Was it Abuse? By Raymond Sturgis

Sociology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAS IT ABUSE?
By Raymond Sturgis
Last edited: Monday, October 12, 2009
Posted: Monday, September 14, 2009

Child Protective Services has been violating civil rights of parents for years in their efforts to find the perfect family. Their job is to protect the children from harm, however, Juvenile court has been more of a slave driven edifice that terminates the rights of parents for one strike. The Constitution says that parents have a right to parent their children, so why is the government trying to tell parents what is the best interest of their family.
They want your children for more federal monies.
Was It Abuse?
Chapter 27

EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK EARLY DEPARTURES FOR THE SUN
There is a hot commodity in the world that state governments are using to balance their budgets, or reinvent a comprehensive procedure to a new slave trade. I am talking about our children, and the agency is Department of Human Services with its auctioneer the family court judges and referees. Today’s poor children are being auctioneer off to the highest bidder, torn forever from their biological parents. Child Protective Services is an organization of workers who contracted by the state to protect the lives of children and the rights of parents before removing thousands of children from their homes. However, the painful reality is that CPS violates thousands of parent’s rights every day, with lies and fictitious ‘sources’ just so they can remove children. Child Protective Services has become the annoying ’source’ on low-income families that former President Bill Clinton sign law giving them complete autonomy to steal people children.
In 1997, President Clinton, signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), a law that requires states to augment the number of children in foster care to be adopted. That means adoption agencies would fabricate a family progress so the court can terminate their rights and adopt the children to the highest bidder. Sounds like slavery, sadly, that is exactly what it is. The original law of 1980 requires that States provide reunification services to families whom children are in foster care. Black children amounts to over fifty percent of children removed from their families by Child Protective Services, which enables them to outnumber other children with different nationalities in foster care deem for permanent placement. Child Protective Services responsibility is to protect children, because there are parents that put their children in harm’s way. However, I believe it is a crime for a government to avert justice and morality to strip parents of their rights, so white suburban families can adopt black children. And here we are today as black people heralding some white president who have reintroduce slavery on black and poor children. President Clinton may not have intended for the ASFA to implement discriminatory messages towards low-income families. Unfortunately, the former President inability to reinvent himself in the struggle for parents who rights have been terminated would have help to emphasize the injustices carryout against poor families.
Child Protective Services are supposed to protect the rights of children and not put them in harm’s way. Statistically, child Protective services have remove children and place them with families that are more concern about the state money rather caring for the children. However, they are too eager to remove children and place them in foster care, so the state can get more money from the federal government. It is a shame that a child is nothing but grants and paychecks, while the parents suffer through the entire ordeal. I understand that removing some children is necessary when an honest and fair investigation has proved that a child or children is in danger, and provided the parent get help, but removing children while creating fictitious ‘sources’, is criminal. I would like to know, what was President Clinton thinking when he amended the power of Child Protective Services and governmental agencies to receive more federal dollars for every children adopted out of foster care? The tragedy is that parents are losing their children, but parents inflict themselves with torture by becoming too trusting, and forget that they have Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, there are numerous of cases where suspected abuse to children and some of those cases have horrid conditions that left the children forever victimized. I am not trying to be a lawyer when I disclose the foster care cases in America, especially Michigan where the Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court have such blatant special interest to protect than reuniting families.
Here the court of appeals affirmed the decision of trial court to terminate respondent’s rights to their children. Now, keep in mind, many parents are given a parent agency agreement to help them rectify the conditions that brought the children into care so the children can return home safely. Many trial courts use statutory basis to terminate parents rights, unfortunately, they need to only prove one provision of those stats to terminate parents rights. Termination of parental rights is a lynching, when state terminate a parent’s right to their children, and for a parent to overturn a court decision they have prove that all statutory basis for termination does not exist. It is like giving a batter only one chance and one swing to get on base. Compliance of a parent agency agreement negate any statutory basis for termination of parental rights, however, the court of appeals drastically and discriminately over look that Superior decision, and terminate parents rights 99% of the time. In the court of appeals, the clerks that right the decisions for the judges, while the judges that gets the credit. Besides, many judges sit on non-profit boards that support adoption, and failing to disclose their biases always result in parents forever separated from their children.

