DUFF WILSON
Published: December 11, 2009
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx, says he sees many children on antipsychotic drugs who do not need them.
Multimedia
Graphic
Children and Antipsychotic Drugs Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
The Rutgers-Columbia research, based on millions of Medicaid and private insurance claims, is the most extensive analysis of its type yet on children’s antipsychotic drug use. It examined records for children in seven big states — including New York, Texas and California — selected to be representative of the nation’s Medicaid population, for the years 2001 and 2004.
Read the rest of this article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/12medicaid.html
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
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
Denver Post
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
By Mike McPhee
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/10/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/10/2009 01:50:07 AM MST
A parade of county workers and elected leaders told Gov. Bill Ritter's panel on child welfare Wednesday that the state should not take over the county's roles of protecting children from being abused.
"There's no evidence that families and children will be better protected by the state," Jeanne North, director of nursing for the Tri-County Health Department of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties, said at a meeting convened by Colorado Counties Inc.
It was the fourth public meeting held to respond to recommendations made by Ritter's Child Welfare Action Committee, created in 2007 after the abuse-related deaths of 13 children in protective services.
Panel member Katherine Wells then asked North why she didn't support a regional program administered by the state that would be structured very similar to her department, Colorado's largest.
"We feel the counties will lose flexibility and control over their funding," North said.
The committee has its final meeting today to draft its recommendations to Ritter. In October, it released 29 recommendations, all of which have been received well by human service agencies except for two: No. 14, which calls for a central phone bank for reporting abuse; and No. 29, which calls for the state to centralize supervision and funding of protective agencies. Ritter tabled those and accepted the other recommendations.
He then convened another committee to study 14 and 29 and get back to him by December 2010.
Mike McPhee: 303-954-1409 or mmcphee@denverpost.com
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13964823?source=rss
(Maybe families would be better off if the states took over. At least elected official's are held accountable for their misdeeds, whereas DCYF/CPS is never held accountable.)
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
By Mike McPhee
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/10/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/10/2009 01:50:07 AM MST
A parade of county workers and elected leaders told Gov. Bill Ritter's panel on child welfare Wednesday that the state should not take over the county's roles of protecting children from being abused.
"There's no evidence that families and children will be better protected by the state," Jeanne North, director of nursing for the Tri-County Health Department of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties, said at a meeting convened by Colorado Counties Inc.
It was the fourth public meeting held to respond to recommendations made by Ritter's Child Welfare Action Committee, created in 2007 after the abuse-related deaths of 13 children in protective services.
Panel member Katherine Wells then asked North why she didn't support a regional program administered by the state that would be structured very similar to her department, Colorado's largest.
"We feel the counties will lose flexibility and control over their funding," North said.
The committee has its final meeting today to draft its recommendations to Ritter. In October, it released 29 recommendations, all of which have been received well by human service agencies except for two: No. 14, which calls for a central phone bank for reporting abuse; and No. 29, which calls for the state to centralize supervision and funding of protective agencies. Ritter tabled those and accepted the other recommendations.
He then convened another committee to study 14 and 29 and get back to him by December 2010.
Mike McPhee: 303-954-1409 or mmcphee@denverpost.com
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13964823?source=rss
(Maybe families would be better off if the states took over. At least elected official's are held accountable for their misdeeds, whereas DCYF/CPS is never held accountable.)
Judge hears mom’s plea, orders DCYF to return newborn, reunite Woonsocket family (Finally, a fair Judge who see's DCYF for what they really are!)
Judge hears mom’s plea, orders DCYF to return newborn, reunite Woonsocket family
02:24 PM EST on Friday, December 11, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
Netvilai Vixaisak feeds her daughter Isis her first bottle at their home in Woonsocket on Thursday after court personnel returned the infant, who had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The Providence Journal / Kathy Borchers
On Monday, Netvilai Vixaisak of Woonsocket made her way to the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence to hand deliver a note to Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.
“Right now, I have so much pain in my heart and it is hurting a lot due to what [the state] is doing to me. I want to be with all of my kids all in the same place,” she wrote.
After reading the note, Jeremiah emerged from his chambers to speak with the young mother, who broke down and cried in his fifth-floor courtroom.
