KAREN ZRAICK and AL BAKER
Published: December 7, 2009
A child protection specialist was fatally shot in the head outside her Bronx home early on Monday as she prepared to take her two young daughters to elementary school, the police and neighbors said.
Michael Appleton for The New York Times
Lakisha Scriven, 30, was shot outside her home on Furman Avenue in the Wakefield section of the Bronx while she was putting her daughters, 5 and 8, in her vehicle to take them to school.
“I was getting ready to leave home and I heard the kids screaming,” said a neighbor, Pearl Rogers, 72. “She was saying, ‘Mommy! Mommy!’ It will never get out of my mind, the way that kid was screaming. It just hurt my heart.”
The victim, Lakisha Scriven, 30, appeared to have been the intended target of the gunman, who fired at close range at about 7:15 a.m., according to a law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing. She was shot once in the back of the head and pronounced dead at Jacobi Medical Center an hour and a half hour later.
The police had not named any suspects as of Monday night. Detectives were speaking with Ms. Scriven’s companion, Clarence White, the father of the two girls, ages 5 and 8, the law enforcement official said. The couple had been living together in an apartment on Furman Avenue, but Ms. Scriven asked Mr. White to leave after a dispute on Friday, the official added. They had planned to share child care duties, with Ms. Scriven dropping the girls off at school and Mr. White picking them up. Monday was to be the first day of the new arrangement.
Ms. Scriven worked in a Bronx office of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services. She had been employed there about four years and was promoted to a supervisory position in 2007, the agency said in a statement.
“Her bubbly love of life has been mentioned by all who knew her,” John Mattingly, the agency’s commissioner, wrote in an e-mail message to the staff on Monday afternoon.
Ms. Scriven was “a hard-working advocate on behalf of the children of New York City,” he wrote. “She spent time in all the Bronx sites because staff knew she could go into a new unit and pick up responsibilities with enthusiasm and competence.”
Neighbors said Ms. Scriven had lived on the block with her daughters for about five years.
“She was a good mother,” said Gloria Garrett, 58, whose grandson is a cousin of Ms. Scriven’s. “She was always with her two little girls.”
Another neighbor, Maria Santacruz, 37, said she worried about the long-term effects of such a traumatic event on Ms. Scriven’s daughters.
“They’re very sweet girls,” she said. “This is something they’re never going to forget, to see their mother killed that way.”
Julie Bosman and Mathew R. Warren contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/nyregion/08mother.html?_r=2
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Barbaric’ family courts behind state sponsored kidnap’ -Sound Familiar?
Barbaric’ family courts behind ‘state sponsored kidnap’ – Bob Geldof
Bob Geldof has launched an outspoken attack on the family courts system accusing it of routinely allowing “state sponsored kidnap” of vulnerable children.
By John Bingham
Published: 4:56PM GMT 07 Dec 2009
Bob Geldof Photo: Stephen Lock The singer and anti-poverty campaigner described the current child custody laws as “barbaric and abusive” and dismissed the system as a “disgraceful mess”.
He claimed that children’s futures are being decided on the basis of “mumbo jumbo” and “social engineering” with devastating long-term consequences for society.
Related Articles
Judge condemns councils for funding row that left foster parents with 'poison fruit'
Mother taken to court for refusing to allow daughter to have swine flu vaccination
Family courts prepare to open doors Mr Geldof, who fought for custody of his three daughters from his former wife Paula Yates, also alleged that British courts “consistently” show bias against men by handing custody to mothers.
His comments come in the foreword to a new report which draws together a clutch of recent research on the psychological effects of break-up on children.
The paper, published by The Custody Minefield, an internet legal advice service, and supported by Families Need fathers, the campaign group, calls for a change in the law on relocation cases in which separated parents apply for permission to move elsewhere.
It calls for the current guidelines to be changed to include an explicit ban on decisions favouring mothers on grounds of gender.
The report lists a raft of academic research which it says shows that children with no paternal influence are more likely to have behavioural problems, lower exam results, mental health problems, and even lower IQs.
It follows a recent study which found that up to a third of children whose parents separate lost touch with their father permanently.
“In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act,” wrote Mr Geldof.
“It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child ‘care’ agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.”
He described the system as: "A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psychobabble.
“Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.”
In a reference to the famed wisdom of the Biblical King Solomon, he added: “Rather than Solomon-like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.”
Presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of a baby, Solomon is said to have suggested cutting the child in half. One of them immediately begged him to give the baby to her rival, demonstrating that she was the true mother.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.
"That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust. We have also increased access to out of court family mediation by putting information about divorce, relationship breakdown and the family courts, and a link to the Family Mediation Helpline website, on the DirectGov website.
"It is for the court to consider the evidence put before them in each individual case. However, the child's welfare will always be the court's paramount consideration."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6753273/Barbaric-family-courts-behind-state-sponsored-kidnap---Bob-Geldof.html
Bob Geldof has launched an outspoken attack on the family courts system accusing it of routinely allowing “state sponsored kidnap” of vulnerable children.