II

THE FIA GAME
by Attorney and Counselor at Law

Many citizens in our great State of Michigan are unaware of Michigan's dirty little secret that falls under the guise of the Child Abuse and Child Welfare Protection Laws. The advertisements and literature surrounding this area seem to be doing a magnificent thing for the children of our state. We have been led to believe that the State of Michigan is saving thousands of children from severe physical abuse and neglect. This is far from the truth. The truth is that this campaign is a giant money machine fueled by abuse of power of supervisors and case service workers employed by the Michigan Department of Family Independence Agency and private agencies that have contracted with FIA that we the taxpayers are paying dearly for through our hard-earned tax dollars. Basically, it is "make work by creating a case and keep your job or contract with the state government."
The current campaign to save the children is doing just the opposite. Parents and children are being permanently separated and families are being permanently destroyed under this new plan because of abuse of power in the name of more state and federal funding. I have been working extensively in this area of law for approximately two (2) years. Not all of the cases that I am working on involve children suffering from broken bones, bruises or starvation. In fact most of the cases that I am involved in regard to parents that merely spanked their children by giving the children one or two swats on the clothed behind. In addition, parents who have physically defended themselves from a physically violent teenager, parents who argued in front of their children, recently divorced single parents, parents with low incomes, parents who have failed to take their child to a doctor for mere cold symptoms such as sniffles and mild congestion. Alternatively, parents who owned pornographic materials stored in a safe place where the children broke into and viewed the materials. According to FIA, the present state of law is that: 1) Parents cannot spank their child. Spanking, even with clothes covering the bottom, is severe physical abuse. Parents are only to use time out, reasoning and loss of privileges. 2) Parents cannot engage in physical self-defense to protect themselves from a physically hostile teenager. An act of self-defense by a parent is severe physical and emotional abuse. Parents are to use reasoning, time out and loss of privileges only and must sacrifice their physical safety for their violent teenager's safety. 3) Parents cannot argue or talk about adult subjects, such as family finances, in front of their children. These are subjects that the child has no control over and creates extreme emotional distress in the child. FIA has classified this area as emotional or environmental abuse and/or neglect of the child. 4) Parents with low income are neglecting their children's basic needs. Low-income parents cannot provide for the proper medical, physical or emotional needs of their children due to their limited income. The parents' failure to obtain middle-income jobs means environmental, medical and emotional neglect. 5) Parents that fail to take their child to the family physician for colds, flu, sniffles and mild congestion, or parents who fail to obtain a family pediatrician are neglecting the medical needs of their children. FIA has classified this as medical neglect. 6) Parents who own pornographic materials, such as magazines, books, video tapes, and conceal such materials from their children have created environmental and emotional neglect of their children. Parents who own and hide such material run the risk that children will find these materials and view them causing emotional harm to their children. FIA has classified this as environmental neglect. 7) Divorced, single parent families seem to be targeted by FIA as high-risk environments for emotional and environmental neglect.
Most single parent families are low income and of course, according to FIA, cannot provide for the basic needs of the children as measured against middle-income standards. Single parents work outside of the home, leaving their children unattended or with "inappropriate care takers" (neighbors, older siblings, grandparents, relatives) causing environmental and emotional neglect of the child. Single working parents are unable to clean their homes "appropriately" and leave their homes cluttered, disorganized, and untidy (i.e. beds unmade, dirty clothes on floors or hampers, dirty dishes in the sink from breakfast, unswept floors and carpets, etc.) which the family must return to in the afternoon or evening that is classified as environmental neglect. Single parents tend more to their needs (i.e. working outside of the home) that to the needs of their children, which is, classified as emotional and environmental neglect. Ironically, FIA complies a list of single parent households from the Friend of the Court, sends prevention workers to the homes of such families and initially offers the families free, voluntary services through their prevention program. Such services include free parenting classes, free nutrition programs, free household budgeting programs, free employment training programs, and WIC. The social workers in these programs compile information on the family and home for FIA.
When you allow these workers to enter your lives and your home, you are allowing FIA to build a PS (Protective Services) record against you for child neglect, which leads to further child protective proceedings in the Probate/Family Court, which will ultimately result in the removal of your children and the children being placed in foster care. These workers are not hired to help you; they are hired to make a case of child neglect against you. Why are families being targeted by FIA? Most people have the misconception that concerned citizens report child neglect and abuse. This is untrue! A small percentage of my cases involve reports of neglect and abuse from neighbors, family members, friends and school officials. In fact, the majority of my cases involved the family receiving some form of voluntary services from FIA, such as the free programs listed above. In the majority of cases, school officials, such as teachers and counselors, never suspected child abuse or neglect in the families that were prosecuted. Moreover, in most cases the family physicians never suspected child abuse or neglect in the families prosecuted. Families are targeted because FIA must justify its need for State and Federal grants to keep its workers employed. Currently, FIA receives, in Federal grants, $2,000 to $4,000 per month per child in foster care and $10,000 per child adopted out into permanent homes after the parent's rights have been terminated due to neglect and abuse. The State of Michigan provides matching funds to FIA. Bill Clinton recently signed new legislation providing for an additional $2,000 to $4,000 per month per child in foster care and $10,000 for adoption. FIA is making money hand over fist through our tax dollars. FIA social workers receive bonuses for removing children from their homes and for adoption. The incentive for abuse of power is extremely high and has occurred at alarming rates.
During 1996, Clare County removed 50% of the children in the county for neglect and abuse in the home. It is very hard to comprehend that 50% of the parents in Clare County are neglecting and abusing their children. Clare County is a "demonstration county" that is a pilot county for The Binsfield Laws supported by Federal Grants. These programs involve privatizing the foster care system. The foster care program hires private industry to service the foster care needs of the county children removed from the home. Currently, Eagle Village in Hersey, Michigan holds the foster care contract for Clare County FIA. How does the system work? FIA initially offers families free, voluntary services through prevention services to the families on the FOC (Friend of the Court files, AFDC files, Employment Security Commission files, Social Security files, etc.) such as free parenting classes, free nutrition programs, free homemaker services, free budgeting classes, free employment training programs, etc. The prevention worker works closely with the family to coordinate these free services by meeting with the family in their home on a regular basis, once or twice per week. While working with the family, the worker identifies problems areas that put the children at risk for abuse and neglect to qualify the family for these free services, such as poor parenting skills, homemaker skills, budgeting skills, and employment seeking skills.
The other side of this arrangement is that the worker is building a case of neglect and abuse against the parents. Most problems identified are lack of bonding with the children and nurturing due to the parents participation in these free programs. The parents are putting their needs before the children's needs by focusing on their problems as identified in their participation in these programs. Furthermore, workers in these programs work in tandem with FIA to identify other risk factors such as poor parenting skills, why else would a parent take a free parenting class if they themselves have admitted to having poor parenting skills. Voluntarily entering into these programs is an actual admission to poor parenting, nutrition, homemaker, budgeting, or employment seeking skills that put the child at risk for neglect and abuse that lay the foundation for child protective proceedings in the Probate/Family Court.
The Courts believe that the FIA workers are the professionals and take their word as gold. The parents cannot defend against FIA. The testimony and statements mean nothing in the Probate/Family Court. In fact, the Court can issue an emergency pick up order for the children based on only FIA's statements in an ex-parte hearing conduct by the judge and the FIA worker. The parents are not present during these hearings. The Court will issue an ex-parte emergency order allowing the FIA work to enter the home or child's school to remove the child from the parent’s custody. The parents do get a hearing approximately two weeks later after the removal of the child but FIA is only required to prove that probable cause exists that the children are at risk of neglect and abuse if they remain in the home. Approximately 90 days later the parents may have a trial to determine whether by a preponderance of the evidence that the children are at risk to abuse or neglect if they are returned to the home. Most parents plea to abuse or neglect upon FIA's promise that if the parents plea and engage in services they will get their children back sooner. Most parents’ plea to charges that they have a temper, they have beaten their children by merely spanking them, they have failed to provide the child with medical attention when they had cold symptoms, or they are unable to provide for the basic needs of the child because they are temporarily unemployed. The Court then takes jurisdiction over the children, places them in foster care and orders the parents to follow the Parent/Agency Agreement to be drafted by FIA. FIA then engages in a lengthy and vague process of ordering the parents to engage in specific services, such as individual counseling, parenting classes again, anger management classes and counseling, psychological evaluations, drug and alcohol testing, classes and counseling, etc.
Once parents complete these services, FIA informs the parents, usually during a court proceeding that they have not dealt with the proper issues in these programs that initially led to the removal of the children or the parents have not satisfactorily completed the programs. Because they will not or are not mentally able to comprehend their actions and the affect of their actions that have harmed their children. It is a no win situation. FIA is in complete control of the interpretation of whether the parents have successfully completed the Parent/Agency Agreement. Furthermore, if the parents elect to participate in FIA's services with their hired agencies, then the parents never successfully complete the Parent/Agency Agreement. These agencies are FIA's hired hands that build a case against the parents. If the parents elect to engage in services provided by professionals of their choice or referred by their HMO or other health care providers, then the parents must pay enormous amount of money for these services and for these professionals to come to court on their behalf to testify.
More importantly, the Court views parents hired witnesses as hired hands and discounts any testimony given by these professionals as being adversarial, unbelievable and hired hands of the parents. FIA and some of the Court have gone as far as accusing the parents of failing to comply with the Parent/Agency Agreement by engaging their own professionals for service, which has been deemed grounds for termination of parental rights. It is a no win situation that fails to focus on the best interest of the child. Also, most children are placed with foster parents who intend to adopt the children. The purpose of placement is to find the children a permanent, stable and safe environment, which they can live with dignity and respect. The focus in Michigan is no longer keeping families together by repair or rehabilitating parents to properly care for their children. The focus in Michigan and across the country now is to quickly place children into permanent homes.
This means the pool of foster parents are usually upper middle class with financial security. The children are then introduced to the finer things in life like Reeboks, Nikes, Starter Jackets, designer clothes, and other luxuries that the average working class or middle class family cannot afford to provide for their children. The children readily associate with their new parents as being the good parents that can provide for their needs and the biological parents as being abnormal, dysfunctional, poor, and unable to meet their new basic needs. Some children do not want to come home because they cannot live the new life provided by their foster parents to which they have become accustomed to during foster care. This system of protective services and foster care is very disturbing. During this completely process, Department of FIA is raking in the Federal and State grants to support its preventive, protective, and foster care programs. These are our tax dollars at work and are being misappropriated and wasted to create a foster care and adoption industry in our state. I am not arguing that there are never cases of child abuse or neglect in this state. There are real cases of such that must be meeting with the proper social nets.
But our current system is froth with abuse of power and waste of precious tax dollars that has created false child abuse and neglect cases for the purpose of creating employment for social workers and private industries providing foster care services, and counseling agencies. Also, provide individual therapy and psychological evaluations, and community education programs that provide anger management and parenting classes. All of these agencies are funded by our tax dollars, which are being wasted on parents who are only less than perfect and children who are not abused or neglected in the legal sense. Furthermore, all parents are court ordered to pay child support to the foster parents through the Friend of Court for the care of their children while in foster care. Parents pay on an average of $25.00 to $30.00 per week per child if FIA is providing the foster care family through it county agency. Parents pay approximately $150.00 to $2,000 per month if a private agency is hired by FIA to provide foster care services. Nobody is sure where this money goes once it is paid to the Friend of the Court.
The system of FIA needs to be restructured to make it workers accountable for their actions. Presently, FIA workers have complete immunity from civil actions in the State of Michigan unless a parent can prove that a worker was grossly negligent in the performance of his or her duties. Unfortunately, this is impossible to prove. If a parent pleas or the Probate Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the child for neglect and abuse, FIA continues to have jurisdiction over the child and ultimately terminates the parent’s rights, this will bar any suit against the FIA worker under the immunity doctrine. Once your child is in the system, FIA and its social workers are not accountable for the worker's actions. The word is gold and the court's accept the workers word as gold. The only recourse a parent has is to appeal the Probate/Family Court's decision, which is very expensive. Most of my parents send approximately $10,000 to $20,000 in defending against FIA in child protection cases, even when they plea. Most of my parents end up losing their homes, vehicles, jobs because of court appearances and engagement of professional services, and savings. Most of my parents are forced into bankruptcy.