“Don’t worry,” he told her. “I’m on your side. I’m fighting for you.”
The judge was deeply moved to learn that Vixaisak, 28, gave birth to a daughter, Isis Diamond, on Dec. 2, at Women & Infants Hospital in Providence. Two days later, as she prepared to return home and breast-feed the baby, she learned that the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, which already had custody of her three other children, had placed a “hold” on the newborn. She said she “cried and cried until I couldn’t cry anymore.”
She visited the baby at the hospital on Sunday, Dec. 6. The next day, the infant was placed in DCYF custody, and Vixaisak reached out to Family Court for help.
Jeremiah scheduled an emergency hearing on Wednesday and summoned three DCYF officials into his courtroom: Jorge Garcia, DCYF’s deputy director; Martha Kelly, the agency’s legal counsel; and Mary Cameron, a social worker who has been assigned to Vixaisak and her family.
During the hearing, Jeremiah repeatedly interrupted Kelly, suggesting at one point that DCYF was going to extremes to keep the family apart. She said that the baby was taken away because the three other children are in DCYF custody. She also said that the three children had been removed because of “issues of domestic violence.”
Jeremiah shot back that DCYF removed the three children because they did not have any electricity in their apartment.
Kelly relented and said that “the department is willing to return the infant to her mother and father.” She said that the other three children could be returned by Christmas.
That wasn’t good enough for Jeremiah. He ordered that the baby be returned immediately and the other three children must be reunited with their parents no later than Friday.
Jeremiah said that he wanted to see the family reunited for the holidays.
The judge said he felt DCYF officials were heavy-handed in their decision to remove the children because they lacked electricity in their apartment. He knows that Vixaisak, who suffers from depression, and her husband, a convicted felon, are facing an uphill battle, so he assigned a home health aide to make daily checks on the family to make sure things are working out.
“We always have concerns,” he said. “We have to worry about the safety of the children.”
On Thursday, as Vixaisak waited for her baby’s arrival, she said she is thrilled at the thought of having all four children back. She is confident that she’s prepared for the challenges of raising four children.
“I’m ready to do this,” she said. “I’ll do anything DCYF wants me to do. I love my kids so much. I’ll do anything.”
Stephanie Terry, DCYF’s associate director of child welfare, refused to second-guess Jeremiah’s order or discuss the removal of the baby or three other children from the family. She said that confidentiality policies prohibit her from talking about the case.
“These cases are complicated, and there are lots of facets to it,” she said. “I can’t get into case specifics. We have worked with this family, and we will continue to work with this family. Our objective is always, foremost, to safely return kids home.”
There’s no question that Jeremiah is taking a chance.
According to an affidavit filed with the court, Cameron, the family’s social worker, said that the baby should not be allowed to return home with Vixaisak “due to information they have indicating a risk of physical harm to the child.” The sworn document also mentioned that the mother “has a history of mental health issues and she has been prescribed psychiatric medications.”
Cameron also wrote that the husband, Daothiam Phiensinh, 45, “has substance abuse and domestic violence issues.” She also pointed out that he’s on probation for 12 years for a past conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.
In late summer 2008, DCYF removed the three children from the couple’s home and placed them in separate foster homes across the state. The removal followed several run-ins that Vixaisak had with DCYF, the Woonsocket police and school officials.
On Sept. 5, 2008, DCYF reported in court documents that Vixaisak appeared at the elementary school in Woonsocket where two of her children were students and “made threats to bomb the school and DCYF.” That same day, she barricaded herself in her apartment with her children and refused to allow the Woonsocket police in.
At another unannounced visit, Cameron, the social worker, reported that the apartment had no gas or electricity.
Vixaisak’s lawyer, Frances K.R. Munro, managing attorney for Rhode Island Legal Services, said that her Laotian client is a very emotional woman, but she believes that DCYF may misinterpret her outbursts.
“I think there is a cultural issue,” she said. “It’s not wrong. It’s cultural.”
On Thursday, Vixaisak went out for two cans of baby formula and diapers so she would be ready for her week-old daughter. She’s looking forward to a beehive of activity in her living room as the holidays near.
About 2 p.m., Cameron, the social worker, delivered the baby and a bundle of new clothes.