By John Bingham
Published: 4:56PM GMT 07 Dec 2009
Bob Geldof Photo: Stephen Lock The singer and anti-poverty campaigner described the current child custody laws as “barbaric and abusive” and dismissed the system as a “disgraceful mess”.
He claimed that children’s futures are being decided on the basis of “mumbo jumbo” and “social engineering” with devastating long-term consequences for society.
Related Articles
Judge condemns councils for funding row that left foster parents with 'poison fruit'
Mother taken to court for refusing to allow daughter to have swine flu vaccination
Family courts prepare to open doors Mr Geldof, who fought for custody of his three daughters from his former wife Paula Yates, also alleged that British courts “consistently” show bias against men by handing custody to mothers.
His comments come in the foreword to a new report which draws together a clutch of recent research on the psychological effects of break-up on children.
The paper, published by The Custody Minefield, an internet legal advice service, and supported by Families Need fathers, the campaign group, calls for a change in the law on relocation cases in which separated parents apply for permission to move elsewhere.
It calls for the current guidelines to be changed to include an explicit ban on decisions favouring mothers on grounds of gender.
The report lists a raft of academic research which it says shows that children with no paternal influence are more likely to have behavioural problems, lower exam results, mental health problems, and even lower IQs.
It follows a recent study which found that up to a third of children whose parents separate lost touch with their father permanently.
“In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act,” wrote Mr Geldof.
“It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child ‘care’ agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.”
He described the system as: "A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psychobabble.
“Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.”
In a reference to the famed wisdom of the Biblical King Solomon, he added: “Rather than Solomon-like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.”
Presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of a baby, Solomon is said to have suggested cutting the child in half. One of them immediately begged him to give the baby to her rival, demonstrating that she was the true mother.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.
"That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust. We have also increased access to out of court family mediation by putting information about divorce, relationship breakdown and the family courts, and a link to the Family Mediation Helpline website, on the DirectGov website.
"It is for the court to consider the evidence put before them in each individual case. However, the child's welfare will always be the court's paramount consideration."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6753273/Barbaric-family-courts-behind-state-sponsored-kidnap---Bob-Geldof.html
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Nancy Grace Interview Contributed To Melinda Duckett Suicide, Professor Says
digg Huffpost - Nancy Grace Interview Contributed To Melinda Duckett Suicide, Professor Says
Ocala,Fla. — A Harvard professor says CNN Headline News host Nancy Grace's relentless questioning of a Florida mother three years ago contributed to her suicide, according to a filing in the family's wrongful death case.
Grace launched aggressive nightly coverage of 2-year-old Trenton Duckett's case shortly after he disappeared in 2006, usually with a collection of analysts. When the boy's mother, Melinda Duckett, appeared by telephone two weeks into the case, speculation was beginning to narrow on her possible involvement.
Dr. Harold J. Bursztajn, a clinical professor of psychiatry, wrote in a filing this week. that Grace "struck a highly accusatory tone."
The professor saw "a distraught young woman who is subject to repeated and increasingly sharp questioning by a hostile interviewer who displays increasing suspicion and anger towards Ms. Duckett."
The next day, the 21-year-old Duckett shot herself in the head.
"Her apparently unanticipated public humiliation on the nationally televised program in question was a substantial contributing cause of her suicide," Bursztajn wrote.
The family claims Grace's questioning, along with the network's decision to air the pre-taped interview the day Duckett committed suicide, inflicted severe emotional distress.
Grace and the network have denied any involvement in the suicide, and a CNN spokeswoman declined comment on the filing.
Trenton has still not been found, and Duckett is the only suspect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/nancy-grace-interview-con_n_381846.html
Ocala,Fla. — A Harvard professor says CNN Headline News host Nancy Grace's relentless questioning of a Florida mother three years ago contributed to her suicide, according to a filing in the family's wrongful death case.
Grace launched aggressive nightly coverage of 2-year-old Trenton Duckett's case shortly after he disappeared in 2006, usually with a collection of analysts. When the boy's mother, Melinda Duckett, appeared by telephone two weeks into the case, speculation was beginning to narrow on her possible involvement.
Dr. Harold J. Bursztajn, a clinical professor of psychiatry, wrote in a filing this week. that Grace "struck a highly accusatory tone."
The professor saw "a distraught young woman who is subject to repeated and increasingly sharp questioning by a hostile interviewer who displays increasing suspicion and anger towards Ms. Duckett."
The next day, the 21-year-old Duckett shot herself in the head.
"Her apparently unanticipated public humiliation on the nationally televised program in question was a substantial contributing cause of her suicide," Bursztajn wrote.
The family claims Grace's questioning, along with the network's decision to air the pre-taped interview the day Duckett committed suicide, inflicted severe emotional distress.
Grace and the network have denied any involvement in the suicide, and a CNN spokeswoman declined comment on the filing.