“My name is Shan ell, and the states have labeled me unfit and place me on the central registry. I admit that I got out of hand with, my children, and request that I receive help for my condition. On several occasions, I went overboard when disciplining my children, and I am sorry. My son did not do what I ask him to do so I became upset and went overboard. The teacher at school notice that he had belt marks on his arms and called protective services. They came and investigated, and took my son out of school and away from the family. Then hour s later, they came and took my other children. The CPS worker said I refuse to go to parenting classes and therapy, and that was the reason they took my children. When they came to my home they ran a police check on my fiancé and said he had a criminal record, and that in order to get my children back, he has to leave the home. The CPS worker claim that my cousin put the belt marks on my child, and had him arrested for child abuse in the second degree. After I told the prosecutor that I was responsible for the marks on my child, he dismisses the case. However, CPS kept pursuing criminal charges and they continued to harass my cousin, and kept trying to get him and make him responsible for harming my children. Therefore, I love my family, and I did not want him to leave, but I just could not stand there and let these people keep harassing him for something he did not do. So, I ask him to join me in parenting classes, and the court ordered us to go to psychotherapy, however, we had to visit our children once a week at a place called St. Francis Family Center and Catholic Social Services. The SFC center needs to be under investigation, I notice people there dropping babies, spanking babies in an unusual way. The workers there comply with the CPS, and whatever they say to do or lie about the people at St. Francis and Catholic Services Center, Lutheran Services, and Orchard’s services will do. The caseworkers and managers purposely fabricate and enjoy having black children in foster care. I tried to bring attention to the abuse at these children centers, but every time I did, they said I am only saying these things because I want my children back. Therefore, I just got tired of everything, and just doing what I need to do to get my children, so I can get away from those people.
In addition, after about nine months, they increased visitation and gave me confidence that my children will be return as long as I keep doing what I am suppose to do. On the other hand, my cousin was completing his assignments, but they did not want him back into the home on any circumstance. My children were returned about four months later, and I was out of Detroit, Michigan and will never be back.
This is why I ask that the government overhaul this system; it is obvious that these CPS workers and administrative personnel’s are criminals in cases that are destroying lives of children and their parents. I want to say something to a particular mother whom is going through hell because these devils took her children after falsifying abuse and neglect. “Please continue to stay strong, because the unfortunate condition CPS has put you and your children in will make you extremely wealthy, so you will be able to help others like yourself“. I ask that everyone pray for all these mothers and fathers who have not the chance to prove that they can be good parents. My heart goes out to any child that has been separated from their biological parents. And if the parents received help for their inappropriate behavior why would the government set policy for a foster care agency to raise those children. These CPS workers are extreme profiteers, profiting off our beloved American children. The American dream is not one where evil and sinister people are controlling, the American dream rest in the heart of every child and everyone that treasure the niceties of democracy. I believe in fairness and justice, and I hope everyone who have relatives or have lost children to these inauspicious CPS workers, I ask that you run to your representatives and governing officials and tell them you do not want your tax dollars used for an organization like Child Protective Services to use unfair practices to take children away. Yes, I believe that children should never be in harm’s way, and anyone that harms children in any kind of way, need to have their head examine.
However, there is still justice, and if a thorough investigation say that a child or children will be in harm’s way by remaining in the home, and several people have corroborated that abuse or neglect was done, then children should be removed from harm’s way. I believe that CPS workers should have an outside official with them every step of the way that is completely neutral, so when they claim a child was in harm’s way, that federal observer must support it. Therefore, this will save millions of dollars going to people who make falsified claims against low-income families just to take their children. I believe in the American people to make a claim and to help save our future from a degenerate system that permanently take away parents rights when they truly and earnestly want their children back. And for those little new born children taken by these insensitive and obdurate CPS workers, I pray that the Supreme Being will make your dreams shared by the parents who desire to have you at home waking them up during the coldest night, and I know the American people will make this so. I am going to dedicate my life to making sure this government amends the laws and procedures of the CPS and Department of Human Services. I am a product of the CPS, they destroyed my family and they are destroying others, and I support all organizations that are committed to getting rid of these sinister people, and black people please know your rights before you even talk to them. Here are some organizations that could help anyone involved with child protective services : www.fightcps.com, your state representatives, and www.familyrightsassociation.com.
Lashawn Angel is a mother that the state of Michigan mistreated in every human way, and one of the saddest horror stories that any family had to endure besides the Williams. She is a good mother and the Harriet Tubman, or Rosa Parks of the foster care system. The case managers and political ambitious opponents for children rights took her children, and they are profiting in the millions off the value of black children. Children from poor families are more likely to be place with families incongruent to racial preference or with white families that are owed a favor, while parents complete their parent/agency agreement and is still denied their children. One would have to lose in court, try the appeal process and then the Supreme Court. If your children have been taken, remember; do not let them keep your children in care for more than nine months, because if they do, they are trying to say you are not in compliance and that your children have been in care for more than 182 days.
The story of Lashawn Angel, is a sad one but also inspirational. Lashawn Angel, from Detroit Michigan, has not been with her three children, David, now 11, Sue, now 7, and Dewayne, now 5, since the year 2000, but she says she is determined to have them come home again to her loving arms. “It’s been devastating,” said Angel. “It’s been hard holding jobs and eating and sleeping. You can’t even imagine the Christmases and birthdays I’ve spent. When we get them back, whenever that is, it will be Christmas because I’ve gone on buying presents for them all this time.” Angel says Michigan Governor and Attorney General and various judges, administrators and doctors to be used as “cash cows” for the benefit of the state’s child foster care system essentially kidnapped her children. That system is largely farmed out to private non-profit agencies who receive federal funds for each child. She says the alleged kidnappers have profited because they sit on the boards of agencies in that system.
On June 6, Angel filed suit in U.S. District Court under federal racketeering and civil rights statutes, demanding her children’s return, and calling for an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the alleged misuse of federal funds by the State of Michigan in hers and thousands of other foster care cases. “I’m going to fight them with everything I’ve got, until my children are returned to me, and I want other families to join me,” said Angel, who, so far, is representing herself in the case. Angel resides with her mother and father Barbara and Leo Angel, who are supporting her suit. The suit was inspired by a similar action in Los Angeles County that opened an investigation into 30,000 foster care cases there. “Plaintiff was severely damaged and her family destroyed by the kidnap under color of law of her three children,” reads Angel’ complaint. “Defendants used the Michigan state foster care system as a ‘child for profit’ machine, with eighty percent of their caseload contracted out to private agencies who are paid federal monies by the case. Defendants sat on the boards of agencies that received federal monies for the ‘care and custody’ of children, while actively participating in, or making judicial decisions on cases involving child custody or termination of parental rights including plaintiff’s case.” Angel’ parental rights to her children were terminated by Wayne County Juvenile Court Judge in October of 2000, after a series of events that began two years earlier when Angel took Danielle, then an infant, to Henry Ford Hospital after she fell out of bed. (See “Attorney General Seeks to Take Children,” Michigan Citizen Mar. 12-18, 2000.)
The baby sustained a skull fracture, but the hospital contended at the time that other X-rays showed evidence of old rib fractures. Subsequent studies, however, showed no such old fractures. The family now believes that Danielle’s X-rays were initially mixed up with those of another infant. The court took temporary custody of Angel’s two children. Her third child was born later and also taken based solely on the accident with Danielle. The children were assigned to Orchard’s Children’s Services, where workers eventually recommended that they be returned to Angel after she successfully completed a parenting course at Black Family Development. The workers said the children had been traumatized by their removal from their mother, repeatedly cried and asked for her, and were scared of being left alone.
However, after an Orchard’s worker withdrew the recommendation for return, Campbell terminated Angel’ rights, despite the fact that no charges of abuse or neglect had ever been brought against her. Angel’ parents were later appointed as guardians, but that status was terminated in 2001 and the children were returned to foster care. Angel appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled against her in July of 2002. The State Supreme Court has since refused to hear the case. Angel contends that numerous state officials who participated in the termination of her parental rights also are members of non-profits connected with the foster care system, creating a blatant conflict of interest. They are cited as individual defendants in her case. They include appeals court judge Kathleen Jansen, one of the three judges who denied her appeal, who sits on the Macomb County Child Abuse Neglect Information Council, and Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who chairs the “Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice and Family Independence Agency.”
Although she was not the attending physician, Dr. Anna Maria Church testified against Angel on behalf of Henry Ford Hospital. Besides heading the pediatric residency program at the DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, she is also involved with the state’s non-profit Children’s Trust Fund, which doles out $70 million annually in funding to various non-profit child welfare agencies including foster care programs. “My lawsuit showed every foster care case was tainted because officials in Los Angeles County failed to disclose their conflicts of interest,” said Dr. Shirley Moore, National Director of Legislative Affairs for the American Family Rights Association. In response to Moore’s actions, as well as an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and an expose by the Los Angeles Daily News, a judge ordered a review of foster care placements in that county. “Up to half of the 75,000 children in the systems and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because the county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues for each placement,” wrote the Daily News. Moore said the situation in Michigan is far worse, because officials at all levels up to the state are involved, and there is no recourse here except federal court. It is abundantly clear that the government should overhaul this system; it is obvious that these CPS workers and administrative personnel’s are criminals in cases that are destroying lives of children and their parents. I want to say something to a particular mother whom is going through hell because these devils took her children after falsifying abuse and neglect. “Please continue to stay strong, because the unfortunate condition CPS has put you and your children in will make you extremely wealthy, so you will be able to help others like yourself“. I ask that everyone pray for all these mothers and fathers who have not the chance to prove that they can be good parents.
My heart goes out to any child despite color or ethnicity, because I believe that they need to be with their parents after the parents have received help. These CPS workers are extreme profiteer, profiting off our beloved American children. The American dream is not one where evil and sinister people are controlling, the American dream rest in the heart of every child and everyone that treasure the niceties of democracy. I believe in fairness and justice, and I hope everyone that have relatives in this tortuous system or have lost children to these inauspicious CPS workers, I ask that you run to your representatives and governing officials and tell them you do not want your tax dollars used for an organization like Child Protective Services to use unfair practices to take children away.
Nevertheless, if children are placed in an agency like St. Francis Family Center that makes most of its profit from adoption, one must consider why they would implement the truth of family reunification when they can adopt children out and make more money. They do not care about the “best interest of the child”, only the “best interest” that will line their pockets with more government aid and bonuses. Yes, I believe that children should never be in harm’s way, and anyone that harms children in any kind of way, need to have their head examine, and anyone believe that a foster home is more appropriate for children instead of their biological home after counseling services deem them appropriate, should be excommunicated. Besides, if parents choose to sue the people responsible for removing their children against Constitutional procedures, or feel that their Constitutional rights were violated in any way; they can because Rooker Feldman no longer can impede that endeavor.