“I feel happy,” Vixaisak said. “I have the energy to do things now. I’m so, so happy.”
bmalinow@projo.com
02:24 PM EST on Friday, December 11, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
Netvilai Vixaisak feeds her daughter Isis her first bottle at their home in Woonsocket on Thursday after court personnel returned the infant, who had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The Providence Journal / Kathy Borchers
On Monday, Netvilai Vixaisak of Woonsocket made her way to the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence to hand deliver a note to Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.
“Right now, I have so much pain in my heart and it is hurting a lot due to what [the state] is doing to me. I want to be with all of my kids all in the same place,” she wrote.
After reading the note, Jeremiah emerged from his chambers to speak with the young mother, who broke down and cried in his fifth-floor courtroom.
“Don’t worry,” he told her. “I’m on your side. I’m fighting for you.”
The judge was deeply moved to learn that Vixaisak, 28, gave birth to a daughter, Isis Diamond, on Dec. 2, at Women & Infants Hospital in Providence. Two days later, as she prepared to return home and breast-feed the baby, she learned that the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, which already had custody of her three other children, had placed a “hold” on the newborn. She said she “cried and cried until I couldn’t cry anymore.”
She visited the baby at the hospital on Sunday, Dec. 6. The next day, the infant was placed in DCYF custody, and Vixaisak reached out to Family Court for help.
Jeremiah scheduled an emergency hearing on Wednesday and summoned three DCYF officials into his courtroom: Jorge Garcia, DCYF’s deputy director; Martha Kelly, the agency’s legal counsel; and Mary Cameron, a social worker who has been assigned to Vixaisak and her family.
During the hearing, Jeremiah repeatedly interrupted Kelly, suggesting at one point that DCYF was going to extremes to keep the family apart. She said that the baby was taken away because the three other children are in DCYF custody. She also said that the three children had been removed because of “issues of domestic violence.”
Jeremiah shot back that DCYF removed the three children because they did not have any electricity in their apartment.
Kelly relented and said that “the department is willing to return the infant to her mother and father.” She said that the other three children could be returned by Christmas.
That wasn’t good enough for Jeremiah. He ordered that the baby be returned immediately and the other three children must be reunited with their parents no later than Friday.
Jeremiah said that he wanted to see the family reunited for the holidays.
The judge said he felt DCYF officials were heavy-handed in their decision to remove the children because they lacked electricity in their apartment. He knows that Vixaisak, who suffers from depression, and her husband, a convicted felon, are facing an uphill battle, so he assigned a home health aide to make daily checks on the family to make sure things are working out.
“We always have concerns,” he said. “We have to worry about the safety of the children.”
On Thursday, as Vixaisak waited for her baby’s arrival, she said she is thrilled at the thought of having all four children back. She is confident that she’s prepared for the challenges of raising four children.
“I’m ready to do this,” she said. “I’ll do anything DCYF wants me to do. I love my kids so much. I’ll do anything.”
Stephanie Terry, DCYF’s associate director of child welfare, refused to second-guess Jeremiah’s order or discuss the removal of the baby or three other children from the family. She said that confidentiality policies prohibit her from talking about the case.
“These cases are complicated, and there are lots of facets to it,” she said. “I can’t get into case specifics. We have worked with this family, and we will continue to work with this family. Our objective is always, foremost, to safely return kids home.”
There’s no question that Jeremiah is taking a chance.
According to an affidavit filed with the court, Cameron, the family’s social worker, said that the baby should not be allowed to return home with Vixaisak “due to information they have indicating a risk of physical harm to the child.” The sworn document also mentioned that the mother “has a history of mental health issues and she has been prescribed psychiatric medications.”
Cameron also wrote that the husband, Daothiam Phiensinh, 45, “has substance abuse and domestic violence issues.” She also pointed out that he’s on probation for 12 years for a past conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.
In late summer 2008, DCYF removed the three children from the couple’s home and placed them in separate foster homes across the state. The removal followed several run-ins that Vixaisak had with DCYF, the Woonsocket police and school officials.
On Sept. 5, 2008, DCYF reported in court documents that Vixaisak appeared at the elementary school in Woonsocket where two of her children were students and “made threats to bomb the school and DCYF.” That same day, she barricaded herself in her apartment with her children and refused to allow the Woonsocket police in.