Trenton has still not been found, and Duckett is the only suspect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/nancy-grace-interview-con_n_381846.html
How States Fund Child Abuse
How states fund child abuse By Anne Grant
October 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice
In the 1980s, I was the first woman pastor in a rural corner of Connecticut. Male clergy sometimes sent girls and women to my office when they needed to talk about things they could not tell a man. Until then I had no idea how many children are sexually abused in their own homes. That national nightmare has been reported in three recent films: Searching for Angela Shelton; Small Justice; and Family Court Crisis: Our Children at Risk.
In the 1990s, as executive director of the Women’s Center of Rhode Island, I learned how Family Court exacerbates problems of domestic violence and sexual abuse in the family. When I retired in 2003, I continued researching documents in custody cases that reveal the often-troubling role of guardians ad litem, clinicians, and lawyers at Rhode Island’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and child protection agencies in other states.
Countless frontline DCYF staff do excellent, difficult work, but agency attorneys cause grave damage when they hold private (ex parte) meetings with lawyers defending litigants accused of molesting their own children. The other parent, usually the mother, is lulled into thinking DCYF will protect their children, while lawyers delay and derail critical evidence from reaching the judge.
I tried to show my findings to the Chief Judge of Family Court, the Director of DCYF, the Child Advocate, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and members of the General Assembly. I provided documentation from open court files, clinical reports, bills, and other records showing official abuse.
Most officials deflected the matter. Some blamed the children. A legislator told me, “Children lie all the time.”
DCYF usually seizes children who have been marginalized by poverty and racism, who have few adults with power to protect them. But two years ago, the agency removed two sisters from a town where dozens of people knew the girls and their mother. Even their state representative had noted the delightful way the children and their mother played together and interacted with neighbors at a local recreation spot.
When she was three, the younger girl protested her father’s behavior at home while her mother was at work and her sister at school. She drew graphic pictures and reenacted male masturbation that seldom harmed her body but obsessed her mind. A physician’s assistant phoned the state hotline. DCYF investigated and brought a finding of sexual molestation against the father, who left home.
The girls remained with their mother more than two years and then disappeared into DCYF’s archipelago of foster homes, shelters, and “therapeutic” remedies. People who knew the family sent a barrage of letters and met with state officials to no avail. They contacted me and sought an out-of-state attorney to pursue the case.
My search of court documents showed how a biased DCYF hearing officer had flipped the case in 2004 from a finding of molestation against the father to a charge of “parental alienation” against the mother, whom the hearing officer had never met. Rumors had been spread that the mother, a respected university scientist, had “mental problems.”
Meanwhile the hearing officer, an attorney in pursuit of her own divorce clients, published internet articles urging fathers to fight back against the “pedestal of holy motherhood.”
Under a public records request, I learned that DCYF has no requirement that its hearing officers be either professionally qualified or neutral. Nor does DCYF have procedures to track allegations and findings of sexual molestation.
The guardian ad litem, who is supposed to be unbiased, failed to interview neighbors. Her itemized bill shows that the father paid her thousands of dollars and that she conducted an intensive search for a psychologist willing to accuse the mother of “alienating” the children against him. This is a common legal strategy based on a bogus psychological theory, “parental alienation syndrome,” that was decisively denounced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 2006.
At a cost to tax payers of $30,000 per year per child in the shelter, the girls learned profanity, venting their rage in new ways. Having rarely seen television before, they complained of being forced to watch TV instead of doing the crafts they enjoyed. They could not share a room or eat together.
The younger girl was delivered for lengthy unsupervised visits with their father. After 509 days in state custody, DCYF gave her, at age 7, to his sole care in another state, claiming she had “recanted” her original accusation against him.
The older girl, 11, called it “torture” and was sent into foster care. Before she left the shelter, she drew a large floor plan of their lifelong home, like a prisoner trying to recall cherished details. She gave it to her mother on one of their two-hour weekly visits, closely supervised at a DCYF office, where they are forbidden to speak about anything that matters.
On August 6, 2007, their 487th day in state custody, three weeks before DCYF separated the sisters entirely, the older one made this list:
THINGS TO DO ON OUR 1st DAY HOME
wash clothes so they smell good
run around in back yard
play piano together
play a game
do arts + crafts
flop on our bed
clean car
go for a walk @ the beach
clean house
bake
go to Home Depot to get stuff to build clubhouse
plant in garden
After decades of resistance, our country began to litigate against pedophile priests who targeted children and took sanctuary in the Church. Now State legislators in Rhode Island and elsewhere must take a hard look at their own agencies established to protect children.
In an era when government deals aggressively with pedophiles who prey on other people’s children, we need more rigorous standards and effective responses to the age-old problem of sexual abuse within families.
http://courtwhores.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/p968-wordspphow-states-fund-child-abuseppby-anne-grantppin-1980s-woman-pastor-rural-corner-connecticut-male-clergy-girls-women-office-needed-talk-man-idea-children-sexually-abused-homes-national-night/
October 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice
In the 1980s, I was the first woman pastor in a rural corner of Connecticut. Male clergy sometimes sent girls and women to my office when they needed to talk about things they could not tell a man. Until then I had no idea how many children are sexually abused in their own homes. That national nightmare has been reported in three recent films: Searching for Angela Shelton; Small Justice; and Family Court Crisis: Our Children at Risk.