VI

Michigan Settles Child Welfare Reform Lawsuit, Agrees to Comprehensive Overhaul of Long-Failing Child Welfare System

Court-enforceable agreement establishes plan for reforming entire Department of Human Services child welfare system and improving outcomes for abused and neglected children in state custody

DETROIT, MI A settlement agreement mandating top-to-bottom reform and federal court oversight of Michigan’s long-failing child welfare system has been reached in the federal class action brought against the state by the national advocacy group Children’s Rights and a team of attorneys from Michigan and across the country. The settlement, to be submitted for preliminary court approval, would resolve the lawsuit known as Dwayne B. v. Granholm, filed in 2006 on behalf of the approximately 19,000 abused and neglected children in the custody of Michigan’s Department of Human Services (DHS).
The court-enforceable agreement requires DHS to establish a Children’s Services Administration dedicated exclusively to providing protection, treatment, and services to children in state custody and those who have been reported for abuse or neglect. The agency must take aggressive action to move more than 6,000 children who cannot return home into safe, stable, permanent homes; improve investigations of reported child abuse and neglect; reduce the occurrence of maltreatment in foster care placements; recruit and retain an adequate group of potential foster and adoptive parents; and provide adequate medical, mental health, and dental care to children in state custody. The state’s progress in complying with the agreement will be overseen by a monitor who will report to the federal court. “After years of looking the other way as its child welfare system failed and children suffered and died needlessly as a result, Michigan has finally made a court-enforceable commitment to begin fixing its problems and producing better results for the children who depend on it,” said Marcia Robinson Lowry, founder and executive director of Children’s Rights. “The required reforms will take considerable time and effort to implement, but they are both achievable and necessary, and Children’s Rights will remain involved as long as necessary to ensure that they take hold.”
Among the specific requirements of the agreement:

DHS must improve its investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect and keep the children in its custody safer. DHS will establish a statewide child protective services (CPS) hotline, create dedicated CPS units to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect, increase caseworker visits to foster homes and facilities, and initiate regular safety reviews to ensure that children taken into state custody do not suffer further maltreatment.
DHS must take aggressive action to move children out of custody and into safe, stable, permanent homes. DHS will hire, train, and deploy a dedicated workforce of 200 new permanency specialists to address the needs of the more than 6,000 legal orphans who have languished in foster care for long periods of time. Additionally, the agency will begin planning simultaneously for children’s reunification with their birth families and for their adoption in case reunification proves not to be possible.
DHS must provide adequate financial support and safety measures for children placed in foster homes with relatives. DHS will engage 40 new licensing specialists to secure licenses for the approximately 7,000 unlicensed relative foster homes in Michigan. Without licenses, relatives who provide foster homes for abused and neglected children are not eligible for the financial support available to other foster families to help them provide for the basic needs of the children in their care, and they are not subject to the safety assessments that other foster homes undergo.
DHS must provide adequate medical, mental health, and dental services for the children in its custody. DHS will be required to meet the benchmarks for these services established by the American Academy of Pediatrics, undertaking a system wide assessment to determine what it must do to meet the standards of the settlement agreement.
DHS must improve recruitment of foster and adoptive families. DHS will undertake a systemwide assessment to determine where and how many additional foster care and adoptive placements are needed, and will design and implement a recruitment plan to meet these needs.
DHS must fix longstanding organizational problems. DHS will establish a Children’s Services Administration dedicated exclusively to child welfare functions, headed by a director at the rank of deputy director of DHS or higher. The agency will also create a dedicated child welfare quality assurance unit in its central office to monitor the care it provides.
DHS must provide better training for child welfare caseworkers and reduce their caseloads to manageable levels. Caseloads for all child welfare workers at DHS will be lowered to meet the standards recommended by the Child Welfare League of America, and new and improved training regimens will be mandated for workers at all levels.
DHS must fully implement a statewide system for collecting and analyzing child welfare data. Through regular reports on children’s outcomes, management issues, and other key measures, DHS will improve its ability to monitor its own performance and correct problems when they arise.
“We have reached a critical milestone in this campaign to correct the injustices that abused and neglected children in Michigan’s custody have lived with for too long,” said Sara Bartosz, senior staff attorney for Children’s Rights and lead counsel on the case. “The reforms required by this settlement will ensure that they receive at last the care and protection that all children are guaranteed under the Constitution and under the law.”
That is why I associate the foster care system with slavery, because slaves were made to reproduce and the slave master would permanently removed the children while they were still young and sell them to the highest bidder. When the slaves were freed, many of them travel miles to find their lost children and family members that were permanently sold to other slave owners. When the court of appeals affirm a family court decision to terminate a parents rights, if the State supreme court refuse to hear your case (in most cases they decline) the only way a parent may be reunited with their children is when the children become older and search the records for them. Moreover, we need to remember it was a racist and evil system that made Africans slaves. Today, you have the great great grandchildren of those slave owners implementing the same system under a different name with house niggers tap dancing along setting parents up to lose their children and allowing children to languished in foster care until they become angry and maladjusted at the world that conjuring up their best interest.


BOOK ---- EARLY DEPARTURES FOR THE SUN



© Copyright 2009



This work is a registered trademark in the US,

Former DCYF/CPS Worker Speaks Out Against DCYF

A former DCYF/CPS worker speaks out against DCYF on a Radio interview. He states he was ordered to remove children by his Supervisor's, who shouldn't have been removed.
He states its all beaureaucratic.
Please listen to this extremely important interview. This happens all over the country.
http://www.imeem.com/people/FcU9_JX/music/MoDDKI4i/mike-gibson-fl-dcf-employee/

Update on my Grandson Austin Knightly-Stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF/CPS

Time is running out for my grandson Austin. DCYF in Nashua has placed him with pre-adoptive parents and he is scheduled for adoption in December. From what I've been told Austin is in the same foster home where he was first placed, before he was sent to Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital in NH after trying to hang himself, along with his violent behavior which he never experienced before being stolen from his family. All testimony in Probate Court by the DCYF kidnappers and their contractors, prove all Austin want's is to be with my husband and I, his grandparent's. The two people he spent most of his first six years with since the day he was born, until his horrible kidnapping by the state of NH. He has expressed what he want's since the day he was taken. No matter how much they've drugged him, he still want's us. He doesn't yet understand he has become an asset for the state. Now that he is special need's, he's worth a huge amount of money in Federal dollars. If he were placed with family members, as mandated by federal law, the state would lose money. Some day Austin will be told how our government works. When he's old enough to understand he was kept from us for the almighty dollar. That the state was not looking out for his best interests, as they claim.
Even the NH Judges go along with the fraud. What are they getting out of every child stolen? Are they getting bonus money also? Why do Probate Court Judges terminate every parents rights at TPR hearings? Why is it Parental Rights Terminations are never reversed in NH, as told to me by a DCYF worker in Nashua? Why are Probate Court Judges allowed to write lies in their opinions and then the Supreme Court goes along with the lies? What sense does it make to even file a complaint against Judges and Lawyer's in NH, when their own are the ones who look over the complaints and do nothing? Perjury and many, many other illegal practices are used against families, and the government abusers go unpunished. What has happened to our Nation? Why do criminals have more rights than parent's?
One of the Administrators in Concord claim Austin's name has already been changed, which we all know is illegal, but when does DCYF follow the law? They don't. Are they getting bonus money for every child they keep from their families? That's the problem throughout our Nation. Our government doesn't hold them accountable and evidently doesn't check up on their illegal practices. If they did, DCYF would be shut down in a heartbeat. But all anyone think's of is money. Well guess what? Our Children are Not For Sale! Our children are worth more to us than any amount of money. We don't sell our children, unlike DCYF who put our children on the auction block every day. I would love to see how this rogue agency coped having their children stolen. Maybe people need to start calling in false reports against DCYF workers. Let them see how it feels to lose their children! They don't even know how to handle children. Most of them don't even have any, yet they tell parents how to raise their kids when they don't have a clue. When a stolen child becomes violent because he's been taken from his family, they drug him up to calm him down, which was done in Austin's case. They think these children will forget their family. They won't. That anger will return when DCYF least expects it.They are turning our children into psycho's and the criminals of tomorrow. Aren't there enough psycho's and criminals in the world without DCYF making more?
This fight for my grandson is far from over.The kidnapping of Austin and his cousin Isabella has brought out a hatred in me I have never known. I don't like being lied about and slandered. I was brought up to help other people and most of all to protect my family. I would not go against my daughters and lie about them for DCYF. I am NOT a liar and don't get along with liars. Therefore, DCYF and I do not get along. I never thought a government agency would work toward harming its own citizens, but this is how they keep their job's. Jobs they don't know how to do. Instead of being paid to preserve families, our government is paying them for every family they tear apart. We need to stand up and fight back. We must never give up on our children. All children need to come home and the only way that will happen is to abolish DCYF/CPS. An overhaul won't do. They can't follow government mandates, so what good are they? Austin needs to come home before he winds up dead at the hands of NH DCYF, like so many other children in state custody.

