Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together:

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va. 22314
(703) 212-2006 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org

THE EVIDENCE IS IN
Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together:
The Definitive Studies

NCCPR long has argued that many children now trapped in foster care would be far better off if they had remained with their own families and those families had been given the right kinds of help.

Turns out that’s not quite right.

In fact, many children now trapped in foster care would be far better off if they remained with their own families even if those families got only the typical help (which tends to be little help, wrong help, or no help) commonly offered by child welfare agencies.

That’s the message from the largest studies ever undertaken to compare the impact on children of foster care versus keeping comparably maltreated children with their own families. The study was the subject of a front-page story in USA Today. The full study is available here.

The first study, published in 2007, looked at outcomes for more than 15,000 children. It compared foster children not to the general population but to comparably-maltreated children left in their own homes. The result: On measure after measure the children left in their own homes do better.

In fact, it’s not even close.

Children left in their own homes are far less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, far less likely to wind up in the juvenile justice system and far more likely to hold a job for at least three months than comparably maltreated children who were placed in foster care.

One year later, the same researcher published another study, this time of 23,000 cases. Again he compared foster children to comparably-maltreated children left in their own homes. This time he looked at which children were more likely to be arrested as adults. Once again, the children left in their own homes fared better than the foster children.

Implications

● The studies use the term “foster care” generically; they include children placed in any form of substitute care. That’s important because whenever information like this comes out, people who want to warehouse children in orphanages try to use it to justify their schemes. But these studies were not limited to family foster homes. And it takes three single-spaced pages just to list all the other studies documenting the harm of orphanages. (Those pages are available from NCCPR.)

● This does not mean that no child ever should be placed in foster care. But it means many fewer children should be placed in foster care.

The studies excluded the most severe cases of maltreatment, a very small proportion of any child protective worker’s caseload, precisely because, horror stories that make the front page notwithstanding, these are cases where everyone with time to investigate would agree that removal from the home was the only alternative.

Rather, the studies focused on, by far, the largest group of cases any worker sees, those that can best be called the “in-between cases” where the parent is neither all victim nor all villain; cases where there are real problems in the home, but wide disagreement over what should be done. As the first study itself notes: “These are the cases most likely to be affected by policy changes that alter the threshold for placement.” They also, are, of course, the cases most likely to be affected by a foster-care panic – which also alters the threshold for placement.

Even among these cases, the figures are averages. Certainly there are some individual cases among the thousands studied in which foster care was the less harmful alternative. But what the data make clear is that foster care is vastly overused, damaging large numbers of children who would do better in life had they remained in their own homes, even with the minimal help most child welfare agencies offer to families.

This says less about how well child protection agencies do in helping families than it does about how enormously toxic a foster care intervention is. Anything that toxic must be used very sparingly and in very small doses.

● Child welfare agencies have a disingenuous response to all this: “Why yes, of course,” they like to say. “This research just shows what we’ve always said ourselves: foster care only should be used as a last resort; of course we keep families together whenever possible.” But this research shows that agency actions belie their words. These studies found thousands of children already in foster care who would have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in the first place.

● The USA Today story quotes one deservedly well-respected expert as saying that the 2007 study was the first to produce such results. But that is an error. Actually it was at least the second since 2006. A University of Minnesota study used a different methodology and measured different outcomes, but came to very similar conclusions.

● Though the USA Today story says other “studies” go the other way, the one cited, with less than 1/100th the sample size of the new studies, a shorter duration and at least one other serious flaw (omitting foster children in care for less than six months) is the only one we know of. And that study focused on reunification, not on children never removed in the first place.

And, of course, that study also compared foster care only to typical “help” for families in their own homes, which generally is little or nothing. Providing the kinds of real help NCCPR recommends (See Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right) would likely change the result and, in the case of the three more recent and more rigorous studies, create an even wider gap in outcomes favoring keeping families together.

● Perhaps most intriguing, these studies suggest it actually may be possible to quantify the harm of a foster-care panic, a huge, sudden upsurge in needless removals after the death of a child “known to the system” gets extensive news coverage.

Thanks to these studies, we now have an estimate of how much worse foster children do on key outcomes compared with comparably-maltreated children left in their own homes. It’s also usually possible to calculate how many more children are taken away during a foster-care panic. So it should be possible to estimate how many more children will wind up under arrest, how many more will become pregnant and how many more will be jobless as a result of a foster-care panic.

It also should be possible to estimate roughly how many children have been saved from these rotten outcomes in states and localities that have reformed their systems to emphasize safe, proven programs to keep families together.