In the 1990s, as executive director of the Women’s Center of Rhode Island, I learned how Family Court exacerbates problems of domestic violence and sexual abuse in the family. When I retired in 2003, I continued researching documents in custody cases that reveal the often-troubling role of guardians ad litem, clinicians, and lawyers at Rhode Island’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and child protection agencies in other states.
Countless frontline DCYF staff do excellent, difficult work, but agency attorneys cause grave damage when they hold private (ex parte) meetings with lawyers defending litigants accused of molesting their own children. The other parent, usually the mother, is lulled into thinking DCYF will protect their children, while lawyers delay and derail critical evidence from reaching the judge.
I tried to show my findings to the Chief Judge of Family Court, the Director of DCYF, the Child Advocate, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and members of the General Assembly. I provided documentation from open court files, clinical reports, bills, and other records showing official abuse.
Most officials deflected the matter. Some blamed the children. A legislator told me, “Children lie all the time.”
DCYF usually seizes children who have been marginalized by poverty and racism, who have few adults with power to protect them. But two years ago, the agency removed two sisters from a town where dozens of people knew the girls and their mother. Even their state representative had noted the delightful way the children and their mother played together and interacted with neighbors at a local recreation spot.
When she was three, the younger girl protested her father’s behavior at home while her mother was at work and her sister at school. She drew graphic pictures and reenacted male masturbation that seldom harmed her body but obsessed her mind. A physician’s assistant phoned the state hotline. DCYF investigated and brought a finding of sexual molestation against the father, who left home.
The girls remained with their mother more than two years and then disappeared into DCYF’s archipelago of foster homes, shelters, and “therapeutic” remedies. People who knew the family sent a barrage of letters and met with state officials to no avail. They contacted me and sought an out-of-state attorney to pursue the case.
My search of court documents showed how a biased DCYF hearing officer had flipped the case in 2004 from a finding of molestation against the father to a charge of “parental alienation” against the mother, whom the hearing officer had never met. Rumors had been spread that the mother, a respected university scientist, had “mental problems.”
Meanwhile the hearing officer, an attorney in pursuit of her own divorce clients, published internet articles urging fathers to fight back against the “pedestal of holy motherhood.”
Under a public records request, I learned that DCYF has no requirement that its hearing officers be either professionally qualified or neutral. Nor does DCYF have procedures to track allegations and findings of sexual molestation.
The guardian ad litem, who is supposed to be unbiased, failed to interview neighbors. Her itemized bill shows that the father paid her thousands of dollars and that she conducted an intensive search for a psychologist willing to accuse the mother of “alienating” the children against him. This is a common legal strategy based on a bogus psychological theory, “parental alienation syndrome,” that was decisively denounced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 2006.
At a cost to tax payers of $30,000 per year per child in the shelter, the girls learned profanity, venting their rage in new ways. Having rarely seen television before, they complained of being forced to watch TV instead of doing the crafts they enjoyed. They could not share a room or eat together.
The younger girl was delivered for lengthy unsupervised visits with their father. After 509 days in state custody, DCYF gave her, at age 7, to his sole care in another state, claiming she had “recanted” her original accusation against him.
The older girl, 11, called it “torture” and was sent into foster care. Before she left the shelter, she drew a large floor plan of their lifelong home, like a prisoner trying to recall cherished details. She gave it to her mother on one of their two-hour weekly visits, closely supervised at a DCYF office, where they are forbidden to speak about anything that matters.
On August 6, 2007, their 487th day in state custody, three weeks before DCYF separated the sisters entirely, the older one made this list:
THINGS TO DO ON OUR 1st DAY HOME
wash clothes so they smell good
run around in back yard
play piano together
play a game
do arts + crafts
flop on our bed
clean car
go for a walk @ the beach
clean house
bake
go to Home Depot to get stuff to build clubhouse
plant in garden
After decades of resistance, our country began to litigate against pedophile priests who targeted children and took sanctuary in the Church. Now State legislators in Rhode Island and elsewhere must take a hard look at their own agencies established to protect children.
In an era when government deals aggressively with pedophiles who prey on other people’s children, we need more rigorous standards and effective responses to the age-old problem of sexual abuse within families.
http://courtwhores.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/p968-wordspphow-states-fund-child-abuseppby-anne-grantppin-1980s-woman-pastor-rural-corner-connecticut-male-clergy-girls-women-office-needed-talk-man-idea-children-sexually-abused-homes-national-night/
Identifying child abuse more difficult than meets the eye,
Identifying child abuse more difficult than meets the eye, officials say
By KRISTEN CATES • Tribune Staff Writer • December 6, 2009
Bernardi believes her daughter Seraphina fell through the cracks of the legal system, which was set up to protect children such as her.
"I feel it was pure neglect," she said.
But determining child abuse and neglect is much more difficult than it appears, officials say.
"It's so case by case," said Cory Costello, regional administrator of the Child and Family Services Division of the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, known as DCFS. "The state of Montana recognizes the privacy of the parents and the right to parent their child. When we intervene in a family's life, it should be the least restrictive intervention."