Activist Murtari resumes You're a Parent Notification Act campaign in Lyons

UPDATE: Murtari expects arrest after moving his chalk writing to the Village Offices at 76 William St. in Lyons on Monday. He'll be there at 2 pm, and hopes other parents will join him.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: John Murtari, founder of NY-based family rights group akidsright.org resumed his chalk writing campaign outside Assemblyman Oak's office (map) this week for the proposed You're a Parent Notification Act. Murtari's website describes what the Act entails.

It shall be the duty of a parent to notify the other parent upon the birth of a child. This notification shall occur within 30 days of the event. The State will maintain a registry of notifications. If the birth event is witnessed by medical or other health professionals they will assist in making sure notification is completed.

Murtari has been communicating with Assemblyman Oaks and his staff since May of 2006 about introducing the bill, but he hasn't gotten very far. He explains, "They are all very nice people, but right now [Oaks] feels there would be strong political risk in such a Bill and will not introduce it. "

Saying he's willing to go to jail to bring attention to the lack of respect for parental rights, Murtari plans on ramping up his peaceful protesting. "I'll be writing with sidewalk chalk next week," he said, "but this time I'll be outside the police station."

Murtari is best known for being fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days during a peaceful protest while incarcerated for child support he says he never owed. He was interviewed at that time by news channel 10 and film producer Angelo Lobo. Murtari can be seen in the documentary SUPPORT? System Down. He says he gave a preview of the movie to Assemblyman Oak's staff. (See trailer below.)

When asked why he is willing to sacrifice his liberty for family rights he replied with these words.

Do we remember that for the majority of "written" human history:
slavery was a norm, there was no freedom of religion, no real
democracy. The "early promoters" of modern freedoms were persecuted
and killed. They just didn't "get it." But BIG change did happen.

We think we have "arrived" in our modern time. That "all Civil
Rights" are recognized, but in the near future folks may look back and
say, "Can you believe how it was back then, just because you separated
-- you weren't an equal parent anymore! Barbarians!"

Again, again, and again I have to go back to Civil Rights history.
The GREAT rights are defined by the sacrifices people made to achieve
them. All the GREAT Civil Rights were made manifest by the will of the
people -- not defined by some Court.

By it's very nature, sacrifice is not a contract. You give up this
and you will gain that. That would make it easy. Sacrifice is you
give up this and then maybe, maybe, you will gain that? But always -
you gain satisfaction & self respect & peace. "They told me to move
to the back of the bus in my kid's life -- but I said, 'No.' They had
to carry me and hold me down."

Sacrifice - no GREAT CIVIL RIGHT has been won by talk alone, nor with
a guarantee of success. In the 50s a Black who peacefully participated
in a rally against segregation stood a good chance his home could be
burned down by the Klan. At a recent parent's meeting I asked those
assembled if they would attend a Rally for Family Rights, if it meant
a chance they would lose their homes/job -- not one hand went up...

"Nonviolent resistance ... is based on the conviction that the
universe is on the side of justice. Consequently, the believer in
nonviolence has deep faith in the future ...[and] can accept
suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle
for justice he has cosmic companionship." Martin Luther King
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm

Children of the State-The truth about CPS and Foster Care

http://www.cpscorruption.blogspot.com
An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and
the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"

Child Protective Services Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of CPS.

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

Perpetrators of Maltreatment

Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, Parents 59

Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, Parents 13

Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14, Parents 12
Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers.

Added on: Jul 28th, 2008
Country: United States
Language: English

Author: Kathleen
Listed in: Education Political Activism
Tags: children abuse state cps child protection foster

Florida panel wants tougher rules on drugs for foster kids

Florida Times Union
Task force investigating boy's suicide is making final recommendations.
By Brandon Larrabee
Nov. 13, 2009
TALLAHASSEE -- A task force investigating the apparent suicide of a 7-year-old foster child approved a list of nearly 100 recommendations concerning the use of psychiatric medications by foster children Thursday as the examination of the hanging death of Gabriel Myers continues.

The panel called for several measures to toughen accountability in the dispensing of psychotropic drugs and making sure the medications aren't the only part of a child's therapy.

Members of the working group also called for the Legislature to devote more resources, including the creation of a chief medical officer for the Department of Children & Families, to keep an eye on treatment for foster children.

"We need to have a better system of accountability over children who are being taken care of," said Jim Sewell, former assistant commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and head of the task force. "... If we're serious about making sure we're taking care of children, we've got to make sure that we're devoting funding to it."

The recommendations include calling for tighter oversight by local DCF workers of the nonprofit organizations that handle foster care services and increased scrutiny from the agency's central office. The panel also suggests making sure that caseworkers and caregivers get second opinions for the use of certain types and frequencies of medications.

Sewell said the panel's recommendations, which are being put into final form after an hours-long meeting Thursday to hammer out the details, focus less on whether the psychiatric medications are over-prescribed than whether they are "properly prescribed."...

The use of the drugs and whether the agency was obtaining proper consent from parents or courts entered the spotlight when, in the aftermath of Gabriel's death, the department revealed that more than 3,000 foster kids were taking the medications without the legally required permission.

While the major recommendations for the Legislature involve what Sewell described as "tweaks" to the law and more resources for monitoring the use of the drugs, lawmakers are likely to more closely examine the use of psychiatric medications for foster children.

Members of the Senate Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee from both parties pledged this month to toughen laws and rules for prescribing psychiatric drugs to children in the wake of Gabriel's death.

"We've got a lot deeper issues than the medical director," Sen. Tony Hill, D-Jacksonville and a member of the committee, said Thursday.

He said lawmakers could move around funding to provide the necessary money for things like the medical position, but also wanted assurances that there would be accountability for failures like Gabriel's death.

"We need to find out what the department is going to do about this to makes sure there won't be another Gabriel Myers situation down the line," Hill said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28916 petition signatures http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY
If you would rather not receive the latest news via this e-mail line, please send a message to
Psych_News@psychsearch.net

Shattered Bonds: the Color of Child Welfare

book by Dorothy Roberts
PsychPage... perspectives on psychology in daily life

• PsychPage
•Family
•CultureDiversity
Contents
•The Impact of Poverty
•Child Protective Services
•Beyond Poverty
•The Problem with Welfare
•Harm of ASFA
•The Role of Prisons
•Summary
Shattered Bonds is a thoughtful essay in three parts regarding the gap between what we as a society think we mean by child "protection" and "welfare," and what actually happens as a result of the Child Protective System and the Welfare System. While you might not agree with all of her conclusions, she cites a wealth of studies (many regarding children here in Illinois and in Chicago) showing serious breakdowns in the system.
Roberts' premise is basically this. First, the child welfare effort in the US is ineffective mainly because it is misdirected; current laws and policies fail to take into account the role of poverty in child maltreatment, for example. Second, intervention by Child Protective Services (CPS) is mismanaged and inflicts harm on children by separating them needlessly from family, and by placing them at risk for additional future problems. Third, the end result of this, a result not visible unless one adopts a "larger picture" view, is that the Black family is being split-up, experiencing "shattered bonds," and that this is undermining the stability of Black culture in America.
The Impact of Poverty
Roberts begins by linking the involvement of Child Protective Services in minority communities to poverty. She reports that half a million children are taken from their home each year and put into foster care, and Black children make up 42% of this number nationwide. In some places they make up more, for example, comprising 75% of Illinois cases and 95% of Chicago cases. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect (failure to clothe, feed, supervise, and provide adequate medical care) can all lead to an intervention in the family. However, neglect is the basis for half of the maltreatment investigations, with abuse being the cause for only a fourth. In some areas, the percentages are even more disparate, including New York City where neglect cases outnumber abuse cases 10 to 1.

She notes that Black families are two to three times more likely to be poor, with 33% of Black children living in poverty compared to 13.5% of White children, and 15% of Black children living in extreme poverty (less than $6,645 a year for a family of three) compared to 5% of White children. Put another way, of the children who turned 18 between 1988 and 1990, 67% of all Black children had lived in poverty for at least a year of their childhood at some point, while only 21% of White children had. The Department of Health and Human Services determined in 1996 that there were 24 times more cases of abuse and neglect in families making less than $15,000 a year compared to families making $30,000 a year. Stress associated with poverty, depression, and poor and crowded housing are more likely to be seen with abuse and neglect, and Roberts draws upon several studies to support this.