These new studies and the Minnesota study are in addition to the comprehensive study of foster care alumni showing that only one in five could be said to be doing well as a young adult – in other words, foster care churns out walking wounded four times out of five. (See NCCPR’s publication 80 Percent Failure for more on this study) and the mass of evidence showing that simply in terms of physical safety, real family preservation programs have a far better track record than foster care. (See NCCPR Issue Paper #1.)

The buzzword in child welfare is “evidence-based.” What that really means is: How dare proponents of any new, innovative approach to child welfare expect to get funding if they can’t dot every i and cross every t on evaluations proving the innovation’s efficacy beyond a shadow of a doubt? Old, non-innovative programs, however, are not held to this standard. If they were, child welfare would be turned upside down by the results of this new research.

Because now, more than ever, the evidence is in.
Updated June 3, 2009

Missing Child-Kidnapped by DCYF

This is our grandson, Austin Knightly. He was kidnapped by Nashua, NH DCYF on February 3rd, 2006.If anyone see's him, please tell him we did NOT abandon him. That we are and always will be fighting for his safe return.
Austin, if you come across this message, please know we love you and always will. We will never give up. We know how much you want to be with us and don't ever forget how much we love you and want you with us. WE DID NOT ABANDON YOU!!!!!!!!!! WE WANT YOU MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE!!!!!! Don't believe DCYF's lies!
You have been kept from us due to the lies and deceit of DCYF, not because we don't you. The agency you have always known to steal kids from their families. We will always be here for you. Please don't forget us. We will never forget you, or the happy little boy you once were. We still live in the same place, so you know where to find us. Love Alway's, Grampie, Grammie and your puppy Belle.

Bring Austin Home-Stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF

Please check out Austin's video and see how happy he once was until his kidnapping by DCYF in Nashua, NH. Then see what the state of NH has done to him. He's now doped up on adderal to calm his violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced until he was stolen from his family. This is what DCYF/CPS does to our innocent children! It's too late for DCYF reform. Abolishment is the only answer.

The picture of Austin on the left was taken at his grandparents house, where he was alway's happy.
The picture on the right was taken at the children's home AKA orphanage, where he was placed after he tried to hang himself. Not the happy little boy we once knew.

Check out Austin's doped up picture at the bottom of the page. He chose this picture to send us. Was he trying to tell us something? He's smarter than they think he is!
Please check out Austin's you tube video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0yPZQGKp0

Time for a Change in Family Court-NH

Nashua Telegraph Letter to the Editor

There were many letters in response to the news about the Bills Of Address to Remove Judge Lucinda Sadler and Marital Master Philip Cross.

The bills resulted from many Petitions For Redress Of Grievance brought by citizens who felt totally violated by their experience in Family Court.

This is very important for the voters in Nashua. When the citizens right to file petitions went before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. David Cote, D-Nashua, and Rep. Betty Lasky, D-Nashua, now a state senator, voted to kill the bill.

Democrats and Republicans are harmed by the corrupt courts. I don’t understand why the Democratic House leadership wishes to back the corruption which harms all people from both parties.

To add insult to injury, after the Bill of Address to Remove Master Cross was introduced, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge John Broderick, created a new Judicial Ethics Council and placed Cross on it.

Not only is the leadership of our judicial branch aware of the corruption, he’s part of the problem.

As a result of 22 surveys at 11 locations by the Citizens Commission to study the problems with the courts, there were more than three times as many complaints about the Family Division than all other courts combined. The nature of the complaints prove absolute incompetence by the leadership.

David Johnson
Derry

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Opinion/Letters/447346-263/time-for-a-changein-family-court.html

New California Legislation-Parental Due Process Act

Let's Hope all Other States Join in this Effort!


CA State Senate
State of CA There is currently an effort in the State of California to have the model legislation (below) passed in an effort to ensure Parental Due Process in the Juvenile Dependency Courts.

The model legislation was written by a team of attorneys at Pacific Justice Institute http://www.pacificjustice.org/ in Sacramento California.

Anyone wishing to get involved and/or support this legislation please contact Greg Smart at cpsvictim@gmail.com

Model State Legislation

Parental Due Process Act

Model State Legislation


A BILL
To protect the fundamental due process rights of a parent in proceedings to terminate parental rights.


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This shall be cited as the “Parental Due Process Act.”

SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- the legislature finds that--
(1) Parental rights are so fundamental to the human condition so as to be deemed inalienable. Termination of parental rights equals or exceeds the detriment of criminal sanctions.
(2) The “liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
(3) State and local family services, child protective agencies, and courts have not recognized the rights of parents as inalienable, and, as a result, have failed to provide fundamental due process rights in the investigation and legal proceedings to determine abuse, neglect, and the termination of parental rights.
(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to provide core fundamental due process rights to parents whose parental rights are subject to termination.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) “Hearing” means any judicial or administrative hearing;
(2) “law enforcement officer” means an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position, or serving as a probation or pretrial services officer;
(3) “agency” means any state or local government;
(4) “Duress” consists of:
a. Unlawful confinement of the person of the party, or of the husband or wife of such party, or of an ancestor, descendant, or adopted child of such party, husband, or wife;
b. Unlawful detention of the property of any such person; or,
c. Confinement of such person, lawful in form, but fraudulently
obtained, or fraudulently made unjustly harassing or oppressive.
(5) “Actual fraud” consists of any of the following acts, committed by a party, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into an agreement or to rely upon it to his detriment:
a. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one
who does not believe it to be true;
b. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the
information of the person making it, of that which is not true,
though he believes it to be true;
c. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge
or belief of the fact;
d. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
e. Any other act fitted to deceive.
(4) “Undue influence” consists of:
a. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another,
or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such
confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair
advantage over him;
b. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
c. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.
(5) “Malice" means conduct that is intended by the person to cause injury or despicable conduct that is carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others;
(6) “Emergency” means exigent circumstances in which immediate action is required to prevent the imminent physical injury or death of a child.
SECTION 4. HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
(a) Upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to have proceedings open to the public shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:
(1) any hearing for the purpose of terminating parental rights;
(2) any hearing for the purpose of determining if a child is or has been deprived.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a judge may, upon consideration of written motion and papers filed in opposition, exclude the public if it is determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the safety of the child would be in jeopardy by a public hearing.
If the public is excluded from the hearing, the following people may attend the
closed hearing unless the judge finds it is not in the best interests of the child:
(i) the child's relatives;
(ii) the child's foster parents, if the child resides in foster care; and,
(iii) any person requested by the parent.

SECTION 5. TRIAL BY JURY.
Upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to a trial by jury shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:
(1) any hearing to terminate parental rights;
(2) any hearing to determine if a child is or has been deprived.

SECTION 6. RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/MORAL/ETHNIC VALUES AND BELIEFS OF PARENTS

In placing the legal custody or guardianship of a child with an individual or a private agency, a court shall take into consideration the religious, cultural, moral and ethnic values of the child or of his/her parents, if such values are known or ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care.

SECTION 7. ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS

Except in the case of an emergency, any law enforcement officer, agent or employee for a state’s health and welfare department or child protective services, or mental health professional, who interviews a child for the purposes of investigation, shall electronically and/or digitally cause to be made an audio and visual recording of all questioning of, and interviews with, children. All recordings made pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made available to the parent, guardian or custodian of a child not later than ten days prior to any hearing to terminate parental rights or to determine if a child is or has been deprived.


SECTION 8. EVIDENCE IN FACT-FINDING HEARINGS

(a) Only evidence that is competent, material and relevant may be admitted in a
fact-finding hearing.
(b) Any determination at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing that
a respondent did an act or acts must be based on proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. For this purpose, an uncorroborated confession made
out of court by a respondent is not sufficient.



SECTION 9. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
(a) In that removal of a child from a home for even brief periods is an extreme hardship on families, upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to a speedy trial shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:
(1) any hearing to terminate parental rights;
(2) any hearing to determine if a child is or has been deprived.
(b) A hearing, as described in subsection a, shall be conducted within thirty days of any type of removal of a child. In the event that the thirtieth day falls on a legal holiday or other day when the court is not in session, the hearing shall be conducted prior to the thirtieth day. In no event shall a hearing be conducted beyond the thirtieth day after the removal of a child if the right to a speedy trial has been exercised.
SECTION 10. WAIVER OF RIGHTS
The rights of a parent or guardian as described in this Act cannot be waived, neither can parental rights be terminated, if said waiver is due to:
(1) mistake;
(2) fraud;
(3) undue influence; or
(4) duress.

SECTION 11. IMMUNITY

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, agents or employees of a health and welfare department or child protective services or law enforcement official authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings shall not extend to any of the following:
(1) Perjury;
(2) Fabrication of evidence;
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence;
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, fraud, or undue influence.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any prosecutor, investigator, agent or employee of a state’s health and welfare department or child protective services who induces a parent to waive any of his or her rights under this Act by
(1) fraud;
(2) undue influence; or
(3) duress shall be subject to civil liability.


SECTION 12. DAMAGES
In the case of a determination by a court or jury of any violation of a parent’s rights under this Act, damages shall be presumed.
SECTION 13. ATTORNEYS FEES

Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c)) (concerning the award of attorney's and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended under this Act.

SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

Organized Crime Operating in the Child Protection System

Please check out this link about Child Protective Services:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3054729/ORGANIZED-CRIME-OPERATING-IN-THE-CHILD-PROTECTION-SYSTEM

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,