The stated objective of the department is "keeping children safe and families strong."
In the case of Seraphina Bernardi, court documents indicate DCFS workers received five reports regarding Seraphina and Alicia Jo Hocter's newborn daughter, and the conditions in which they were living, prior to the Feb. 18 incident when Hocter slammed Seraphina against a crib two or three times..
On Dec. 28, 2008, Seraphina's father and Hocter filed a report against Bernardi after Seraphina was taken to the emergency room with bruises on her belly and blood in her stool, a few days after Bernardi had a supervised visit with the child. Police investigated and doctors couldn't determine the cause of Seraphina's injury. No charges were filed against Bernardi, and Seraphina's father was reminded by DCFS that it was his primary duty to keep his daughter safe.
Seraphina's father and Hocter were informed at that time that they needed to clean up their home, which was described as being up to "minimal standards," by DCFS staff.
It is DCFS policy not to comment about specific cases, but Costello told the Tribune that removing a child from the home and terminating parental rights is one of the last resorts for caseworkers.
"If we intervene, we work with the families," Costello said. "It's traumatic to children (to remove them from their home)."
She explained the process as follows:
(2 of 3)
When an allegation is made, it goes through a centralized call center — the child abuse hotline — and the call is reviewed. Those calls are categorized into three areas: child protective services (CPS), child protection information only (CPI) and request for child and family services (CFS).
A CPS call is the most serious report and is immediately given to a field agent. The priority level determines how quick a caseworker must respond. Priority three gives workers 10 days to respond. Priority two calls give caseworkers 72 hours to respond and a priority one call means caseworkers must respond within 24 hours.
An investigation is then initiated.
"It involves contacting the person who made the referral, collateral contacts, interviewing children, if possible, and interviewing parents," Costello said. "(Caseworkers) must determine: Are there facts to support there is abuse or neglect?"
Costello said caseworkers have a checklist of 15 safety factors, including the child's vulnerability and a parent's ability to properly protect their child.
"The caseworker then determines if the child can remain safely in the home," she said.
If not, the caseworker tries to contact a family member to care for the child in the hopes of returning the child to the home. The caseworker also starts working with the parents, which might mean giving simple reminders or having them attend parenting classes.
Costello said it's often neglect, not abuse, that causes the agency to remove a child from the home. Things such as dog feces in the home or unsafe items that are health hazards can be factors in such decisions.
If there are signs of what could be physical abuse, law enforcement is contacted, she said.
"Now it's criminal, not just civil," Costello said.
Even when law enforcement is contacted, there's not always an easy answer, said Great Falls Police Detective Doug Otto.
"We want to see what the injury is and the extent of the injury," he said. "We take photographs and talk to doctors. We take as much physical evidence as we can."
(3 of 3)
Sometimes, the police receive reports of abuse that supposedly happened some time ago, which makes things more difficult, Otto said. In those circumstances, police try to interview the child, depending on the child's age.
"We want to gather the information," he said. "If nothing else, it's documented."
Very rarely has Otto been involved in a child abuse case where a parent or guardian wasn't the person committing the offense.
"Most of them are from the home setting," he said.
Once a parent has completed some of the steps toward recovery and DCFS believes it is possible to return a child to the home, the agency does so. An individualized family plan — such as the one Bernardi completed with Quality Life Concepts — is made so that goals are established.
Costello said being a DCFS caseworker is tough. For every angry call she receives about why a child was removed from a home, she receives an equally angry phone call about why a child wasn't.
Caseworkers have laws and policies they must obey for a reason, she said.
"Every person's personal beliefs could become a deciding factor," she said. "And that's not fair to the families of Montana. We have to act within the confines of the law."
And just like some families, caseworkers can become frustrated with the results of their efforts.
"There are times that the outcome in a case is disappointing to us," Costello said. "And that can be for a lot of different reasons."
Next Page1| 2| 3Previous PageReach Tribune Staff Writer Kristen Cates at 791-1463 or kcates@greatfallstribune.com.
To read the rest of this article, please go to the link below.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20091206/NEWS01/912060305/1002
By KRISTEN CATES • Tribune Staff Writer • December 6, 2009
Bernardi believes her daughter Seraphina fell through the cracks of the legal system, which was set up to protect children such as her.
"I feel it was pure neglect," she said.
But determining child abuse and neglect is much more difficult than it appears, officials say.
"It's so case by case," said Cory Costello, regional administrator of the Child and Family Services Division of the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, known as DCFS. "The state of Montana recognizes the privacy of the parents and the right to parent their child. When we intervene in a family's life, it should be the least restrictive intervention."
The stated objective of the department is "keeping children safe and families strong."
In the case of Seraphina Bernardi, court documents indicate DCFS workers received five reports regarding Seraphina and Alicia Jo Hocter's newborn daughter, and the conditions in which they were living, prior to the Feb. 18 incident when Hocter slammed Seraphina against a crib two or three times..