Roberts clarifies that this is not an issue of poverty alone, however, as Latino communities experience similar levels of poverty. However, Latinos are not over-represented in child maltreatment statistics beyond their percentage in the general US population. Black parents are reported for maltreatment three times more often nationwide, and 10 times more often in New York City. Even in communities in which Black children are only 2% of the population, they are 15 times more likely to enter foster care. Likewise, this is not an issue of one-parent versus two-parent homes, as child maltreatment is just as likely in one-parent as in two-parent homes once income is controlled.

It should be noted that while these numbers and their implications are shocking, Roberts, in my opinion, misrepresents something. She basically removes a key point from the equation, and then concludes that since it is not in the equation it must not be important. She notes that the number of parents in the home makes no difference, after income is statistically controlled. However, a two-parent home is more likely to be a two-income home, or at least a single income home where one parent has fewer child care responsibilities and can dedicate themselves to income. Thus, a two-parent home is more likely to avoid poverty.

Roberts believes this is more an issue of race. She recounts studies such as one in Denver that found White children with head traumas inflicted through abuse were misdiagnosed in 37% of cases. However, Black children with head traumas inflicted through abuse were misdiagnosed in only 19% of cases. The implication is that doctors are more likely to be suspicious of abuse when seeing children of Black parents than White. She cites another study from New York showing that Black mothers giving birth to children testing positive for drugs had their children removed from their care 72% more often than White mothers. A Florida study showed that despite equal levels of substance abuse among mothers seen at a hospital, Black mothers were reported to Child Protective Services 10 times more often. She also reports that hospitals routinely serving minority communities are more likely to test for illegal substances at birth, and so White mothers may be reported less frequently becaus! e the substance abuse is undetected. It is not just that poorer families are more likely to be caught, Roberts notes, but that wealth can provide a degree of privacy. Additional caretakers (nannys, scout leaders, tutors…), programs (school, community, church…), and better neighborhoods (less crime and better oversight by parents, schools, and police) can hide many family problems.

Roberts' report on differing levels of suspicion and on the opportunities to observe evidence of abuse may seem shocking. While her meaning about the numbers of the diagnosed head traumas resulting from abuse may not immediately be clear, Roberts' point is that White parents are less likely to be seen as being at risk for serious abuse, while Black parents are more likely to be viewed with suspicion. In my experience, this has been true. Cases in which White parents who had been grossly neglectful over a period of weeks were reunified within a matter of months, and in which White parents at risk for significant abuse were given unsupervised visitation soon after intervention, are not uncommon. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of cases of Black families in which no one could tell me exactly why the case had been entered into the Child Protection Services system and why it had continued for seven years, as well as cases in which apartment finding services would have been! more helpful than court-ordered assessment and therapy.

With poverty so severe in Black communities, many families have no choice but to turn to social service agencies, which are often connected with Child Protective Services, for help. Even when child protective agencies are involved at the family's request (which would make one think they had nothing to hide), there is no conceptualization of an "approvable" report. In other words, any intervention of Child Protective Services is seen as evidence of parental inadequacy. As a result, she noted that many families may hide information from social service workers, in order to avoid giving information that can be used against them later. This can heighten suspicion of the family by the worker, and make it appear "they have something to hide." Heightened examination and suspicion of the family make them more likely to be judged as lacking or failing in some way.

Child Protective Services

Roberts argues that once Child Protective Services is involved, racism continues. Once the family is involved in services, families of White children are twice as likely to be offered in-home services and help obtaining adequate housing compared to families of Black children, even when the families face the same problems, according to an HHS study. Black children in relative placement receive fewer services, less financial support, and less health care. Roberts cites one study in which only 13% of LBW Black babies in relative care received adequate health services.

Roberts does some statistical work to derive a ratio comparing the percentage of child abuse cases that belongs to a minority group, and the percentage of the general population that belongs to a minority group. A ratio of 1.00 then would mean that a minority group was represented in child abuse cases at the same frequency with which it was represented in the general population. What she found was that this ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for Whites, slightly higher than 1.0 for Hispanics, and highly variable for Blacks, ranging from 1.22 in Alabama to 6.90 in Minnesota (the ratio for the state of Illinois was 2.56).

Roberts attributes this variability to inconsistency in decisions about Black children. She cites one study done in 1972 in which caseworkers and judges reviewed materials for cases and made a decision about child placement. Across 127 cases, agreement between judges and caseworkers was less than 25%, with considerable variability. One judge was noted to be four times more likely to recommend removing children than another judge, and caseworker agreement was close to random. A study conducted in South Carolina showed that in one county, only 14% of child abuse reports were judged substantiated, while in a neighboring county, 89% of reports were judged substantiated.

Roberts also attributes this variability to public opinion and fear. She explains that after Joseph Wallace was hanged by his mentally ill mother in 1993, foster care cases rose 30%, and so courts and caseworkers alike felt social pressures to remove children from biological families and place them in foster care. She questions whether the number of dangerous situations for children rose by 30% so quickly, or whether courts were likely to simply "rubber-stamp" recommendations to remove children from their homes. She notes that this is more likely, as caseworkers are free to remove children from their families and seek court review and permission to do so afterwards.

Roberts also attributes this variability to many of the pressures that caseworkers face. She notes that most are undertrained, overworked, and experience a high degree of turn-over in their jobs. One study in New York indicated that one in ten children in many neighborhoods were investigated by Child Protective Services. She cites one Los Angeles study from June, 2000, which showed that the average caseworker had 45-50 cases. Further, caseworkers have no standardized method by which to judge the danger a child faces in staying with a biological family. Even where checklists and questionnaires to aid in this do exist, they may not have any scientific value behind them. Some caseworkers are taught to treat cooperation with child care agencies as a criterion for safety, and not specific characteristics of the caregivers or their relationship with the child. Roberts notes that psychiatric diagnoses are more likely to be given to African-Americans, and African-American mothers! are three times more likely to be single mothers. As a result, even caseworkers who try to use "meaningful" criteria such as mental illness and limited ability to provide for a child's physical needs are still more likely to recommend removal from African-American homes.

Roberts quotes from Child Welfare Watch , a study of New York caseworkers, and cites one caseworkers who said, "Black people often don't know their legal rights. White people may be more likely to call their attorney… The average feeling among caseworkers is, if you removal a White child, you stand a chance next morning of facing White parents with their lawyers… There's no similar fear in removing a Black or Hispanic child from home."

In some ways, Roberts sidesteps the issue here. There is some pressure to "always play it safe" and remove a child as a way to "guarantee" their safety. The reality is that even with checklists, guidelines, and second opinions, as a field, mental health workers are not good at predicting violence. In fact, the best predictor of future violence is past violence, and beyond that, most factors only improve our predictions marginally at best. She later points out that shelters, foster care, and group homes fall far short of "guaranteeing" a child's safety, which is true. However, when faced with abuse cases, courts and caseworkers, acting in a manner consistent with the published research, are more likely to find substantiated past abuse to far outweigh a potential future abuse in a family without a history of abuse reports, and thus to move a child from a family home to a foster home.

Based on Roberts' previous point that neglect cases outnumber abuse cases, one might counter that neglect charges should never result in a child's removal. However, in my experience, neglect as a result of poverty is quite different from neglect as the result of substance abuse. Simply increasing the household income, providing childcare services so the parent can work, or a medical card to obtain free medical care is not enough. The parent must be able to make good use of these services before they are actually helpful. Roberts' coverage of this issue is rather limited, however, as seen in the cases she cites.

In support of the power that legal services grant to richer parents, Roberts talks about the case the Tina Olson. She was known to many as "the mother of Baby T", a Black child removed from his biological mother after testing positive at birth for cocaine, and placed with a White foster family. The foster parents were a high profile aldermen and judge. The alderman's family was able to pay for high-quality legal representation and, to many, able to provide a "better" home for Baby T. Despite the media attention, community protests, hunger strikes, and trial of the case in another court system to minimize the influence the judge had, Roberts argues that Ms. Olson had little chance to regain custody of her child.

Robert cites a story of another parent who was living in a rehabilitation program with her children. She left the program shelter to visit a cousin and borrow money, but ended up using substances with this cousin and leaving the children in the shelter unattended overnight. She lost custody of her children as well.

In Roberts' discussion of the case of "Baby T", in my opinion, Roberts failed to fully discuss Ms. Olson's substance abuse problems and their role in the case. In Roberts' discussion of the mother who left her children in a shelter while she left and used substances, Roberts fails to discuss issues such as whether or not the children should have been living with their mother while she was in rehabilitation, or whether the mother really left the program shelter without the intention to relapse. Early on in substance abuse treatment, avoiding people, places, and things associated with substance use is stressed and stressed as the key to sobriety. Thus, leaving the shelter to place herself at risk for relapse raises larger questions about her motivated commitment to sobriety. Further, that she was homeless and using substances to the neglect of her children isn't discussed as legitimate grounds to remove her children from her care either.!