At another unannounced visit, Cameron, the social worker, reported that the apartment had no gas or electricity.
Vixaisak’s lawyer, Frances K.R. Munro, managing attorney for Rhode Island Legal Services, said that her Laotian client is a very emotional woman, but she believes that DCYF may misinterpret her outbursts.
“I think there is a cultural issue,” she said. “It’s not wrong. It’s cultural.”
On Thursday, Vixaisak went out for two cans of baby formula and diapers so she would be ready for her week-old daughter. She’s looking forward to a beehive of activity in her living room as the holidays near.
About 2 p.m., Cameron, the social worker, delivered the baby and a bundle of new clothes.
“I feel happy,” Vixaisak said. “I have the energy to do things now. I’m so, so happy.”
bmalinow@projo.com
If you can't Treat them, Drug Them (DCYF/CPS Motto)
ChildLaw Blog
Commentary, insight and analysis on children's law, policy and current issues. Big Pharma: if you can't treat 'em then drug 'em
By James R. Marsh on December 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Powerful mood-altering drugs were prescribed to hundreds of Illinois foster children without the required consent of state child welfare officials, a Chicago Tribune analysis of government data has found.
And increasing numbers of young wards were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and given a class of anti-psychotic medicines that some physicians consider risky for youths because they can cause such side effects as metabolic abnormalities and pronounced weight gain.
Psychiatrist Michael Naylor, MD, who reviews psychotropic medicine regimens for DCFS, said that he worries that "marketing efforts" by pharmaceutical companies are driving increasing diagnoses of bipolar disorder leading to more prescriptions for antipsychotic medicines, and that some "physicians are skirting the consent laws."
A separate report by the University of Illinois at Chicago's department of psychiatry finds that an Illinois psychiatric hospital used medications as chemical restraints on kids. Streamwood Behavioral Health Center, "one of Illinois' largest psychiatric hospitals, dosed foster children with dangerous combinations of mood-altering" medications, "sometimes using the medicines as 'chemical restraints' to control youth who needed counseling."
The report also found that the center, "which has treated roughly 475 Department of Children and Family Services wards since 2007, is 'so understaffed as to be counter-therapeutic,'" and that "hospital staff resorted to extraordinarily high rates of emergency psychiatric medications, physical restraints, and seclusion." Categories:Child Welfare News,Children's Legal Issues
Tags:Foster Care
http://www.childlaw.us/2009/12/big-pharma-if-you-cant-treat-e.html?utm_source=feedb
______________________________________________________________________________________
This article is about Illinois, but the drugging of our children is taking place all over our Nation. In NH, my grandson Austin, who is in State custody is also being drugged, due to his new found violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before taken by DCYF.
Commentary, insight and analysis on children's law, policy and current issues. Big Pharma: if you can't treat 'em then drug 'em
By James R. Marsh on December 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Powerful mood-altering drugs were prescribed to hundreds of Illinois foster children without the required consent of state child welfare officials, a Chicago Tribune analysis of government data has found.
And increasing numbers of young wards were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and given a class of anti-psychotic medicines that some physicians consider risky for youths because they can cause such side effects as metabolic abnormalities and pronounced weight gain.
Psychiatrist Michael Naylor, MD, who reviews psychotropic medicine regimens for DCFS, said that he worries that "marketing efforts" by pharmaceutical companies are driving increasing diagnoses of bipolar disorder leading to more prescriptions for antipsychotic medicines, and that some "physicians are skirting the consent laws."
A separate report by the University of Illinois at Chicago's department of psychiatry finds that an Illinois psychiatric hospital used medications as chemical restraints on kids. Streamwood Behavioral Health Center, "one of Illinois' largest psychiatric hospitals, dosed foster children with dangerous combinations of mood-altering" medications, "sometimes using the medicines as 'chemical restraints' to control youth who needed counseling."
The report also found that the center, "which has treated roughly 475 Department of Children and Family Services wards since 2007, is 'so understaffed as to be counter-therapeutic,'" and that "hospital staff resorted to extraordinarily high rates of emergency psychiatric medications, physical restraints, and seclusion." Categories:Child Welfare News,Children's Legal Issues
Tags:Foster Care
http://www.childlaw.us/2009/12/big-pharma-if-you-cant-treat-e.html?utm_source=feedb
______________________________________________________________________________________
This article is about Illinois, but the drugging of our children is taking place all over our Nation. In NH, my grandson Austin, who is in State custody is also being drugged, due to his new found violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before taken by DCYF.