On Dec. 28, 2008, Seraphina's father and Hocter filed a report against Bernardi after Seraphina was taken to the emergency room with bruises on her belly and blood in her stool, a few days after Bernardi had a supervised visit with the child. Police investigated and doctors couldn't determine the cause of Seraphina's injury. No charges were filed against Bernardi, and Seraphina's father was reminded by DCFS that it was his primary duty to keep his daughter safe.
Seraphina's father and Hocter were informed at that time that they needed to clean up their home, which was described as being up to "minimal standards," by DCFS staff.
It is DCFS policy not to comment about specific cases, but Costello told the Tribune that removing a child from the home and terminating parental rights is one of the last resorts for caseworkers.
"If we intervene, we work with the families," Costello said. "It's traumatic to children (to remove them from their home)."
She explained the process as follows:
(2 of 3)
When an allegation is made, it goes through a centralized call center — the child abuse hotline — and the call is reviewed. Those calls are categorized into three areas: child protective services (CPS), child protection information only (CPI) and request for child and family services (CFS).
A CPS call is the most serious report and is immediately given to a field agent. The priority level determines how quick a caseworker must respond. Priority three gives workers 10 days to respond. Priority two calls give caseworkers 72 hours to respond and a priority one call means caseworkers must respond within 24 hours.
An investigation is then initiated.
"It involves contacting the person who made the referral, collateral contacts, interviewing children, if possible, and interviewing parents," Costello said. "(Caseworkers) must determine: Are there facts to support there is abuse or neglect?"
Costello said caseworkers have a checklist of 15 safety factors, including the child's vulnerability and a parent's ability to properly protect their child.
"The caseworker then determines if the child can remain safely in the home," she said.
If not, the caseworker tries to contact a family member to care for the child in the hopes of returning the child to the home. The caseworker also starts working with the parents, which might mean giving simple reminders or having them attend parenting classes.
Costello said it's often neglect, not abuse, that causes the agency to remove a child from the home. Things such as dog feces in the home or unsafe items that are health hazards can be factors in such decisions.
If there are signs of what could be physical abuse, law enforcement is contacted, she said.
"Now it's criminal, not just civil," Costello said.
Even when law enforcement is contacted, there's not always an easy answer, said Great Falls Police Detective Doug Otto.
"We want to see what the injury is and the extent of the injury," he said. "We take photographs and talk to doctors. We take as much physical evidence as we can."
(3 of 3)
Sometimes, the police receive reports of abuse that supposedly happened some time ago, which makes things more difficult, Otto said. In those circumstances, police try to interview the child, depending on the child's age.
"We want to gather the information," he said. "If nothing else, it's documented."
Very rarely has Otto been involved in a child abuse case where a parent or guardian wasn't the person committing the offense.
"Most of them are from the home setting," he said.
Once a parent has completed some of the steps toward recovery and DCFS believes it is possible to return a child to the home, the agency does so. An individualized family plan — such as the one Bernardi completed with Quality Life Concepts — is made so that goals are established.
Costello said being a DCFS caseworker is tough. For every angry call she receives about why a child was removed from a home, she receives an equally angry phone call about why a child wasn't.
Caseworkers have laws and policies they must obey for a reason, she said.
"Every person's personal beliefs could become a deciding factor," she said. "And that's not fair to the families of Montana. We have to act within the confines of the law."
And just like some families, caseworkers can become frustrated with the results of their efforts.
"There are times that the outcome in a case is disappointing to us," Costello said. "And that can be for a lot of different reasons."
Next Page1| 2| 3Previous PageReach Tribune Staff Writer Kristen Cates at 791-1463 or kcates@greatfallstribune.com.
To read the rest of this article, please go to the link below.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20091206/NEWS01/912060305/1002
Silent No More! Your Silence Will Not Protect You!
Silent No More!
your silence will not protect you. -audra lourdesFeeds:PostsCommentsChild Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases by Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D. (Revised 2007)
12/06/2009 by Claudine Dombrowski
Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.
Permalink
Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases
Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Risk Factors, and Safety Concerns (Revised 2007)
Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.
In consultation with Karen Oehme
It may be hard to believe that an abusive partner can ever make good on his threat to gain custody of the children from his victim. After all, he has a history of violent behavior and she almost never does. Unfortunately, a surprising number of battered women lose custody of their children (e.g., Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). This document describes how this can happen through uninformed and biased courts, court staff, evaluators, and attorneys and how the very act of protecting ones’ children can lead to their loss. It also describes the major legal and social trends surrounding custody and visitation decisions and the social science evidence supporting the need to consider domestic violence in these decisions. It ends with some recommendations for custody and visitation in domestic violence cases.
Legal Trends
Over the past 200 years, the bases for child custody decisions have changed considerably. The patriarchal doctrine of fathers’ ownership of children gave way in the 1920s and ’30s to little formal preference for one parent or the other to obtain custody. When given such broad discretion, judges tended to award custody to mothers, especially of young children. The mother-child bond during the early, “tender years” was considered essential for children’s development. In the 1970s, “the best interests of the children” became the predominant guideline, although it remains somewhat ambiguous (Fine & Fine, 1994). It was presumably neutral regarding parental rights. Little was known then about the negative impact of domestic violence on women and children, and domestic violence was not originally included in the list of factors used to determine the child’s best interest.
