child protective "hotlines" in every state. The call can be made anonymously, making the hotlines potent tools for harassment. More often, however, false allegations are well-meaning mistakes made by people who have taken the advice of the child savers.
Though state laws generally encourage -- or require -- reports if you have "reasonable cause to suspect" maltreatment, child savers urge us to call in our slightest suspicions about almost any parental behavior. (And that sort of advice is not limited to adults. One group has published a comic book effectively telling children to turn in their parents to "other grown-up friends" if they get a spanking). The hotlines then forward the calls to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies who send workers to investigate. These workers can go to a child's school or day care center and interrogate them without warning. Such an interrogation can undercut the bonds of trust essential for healthy parent-child relationships and traumatize children for whom the only harm is the harm of the investigation itself.
Workers can search homes and strip-search children without a warrant. Child savers insist such searches are rare. But in the course of defending against a lawsuit, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged how common they really are. In its legal papers, the department said that any effort to restrict strip-searching "would immediately bring the child abuse hotline investigations to a halt."Such a statement can be true only if strip-searching is routine.
Then it is up to the worker to decide if the case will be "substantiated" and the accused will be listed in a state "central register" of suspected child abusers. Workers make these decisions on their own. There is no hearing beforehand, no way for the accused to defend themselves. (In some states, they can try and fight their way out of the register after the fact).
No proof is required to "substantiate" a case. In most states, "substantiated" means only that there is "some credible evidence" of maltreatment, even if there is more evidence of innocence.
And what if parents object to all this? What if they want to defend their children against a strip-search, for example? Technically, in some circumstances, they can say no to a CPS worker (though the worker doesn't have to tell them this -- there is no equivalent of a "Miranda warning"). But if they do say no, the worker can wield the most feared power of all -- the power to remove a child from the home on the spot.
Workers have that power in 29 of America's 55 states and territories. In all but four of the rest, they need merely call the police to do it for them. Parents then must go to court to try and get their children back. In most states, there is supposed to be a hearing in a matter of days, but often it takes far longer before that child's parents get their day in court.
And it is a very short day. Such hearings tend to be five-minute assembly line procedures with a CPS lawyer who does this for a living on one side, and a bewildered, impoverished parent who just met her lawyer five minutes before -- if she has a lawyer at all -- on the other. Children are almost never returned at these hearings. If the children are lucky, they may get to go home after the next hearing in 30 or 90 days. Or maybe they will never go home at all.
And who are the CPS workers who wield this enormous power? In most states, a bachelor's degree in anything and a quickie training course devoted largely to how to fill out forms are the only requirements for the job. Turnover is enormous and caseloads are crushing. And the worker will find little guidance in the law, which is so broad that almost anything can be deemed abuse or, especially, neglect (See Family Preservation Issue Paper 5, Child Abuse and Poverty). Given all that, it's easy to see why so many children are needlessly removed from their homes.
But that is not the only tragedy. Enormous caseloads dominated by false and trivial cases steal workers' time from children in real danger. That's the real reason children sometimes are left in unsafe homes
There is a CPS worker who allegedly told several parents "I have the power of God." Even more frightening than the thought of a worker saying such a thing is the fact that it's true. CPS workers do have the power of God. And rarely is the power of God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
ShareThis
All it takes to begin the potential destruction of a family is a call to one of the child protective "hotlines" in every state. The call can be made anonymously, making the hotlines potent tools for harassment. More often, however, false allegations are well-meaning mistakes made by people who have taken the advice of the child savers.
Though state laws generally encourage -- or require -- reports if you have "reasonable cause to suspect" maltreatment, child savers urge us to call in our slightest suspicions about almost any parental behavior. (And that sort of advice is not limited to adults. One group has published a comic book effectively telling children to turn in their parents to "other grown-up friends" if they get a spanking). The hotlines then forward the calls to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies who send workers to investigate. These workers can go to a child's school or day care center and interrogate them without warning. Such an interrogation can undercut the bonds of trust essential for healthy parent-child relationships and traumatize children for whom the only harm is the harm of the investigation itself.
Workers can search homes and strip-search children without a warrant. Child savers insist such searches are rare. But in the course of defending against a lawsuit, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged how common they really are. In its legal papers, the department said that any effort to restrict strip-searching "would immediately bring the child abuse hotline investigations to a halt."Such a statement can be true only if strip-searching is routine.
Then it is up to the worker to decide if the case will be "substantiated" and the accused will be listed in a state "central register" of suspected child abusers. Workers make these decisions on their own. There is no hearing beforehand, no way for the accused to defend themselves. (In some states, they can try and fight their way out of the register after the fact).
No proof is required to "substantiate" a case. In most states, "substantiated" means only that there is "some credible evidence" of maltreatment, even if there is more evidence of innocence.
And what if parents object to all this? What if they want to defend their children against a strip-search, for example? Technically, in some circumstances, they can say no to a CPS worker (though the worker doesn't have to tell them this -- there is no equivalent of a "Miranda warning"). But if they do say no, the worker can wield the most feared power of all -- the power to remove a child from the home on the spot.
Workers have that power in 29 of America's 55 states and territories. In all but four of the rest, they need merely call the police to do it for them. Parents then must go to court to try and get their children back. In most states, there is supposed to be a hearing in a matter of days, but often it takes far longer before that child's parents get their day in court.
And it is a very short day. Such hearings tend to be five-minute assembly line procedures with a CPS lawyer who does this for a living on one side, and a bewildered, impoverished parent who just met her lawyer five minutes before -- if she has a lawyer at all -- on the other. Children are almost never returned at these hearings. If the children are lucky, they may get to go home after the next hearing in 30 or 90 days. Or maybe they will never go home at all.
And who are the CPS workers who wield this enormous power? In most states, a bachelor's degree in anything and a quickie training course devoted largely to how to fill out forms are the only requirements for the job. Turnover is enormous and caseloads are crushing. And the worker will find little guidance in the law, which is so broad that almost anything can be deemed abuse or, especially, neglect (See Family Preservation Issue Paper 5, Child Abuse and Poverty). Given all that, it's easy to see why so many children are needlessly removed from their homes.
But that is not the only tragedy. Enormous caseloads dominated by false and trivial cases steal workers' time from children in real danger. That's the real reason children sometimes are left in unsafe homes
There is a CPS worker who allegedly told several parents "I have the power of God." Even more frightening than the thought of a worker saying such a thing is the fact that it's true. CPS workers do have the power of God. And rarely is the power of God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
ShareThis
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)