Have You Been Effected by NH DCYF and the NH Judicicial System?
If you've been effected by the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Courts, it's time to come forward and file your complaint's with The Redress Grievance Caucus. This Caucus is made up of our own NH State Representatives. These are the people we voted into office and it seem's they are the only elected official's willing to listen and push for change and accountability.
They have already submitted petitions from a number of NH citizen's in this fight against the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Judicial system.
If the people of NH want change, this is your chance to be heard and counted.
To file your complaint's, Please contact:
Paul Ingbretson at: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com
And
Dan Itse at: itsenh@comcast.net
They have already submitted petitions from a number of NH citizen's in this fight against the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Judicial system.
If the people of NH want change, this is your chance to be heard and counted.
To file your complaint's, Please contact:
Paul Ingbretson at: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com
And
Dan Itse at: itsenh@comcast.net
Thursday, December 10, 2009
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition,Judge Tells Harvard Law School
Massachusetts News
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature … dictated by God himself … is binding … in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority … from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.
"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.
However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.
"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. … The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.
"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed … creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"
Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.
"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought … has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of … our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. … The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away … and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."
Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.
"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
Massachusetts News
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature … dictated by God himself … is binding … in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority … from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.
"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.
However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.
"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. … The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.
"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed … creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"
Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.
"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought … has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of … our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. … The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away … and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."
Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.
"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Advocates worry reduced foster care payments will hurt Iowa foster families
Iowa Politics Insider Advocates worry reduced foster care payments will hurt Iowa foster families
By Jennifer Jacobs • jejacobs@dmreg.com • December 9, 2009
Department of Human Services, foster care, Renee Schulte, Roger Munns
Iowa foster parents will get about $35 less each month for expenses for the abused or neglected children they care for on behalf of the state.
That could hurt the foster care system, said several Iowans who oversee the Iowa Department of Human Services. The 10 percent across-the-board budget cut Gov. Chet Culver ordered for this budget year will decrease state spending on foster care subsidies by about $315,000.
“I’m very concerned about these cuts because foster parents are telling me they’re not sure they can keep the foster kids in light of this,” said state Rep. Renee Schulte, R-Cedar Cedar Rapids. “They’re not sure if they’re going to be able to make it because they’re hitting unemployment and hard times in their own families.”
The Council on Human Services, the board with oversight over DHS’s budget and rules, today approved reducing the foster family care subsidy by $1.16 a day to meet the across-the-board cut. They also cut the foster care clothing allowance and limited payments for legal expenses.
Schulte is a non-voting member of the council, but several voting members echoed her concerns. They voted today to send a letter to state lawmakers to let them know foster care subsidies are a priority.
Families who care for foster children without special needs up to age 5 are paid $16.36 a day. That will be lowered to $15.54 with a 5 percent cut. The amount increases based on age.
The lower subsidy is for Jan. 1 until June 30 of next year. Iowa has about 2,300 foster children.
Culver ordered the 10 percent across-the-board cut because tax collections and other state revenues have dropped sharply because of the recession.
Schulte said when she was out door-knocking, one foster parent gave her an earful about the lower foster care subsidies. Families already don’t get enough subsidy money each month to pay for needs such as clothing, especially for teenage foster youth, she said.
DHS Director Charlie Krogmeier told the council members today that “the budget is what it is.”
“I’m sensitive to the fact that foster families probably don’t get paid enough,” he said.
Culver ordered $565 million in cuts in general fund spending, including $144 million in cuts for DHS.
The across-the-board cut for DHS children and family services amounts to $2.3 million less in spending, which includes federal money. Foster care subsidies fall under the children and family services category, as do adoption subsidies.
Adoption subsidies will be cut by $874,000.
In Iowa, about 8,000 children are being subsidized in adoptive homes. About 95 percent of adoptions from the child welfare system are subsidized. Federal law precludes a “means test” that would be used to deny a subsidy. The payments last until age 18.