States more recently came to recognize that domestic violence needs to be considered in custody decisions (Dunford-Jackson, 2004; Cahn, 1991; Hart, 1992; for legislative updates from 1995 through 2005, see NCJFCJ, http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/256/302/). Every state now lists domestic violence as a factor to be considered, but does not necessarily give it special weight. However, since the mid-1990s, states have increasingly adopted the custody/visitation section of the Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ, 1994), increasing from 10 states using the code in 1995 to 24 in 2006 (NCJFCJ, 1995a; 2007). These statutes use the model’s wording, or similar wording, that there is a “rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody with the perpetrator of family violence” (p. 33).¹ Although statutes have become increasingly precise regarding definitions of domestic violence, they may leave children vulnerable to psychological abuse when it is not included in the definition (Dunford-Jackson, 2004).
Statutes also address other issues about custody and visitation, such as standards for supervised visitation and similar safeguards (Girdner & Hoff, 1996; Hart, 1990; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003), exempting battered women from mandated mediation (Dunford-Jackson, 2004; Girdner, 1996),² protecting battered women from charges of “child abandonment” if they flee for safety without their children (Cahn, 1991), and enabling a parent to learn if a person involved in a custody proceeding has been charged with certain crimes (see Pennsylvania’s Jen & Dave Program on the Web at http://www.jendaveprogram.us/). Some recent statutes make it easier for victims to relocate if needed for safety reasons (Jaffe, et al., 2003; NCJFCJ, 1995a; 1999; see Zorza, 2000).
Other legal protections are also available. For example, in one state (Tennessee), if a parent alleges that a child is exposed to domestic violence, such allegations cannot be used against the parent bringing the allegation (NCJFCJ, 2004). In another state (Texas), a mediated agreement can be declined by the court if domestic violence affected the victim’s ability to make the agreement (NCJFCJ, 2005). Some states (Massachusetts, Ohio) now make the presumption that custody or visitation should not be granted to anyone who is found guilty of murdering the other parent (for a more complete review of the above trends, including legal reforms in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, see Jaffe, et al. 2003).
Unfortunately, courts nd the mental health professionals advising them (Johnson, Saccuzzo, & Koen, 2005; Fields, in press) and lawyers (Fields, 2006) may pressure women to stay tied to their abusers. In addition, “friendly parent” provisions in statutes or policies create another factor for courts to assess in custody decisions, favoring the parent who will encourage frequent and continuing contact with the other parent or foster a better relationship between the child and the other parent (Zorza, 1992). Despite a reasonable reluctance to co-parent out of fear of harm to themselves or their children, battered women may end up being labeled “unfriendly,” thereby increasing the risk of losing their children (APA, 1996).
Along with legal changes, training and resource manuals for judges and court managers are available, including guidelines for selecting custody evaluators and guardian ad litems ( Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006; Maxwell & Oehme, 2001; Goelman, Lehrman, & Valente, 1996; Lemon, Jaffe, & Ganley, 1995; NCJFCJ, 1995b; NCJFCJ, 2006; National Center for State Courts, 1997). One benchbook covers cultural considerations for diverse populations (Ramos & Runner, 1999). A recent trend is the use of “parenting coordinators” or “special masters,” a mental health or legal professional with mediation training who focuses on the children’s needs and helps the parents resolve disputes. With the approval of the parties and/or the court, they can make decisions within the bounds of the court order. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts provide guidelines for parenting coordinators and a discussion of implementation issues (AFCC, 2006; Coates, et al., 2004). The guidelines require that parenting coordinators have training on domestic violence and caution that “the parenting coordinator’s role may be inappropriate and potentially exploited by perpetrators of domestic violence who have exhibited patterns of violence, threat, intimidation, and coercive control over their co-parent” (AFCC, 2006, p. 165). When one parent seeks to maintain dominance over another, the parenting coordinator may need to act primarily as an enforcer of the court order.
To read this entire article, please go to the link below.
http://ridezstormz.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/pa-hrefhttpjustice4motherswordpresscomchildcustodyandvisitationdecisionsindomesticviolencecaseschild-custody-visitation-decisions-domestic-violencecasesappchild-custody-visitation-decisions-domestic-v/
your silence will not protect you. -audra lourdesFeeds:PostsCommentsChild Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases by Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D. (Revised 2007)
12/06/2009 by Claudine Dombrowski
Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.
Permalink
Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases
Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Risk Factors, and Safety Concerns (Revised 2007)
Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.
In consultation with Karen Oehme
It may be hard to believe that an abusive partner can ever make good on his threat to gain custody of the children from his victim. After all, he has a history of violent behavior and she almost never does. Unfortunately, a surprising number of battered women lose custody of their children (e.g., Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). This document describes how this can happen through uninformed and biased courts, court staff, evaluators, and attorneys and how the very act of protecting ones’ children can lead to their loss. It also describes the major legal and social trends surrounding custody and visitation decisions and the social science evidence supporting the need to consider domestic violence in these decisions. It ends with some recommendations for custody and visitation in domestic violence cases.