It has been my experience that many parents do experience discrimination in the Child Protective Services system. That the number is large is not in doubt to me; however, when other factors, substance abuse in particular, come into play, I think neglect charges are far more serious. I think Roberts would argue that White parents do not have to struggle with the temptation to use substances to cope with helplessness and hopelessness, and that when White parents do use substances, their use may be assumed to be "recreational" before "abuse" is considered. I agree. However, I think this is a disservice to the White children in the system, and not an unfair edge White parents receive that is denied to Black parents.

Roberts pays special attention to the role of psychologists in child protective matters. She states that some psychologists recommend against returning a child to the biological home in 93% of the cases they see. She also raises concerns that psychological evaluations of parents involved in child protective matters is a kind of "money making business" with evaluations recommending "no change" to the case followed by "re-evaluation in one year." Roberts argues Psychological Evaluations were especially harmful, as parents with "normal" problems are pathologized, and "core" personality pathology is not separated from distress resulting from the family break-up. She also notes internal investigations that found workers classified psychologists as "pro-" or "anti-" parent, and referred cases to them to obtain professional opinions matching their own. She states such psychologists can be hired to search for n! egative information about a Black parent, looking until they find it.

As a psychologist who used to perform evaluations for Child Protective Services (DCFS here in Illinois), I have to note concern over Roberts' point here. On the one hand, this is something I and other psychologists suspected. We tried to maintain a neutral view of the cases that came to us to compensate for this, but sometimes this was very difficult to do when the concerns of courts, attorneys, and caseworkers all serve to limit your access to information about the case.

On the other hand, after a while, this kind of situation becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. If workers perceive a psychologist to more frequently recommend Termination of Parental Rights, they are more likely over time to send chronic and severe cases to the psychologist. Thus, their perception that the psychologist is more likely to take a strict approach to the case becomes confirmed and strengthened over time, as does the psychologist's tendency to take a harsh stance. They continue to selectively refer cases to that psychologist, and then a review of the cases sent to the psychologist will very likely show a high number of harsh recommendations. Likewise, if workers perceive a psychologist is more "pro-family" they will refer better functioning families to this psychologist to maximize the chances of a recommendation for reunification of the family. Over time, this happens more and more, the worker and psychologists are reinforced for their actions, and a l! ater examination of this psychologist's "record" would be similarly highly positive.

However, Roberts points out that, nationwide, 47% of abuse and neglect charges are reported by non-professionals. Thus, the bias of psychologists, caseworkers, and judges is not the only bias. Many in the general population hold the view that parents should be able to financially support their children, and provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter. However, she notes that this ignores issues of social disparity, and places all blame upon the parents, rather than the structures of society at large that support continued poverty.

Beyond Poverty

Even when families are involved in the Child Protective Services system for reasons other than poverty, things remain pretty much the same. Roberts notes that caseworkers are required to perform less paperwork, home visits, and service reviews when the child is placed in a non-relative foster placement. Where the agency is ordered by the courts to perform "reasonable efforts" to provide for the reunification of the child with family (and Roberts reports that agencies are not required to do this in some states, such as Alabama), legitimate efforts are often thwarted by lack of funding, unavailable services, and judges that are willing to accept this. For example, substance abuse services are provided for only 31% of parents who need them, and only 20% of pregnant women who need them, according to a Columbia University study. Further, only 10% of caseworkers are able to place parents who receive treatment in a program within 30 days of child protection interventio! n, according to the Child Welfare League of the America. She further notes that many treatment programs base their models on treatment on men, and give little thought to the different treatment needs of women, who often have children to care for, as well as histories of sexual abuse or assault that complicate their efforts to remain sober.

While this goes on, children are placed in foster care. The biological parents often go through psychological evaluations and bonding assessments to assess their adequacy and relationship to the child, but foster parents seldom do. While some might argue that foster homes are more likely to be healthy homes run by well-adjusted adults, Roberts notes that children in foster care are sexually abused four times more frequently than children in the general population, according to a Baltimore study. Children in group homes in Indiana are 10 times more likely to be physically abused, and 28 times more likely be sexually abused. Another study showed that children were twice as likely to die at the hands of a foster parent than a biological parent.

Further, the availability of foster and adoptive parents does not match the needs of foster children. Roberts reports that there were 568,000 children in foster care in 1999. Of those, 15% had been there for three to four years, 18% had been there for more than five years, and 117,000 were waiting for adoption. Even were adoptive parents available for every child, studies of foster children reveal that 59% do not want to be adopted, especially once they reach their teen years. This often leads to additional problems, such as adolescent acting out due to deliberate efforts to communicate their dislike, or due to conflicted emotions and "loyalties" around ending the tie to one parent to formalize the tie to another parent. Even when adoptive parents are available, and children do wish to be adopted, 15-25% of foster parents change their mind before the adoption paperwork is completed, causing additional emotional hardship for the children.

Many times, adoption by non-relatives is sought by the State because adoption by relatives is not available. However one study of kinship adoptions indicated that 85% of relative foster parents were willing to maintain guardianship of their foster child indefinitely. However, they did not wish to formally adopt the child so as to "leave the door open" for the biological parent to eventually resume these responsibilities. As a result, these relative guardianship placements have to be abandoned in order to find non-relative adoptive placements.

The Problem with Welfare

Roberts discusses in detail the financial consequences of the system, and states clearly that it costs the State more money to remove the child from the biological family and place the child in non-relative foster care. She cites a 1998 study in Michigan by the Auditor General revealing that yearly preservation efforts cost $4,400 per child, whereas foster care costs $12,400 per child. Where institutionalization is required, the State can expect to spend $56,200 per year per child. A study by the General Accounting Office revealed that the nation spent 40 cents per child in foster care in 1983, and $1 per child in foster care in 1993. However, the nation continue to spend about 12 cents per child on welfare.

Robert reports that in 1931, only 3% of mothers involved in welfare were Black. In the 1950s, many Blacks were excluded from receiving welfare in some southern states, or received significantly smaller benefits. By 1961, an application for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits often lead to a report to Child Protective Services. By 1967, many welfare services required low-paying work, like housecleaning, manual labor, and child care.

Roberts notes that this finding is an exceptional case of irony. Parents our society typically finds unfit to care for their own children are paid to care for other people's children. However, currently, 80% of for-profit childcare chains hire welfare recipients to provide childcare, with entry jobs paying $10,000 a year, and the average worker earning $13,000 or less per year. Similarly, Robert cites the case of the 64-year-old grandmother who took over responsibility to care for her three-year-old grandson after his mother's death. Welfare benefits ran out when the boy reached age 8, and so the grandmother, at age 69, was expected to obtain employment, support herself and her grandson on a fixed income, or turn over custody of her grandson to the State. Roberts cites another case in Mississippi of a woman who cared for ill mother and brother. She was unable to maintain 30 hours of employment a week, lost the $435 of benefits among she received, and her children were pla! ced in foster care. The State paid the foster family $510 a month to care for her children. Robert cites another case in California in 1996. At that time, two children, ages 8 and 16, would warrant $859 a month in support from the State in foster care, but only $479 a month in support from the State as part of AFDC.

While some might argue that a requirement of work to receive these kinds of benefits is reasonable, a New York Times article reported that in Mississippi, the number of families dropped from the Welfare for Work program outnumbered the ones who received work by a factor of 2 to 1. In Milwaukee, when work requirements replaced cash assistance, food banks had a 30% increase in need, homeless shelters reached capacity, and infant mortality in the Black community increased by 40%. Similarly, after similar changes in New York, homeless shelters rose to provide accommodations for over 25,000 occupants, their highest level since the 1980s, and soup kitchens experienced a 20% increase. The study in Mississippi showed that those who were able to obtain employment through such a program on average earned $6.75 an hour, hardly enough to support a family. In Illinois, of the 40% of those who were able to earn sufficient income to no longer qualify for services, only 27% were minoriti! es. As a result, such programs do little to actually end poverty.

Thus, some of those who are able to receive the limited assistance offered may be able to improve their lot in life. However, those who are not tend to fall deeper into poverty. Several studies showed that "graduating" from welfare and work programs tripled the risk for Child Protective Services intervention. A California study found that in one county, being cut from welfare benefits triggered a report and home visit by a Child Protective worker. Roberts cites an eight-year study that showed that states that allowed families to simply be dropped from welfare rolls experienced a 21% increase in substantiated cases of maltreatment. However, of states that supported a 10% increase in benefits, most saw a 32% decrease in the number of reported cases of neglect, and an 8% decrease in the number of children removed from biological homes.

Roberts ties welfare reform to child abuse reports more directly, based on a number of studies from across the nation. A study in Los Angeles revealed that when AFDC benefits decreased by 2.7%, reports of neglect and abuse increased by 12%. Later, following a 5.8% decrease in funding, neglect and malnutrition reports increased by 20%, constituting a 10% increase in the number of cases reported to Child Protective Services.