Krogmeier said the subsidy rates might go back up in July when the new budget year begins. Council chairman James A. Miller asked him why he thinks that.
“You might say we’re hopeful, or possibly naive,” Krogmeier answered.
DHS spokesman Roger Munns said after the meeting that the decision to reduce foster rates was not an easy one, and that other programs were cut more severely in order to cushion the blow on foster payments.
“We do ask a lot from our foster parents and we would like to pay them more,” Munns said. “We know that people don’t become foster parents for the money, but they do need help meeting the costs that an extra child or two will require.”
A couple of the council members today worried that the lower payments will hamper recruitment of foster parents.
Munns said the payment rate, while important, is a secondary barrier in recruiting. The main issue is finding people willing to open their homes to older kids, often with behavioral issues, or to children who come in pairs or threes.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2009/12/09/adocates-worry-reduced-foster-care-payments-will-hurt-iowa-foster-families/
By Jennifer Jacobs • jejacobs@dmreg.com • December 9, 2009
Department of Human Services, foster care, Renee Schulte, Roger Munns
Iowa foster parents will get about $35 less each month for expenses for the abused or neglected children they care for on behalf of the state.
That could hurt the foster care system, said several Iowans who oversee the Iowa Department of Human Services. The 10 percent across-the-board budget cut Gov. Chet Culver ordered for this budget year will decrease state spending on foster care subsidies by about $315,000.
“I’m very concerned about these cuts because foster parents are telling me they’re not sure they can keep the foster kids in light of this,” said state Rep. Renee Schulte, R-Cedar Cedar Rapids. “They’re not sure if they’re going to be able to make it because they’re hitting unemployment and hard times in their own families.”
The Council on Human Services, the board with oversight over DHS’s budget and rules, today approved reducing the foster family care subsidy by $1.16 a day to meet the across-the-board cut. They also cut the foster care clothing allowance and limited payments for legal expenses.
Schulte is a non-voting member of the council, but several voting members echoed her concerns. They voted today to send a letter to state lawmakers to let them know foster care subsidies are a priority.
Families who care for foster children without special needs up to age 5 are paid $16.36 a day. That will be lowered to $15.54 with a 5 percent cut. The amount increases based on age.
The lower subsidy is for Jan. 1 until June 30 of next year. Iowa has about 2,300 foster children.
Culver ordered the 10 percent across-the-board cut because tax collections and other state revenues have dropped sharply because of the recession.
Schulte said when she was out door-knocking, one foster parent gave her an earful about the lower foster care subsidies. Families already don’t get enough subsidy money each month to pay for needs such as clothing, especially for teenage foster youth, she said.
DHS Director Charlie Krogmeier told the council members today that “the budget is what it is.”
“I’m sensitive to the fact that foster families probably don’t get paid enough,” he said.
Culver ordered $565 million in cuts in general fund spending, including $144 million in cuts for DHS.
The across-the-board cut for DHS children and family services amounts to $2.3 million less in spending, which includes federal money. Foster care subsidies fall under the children and family services category, as do adoption subsidies.
Adoption subsidies will be cut by $874,000.
In Iowa, about 8,000 children are being subsidized in adoptive homes. About 95 percent of adoptions from the child welfare system are subsidized. Federal law precludes a “means test” that would be used to deny a subsidy. The payments last until age 18.
Krogmeier said the subsidy rates might go back up in July when the new budget year begins. Council chairman James A. Miller asked him why he thinks that.
“You might say we’re hopeful, or possibly naive,” Krogmeier answered.
DHS spokesman Roger Munns said after the meeting that the decision to reduce foster rates was not an easy one, and that other programs were cut more severely in order to cushion the blow on foster payments.
“We do ask a lot from our foster parents and we would like to pay them more,” Munns said. “We know that people don’t become foster parents for the money, but they do need help meeting the costs that an extra child or two will require.”
A couple of the council members today worried that the lower payments will hamper recruitment of foster parents.
Munns said the payment rate, while important, is a secondary barrier in recruiting. The main issue is finding people willing to open their homes to older kids, often with behavioral issues, or to children who come in pairs or threes.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2009/12/09/adocates-worry-reduced-foster-care-payments-will-hurt-iowa-foster-families/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)