Legal Trends
Over the past 200 years, the bases for child custody decisions have changed considerably. The patriarchal doctrine of fathers’ ownership of children gave way in the 1920s and ’30s to little formal preference for one parent or the other to obtain custody. When given such broad discretion, judges tended to award custody to mothers, especially of young children. The mother-child bond during the early, “tender years” was considered essential for children’s development. In the 1970s, “the best interests of the children” became the predominant guideline, although it remains somewhat ambiguous (Fine & Fine, 1994). It was presumably neutral regarding parental rights. Little was known then about the negative impact of domestic violence on women and children, and domestic violence was not originally included in the list of factors used to determine the child’s best interest.
States more recently came to recognize that domestic violence needs to be considered in custody decisions (Dunford-Jackson, 2004; Cahn, 1991; Hart, 1992; for legislative updates from 1995 through 2005, see NCJFCJ, http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/256/302/). Every state now lists domestic violence as a factor to be considered, but does not necessarily give it special weight. However, since the mid-1990s, states have increasingly adopted the custody/visitation section of the Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ, 1994), increasing from 10 states using the code in 1995 to 24 in 2006 (NCJFCJ, 1995a; 2007). These statutes use the model’s wording, or similar wording, that there is a “rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody with the perpetrator of family violence” (p. 33).¹ Although statutes have become increasingly precise regarding definitions of domestic violence, they may leave children vulnerable to psychological abuse when it is not included in the definition (Dunford-Jackson, 2004).
Statutes also address other issues about custody and visitation, such as standards for supervised visitation and similar safeguards (Girdner & Hoff, 1996; Hart, 1990; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003), exempting battered women from mandated mediation (Dunford-Jackson, 2004; Girdner, 1996),² protecting battered women from charges of “child abandonment” if they flee for safety without their children (Cahn, 1991), and enabling a parent to learn if a person involved in a custody proceeding has been charged with certain crimes (see Pennsylvania’s Jen & Dave Program on the Web at http://www.jendaveprogram.us/). Some recent statutes make it easier for victims to relocate if needed for safety reasons (Jaffe, et al., 2003; NCJFCJ, 1995a; 1999; see Zorza, 2000).
Other legal protections are also available. For example, in one state (Tennessee), if a parent alleges that a child is exposed to domestic violence, such allegations cannot be used against the parent bringing the allegation (NCJFCJ, 2004). In another state (Texas), a mediated agreement can be declined by the court if domestic violence affected the victim’s ability to make the agreement (NCJFCJ, 2005). Some states (Massachusetts, Ohio) now make the presumption that custody or visitation should not be granted to anyone who is found guilty of murdering the other parent (for a more complete review of the above trends, including legal reforms in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, see Jaffe, et al. 2003).
Unfortunately, courts nd the mental health professionals advising them (Johnson, Saccuzzo, & Koen, 2005; Fields, in press) and lawyers (Fields, 2006) may pressure women to stay tied to their abusers. In addition, “friendly parent” provisions in statutes or policies create another factor for courts to assess in custody decisions, favoring the parent who will encourage frequent and continuing contact with the other parent or foster a better relationship between the child and the other parent (Zorza, 1992). Despite a reasonable reluctance to co-parent out of fear of harm to themselves or their children, battered women may end up being labeled “unfriendly,” thereby increasing the risk of losing their children (APA, 1996).
Along with legal changes, training and resource manuals for judges and court managers are available, including guidelines for selecting custody evaluators and guardian ad litems ( Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006; Maxwell & Oehme, 2001; Goelman, Lehrman, & Valente, 1996; Lemon, Jaffe, & Ganley, 1995; NCJFCJ, 1995b; NCJFCJ, 2006; National Center for State Courts, 1997). One benchbook covers cultural considerations for diverse populations (Ramos & Runner, 1999). A recent trend is the use of “parenting coordinators” or “special masters,” a mental health or legal professional with mediation training who focuses on the children’s needs and helps the parents resolve disputes. With the approval of the parties and/or the court, they can make decisions within the bounds of the court order. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts provide guidelines for parenting coordinators and a discussion of implementation issues (AFCC, 2006; Coates, et al., 2004). The guidelines require that parenting coordinators have training on domestic violence and caution that “the parenting coordinator’s role may be inappropriate and potentially exploited by perpetrators of domestic violence who have exhibited patterns of violence, threat, intimidation, and coercive control over their co-parent” (AFCC, 2006, p. 165). When one parent seeks to maintain dominance over another, the parenting coordinator may need to act primarily as an enforcer of the court order.
To read this entire article, please go to the link below.
http://ridezstormz.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/pa-hrefhttpjustice4motherswordpresscomchildcustodyandvisitationdecisionsindomesticviolencecaseschild-custody-visitation-decisions-domestic-violencecasesappchild-custody-visitation-decisions-domestic-v/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)