Harm of ASFA

Roberts devotes considerable attention to the Adoption and Save Family's Act of 1997 (ASFA), which pressures courts and agencies to terminate parental rights and place children in adoptive homes more quickly (within 22 months of entry into the Child Protection System). Roberts reports of one case in which a judge terminated a parent's rights within this 22 month period because of the failure of the parent to make progress. However, the delay in the case of this parent was mostly due to the State, as the court hearing had been delayed three times at the State's request. A second judge overturned this termination of parental rights, and the State appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Roberts notes this law purports to place the child's needs first, but assumes that adoption is in the best interest of the child. She notes that Termination of Parental Rights increased by 33% in New York in the year following ASFA, and increased by a factor of five in the four years following ASFA in Cook County, Illinois, from 958 to 3,743 cases of terminated parental rights per year. This would mean that three of five parents involved in the Child Protective Services system eventually lost their parental rights. Roberts notes this is in direct contradiction to the pattern seen in divorce cases. She notes that 15% of divorced fathers suffer from psychiatric illness, and 25% have children who "moderately or intensely" fear their fathers. Roberts says that 40% of these fathers have relationships with their children that are "profoundly troubled." She notes, however, that the rights of these fathers are protected.

Roberts' criticism of the behavior of courts in divorce cases in protecting the rights of fathers would be seen as "misinformed" at best by many fathers' rights advocates. Many advocates would note in reply that many of these fathers suffer from troubled relationships with their children as the result of the behavior of angry and vengeful mothers, insensitive courts that interfered in father-child contact, and a bias against them including doubt as to whether they were even necessary to a child's healthy development. Further, for many of these fathers, the disruption of their marriage, family, and home, coupled with the assault to their self-esteem and identity, are the cause of their stress-related illness. Many advocates would question whether the courts really protect the right of fathers, and whether the only fathers who are able to see their rights protected are the ones with substantial financial power. In short, I do not believe her analogy of th! e rights divorced fathers is very accurate.

Further, in her criticism of ASFA, Roberts makes no mention of the cases that are "held open" while parents do have years to cease substance abuse, obtain employment, and maintain stable housing. In these cases, parents are often unable to maintain even six months of sobriety, and as a result see the child for extended periods of time and then drop out of the child's life altogether for extended periods of time. Some research indicates that this kind of "wavering commitment" to parenting is especially harmful to the children's attachments. Thus, while the law may or may not help all families, Roberts' gives no indication that any families may be helped by it. In my practice I saw family cases that had been open for seven years. Some were held open for reasons I never understood, aside from each evaluation indicating the case should simply continue as before and be re-evaluated in a year. For some, the parent was never able to "pull it together" but for others they eventually were. Thus, a determination of whether or not the law was helpful to a majority of families would require more review of the data.

The Role of Prisons
Roberts discusses the role of prisons by noting that the US has the largest prison system in the world, housing 25% of the world's prisoners, while the US comprises only 5% of the world's population. Further, half the population in jail is Black. Put another way, one study found that in some areas of the United States, 33% of Black men can expect to be incarcerated at some point in their life, while only 4% of White men can expect the same. Roberts explains that maltreatment of a child increase their likelihood of a teen or adult arrest by 53%.

Two points deserve mention, Roberts explains. First, poverty impacts parenting. Low-paying jobs often required evening hours, and so poor parents are less able to supervise their children in evening. Coupled with a greater likelihood of living in crime-ridden neighborhood when poor, children of poor parents are more likely to be exposed to criminal elements. If parents are able to go to the police station or attend a hearing, arrested teens are often released, or at least avoid prolonged detention. However, poor parents may be unable to attend due to work obligations. In these cases, studies like one conducted in Los Angeles found that Asian teens were three times more likely, Hispanic teens were six times more likely, and Black teens were twelve times more likely than Whites to be sent to an adult court.

Foster care appears to make this worse. When a minority child has been placed in three or more foster homes, his risk for incarceration almost doubles, but the number of foster home placements does not increase this same risk for a White child. Further, Roberts reports that 4% of teens not in the Child Protective Services system are arrested at home. On the other hand, 36% of teens in the Child Protective Services system are arrested at the foster home, and 55% are arrested at the group home. In Illinois, 80% of inmates spent time in foster care. Further, 46% of teens who "age out" of foster care do not complete high school, 51% remain unemployed for two to four years afterward, and 25% are homeless at least one night of the year following their release from foster care. Thus, there is great disparity in the arrest, treatment, and incarceration of minority youth, and being in a foster or group home would appear to increase a youth's risk for arrest.

Second, 2% of children nationwide have a parent currently in prison (7% of Black children), and half of incarcerated parents lived with their children prior to incarceration. Further, from 1985 to 1995 there was a 200% increase in the number of Black women in prison. Of these, one in three was the sole supporter of their children, compared to only 4% for White mothers. After release from prison, formerly incarcerated Black men earn 10-30% less than never-incarcerated Black men. Thus, incarceration of Black parents destabilizes the Black family.

Summary

At the end of the book, Roberts begins to tie it all together in a different way. She discusses a lawsuit in New York in which it was argued that the Child Protective System was so badly operated that racism was irrelevant; rather, the considerable harm done to every child was more important than the preferential treatment of some children. She uses this case as an example to change the focus from any specific case in the system, to the overall impact of the system as a whole.

Roberts explains that prisons disrupt Black families, as well as Black communities by robbing Black people of basic rights such as voting. She notes 13 states deny voting rights to people convicted of felonies, and so in some areas of the country, 1 in 3 Black men can not vote. Roberts explains that the vast majority of Child Protective Service interventions in Chicago are concentrated in the poorest two zip codes, meaning whole communities have been disrupted. Roberts explains that media and political stereotypes depict Black women as "welfare queens" with too many children to support, and Black men as "absent fathers" who have grown up to be violent and sell drugs. Such stereotypes dissuade government and the general population from investing adequately into programs that effectively help the underprivileged and poor. Roberts explains that foster care and adoption creates a new set of problems and risks, while generally failing to correct th! e woes it was designed for.

The summative impact of this is the destruction of the Black community and culture. Roberts draws upon similar issues in the Native American population. Caseworkers would remove "poor Indian children" from reservations and place them with White families, and would argue the primary reason for removal from the home was the neglect resulting from poverty. However, this effectively removed 25-35% of Native American children from their biological, cultural, religious, and spiritual roots, effectively decimating some tribes. As one chief put it in his testimony to Congress:

"Culturally, the chances of Indian survival are significantly reduced if our children, the only real means of transmission of tribal heritage, are to be raised in non-Indian homes and denied exposure to the ways of their People…. These practices seriously undercut the tribes' ability to continue as self-governing communities."
Roberts links this to the same experience in Australia where Aboriginal children were similarly separated from their tribes as part of a national campaign that did not end until the 1960s, helping to destroy the Aboriginal culture. As a result, many of the children removed from their people showed serious emotional problems, and felt great pain after the separation from their cultural and family.

Roberts acknowledges that there are some significant differences between Black Americans and these cases, but also that there are considerable and striking similarities. She argues that the Black community is similarly unable to govern itself, unable to transmit a culture to its children, and that many of the problems is experiences are the result of intrusion into the Black community.

In all honesty, had she made these arguments at the start of the book, I would not have understood her reasoning. However, after she laid out the short-term as well as the "big picture" impact of these factors, her link to Native American and Aboriginal children made immediate sense. She acknowledges most may not see it this way, as Black people are not recognized as a separate group like Aboriginal or Native American children due to the "melting pot" philosophy of America. Further, the media images that constantly impress us with stereotypes and biases does not present the social forces that shape the problem, making us see individuals as having far more responsibility and control over all this than they actually have.

Roberts makes several suggestions at the end of the book worth noting:

•She suggests first that decreasing poverty by increasing the minimum wage would help struggles families get further out of poverty, and make welfare to work strategies more impactful.
•National healthcare coverage would prevent medical neglect in many cases by making adequate healthcare options available to everyone.
•Increased social care programs, from childcare programs for working women to improved educational systems, to paid parental leave would all strengthen families.
•Increased quality of housing would help improve neighborhoods, supervision of children, and the general environment in which children were raised.
•Culturally competent social work that was answerable to the community for support of family preservation could allow the community to govern itself to improve its plight and its family stability.
•Changing the Child Protection Services mentality of punishment to one of support would offer families more options and naturally foster family preservation.
•Finally, specifying what constituted abuse and criminalizing only those behaviors while decriminalizing neglect would help place the law and courts in their proper place, and avoid splitting up many families to start with.

These suggestions are noble, and do have research behind them to support their effectiveness. Primarily, decreasing poverty of individuals and strengthening communities to govern their own would appear to be able to change the bigger picture. However, part of that bigger picture means, as a society, defining exactly what abuse is, deciding whether splitting up families against their will is something we will do, and determining under what conditions we will allow reunification of split families. These might seem simple, but where responsibility for problems lie, what makes for appropriate use of corporal punishment, who can and can not raise a child on their own, what makes for a family… are all intertwined with this. And as a society, we have not only failed to define most of these clearly, we have avoided doing so for fear of the Pandora's Box it will open.