NYC Family Court judge denies Child Protective Services permission to enter hotline subject’s home

NYC Family Court judge denies Child Protective Services permission to enter hotline subject’s home
December 15, 2009 by Dissent
Filed under Court, Youth

Daniel Weaver reports:

In a decision posted yesterday, Kings County Family Court Judge, Jeanette Ruiz, refused to grant the Administration for Children’s services permission to enter the home of J. Smith. Children’s Services had applied for a pre-petition ex-parte court order as part of an ongoing investigation which began when someone anonymously called the State Central Register hotline on J. Smith in July of 2009.

[...]

“No objective basis has been presented to the Court to show the CPS worker’s investigation cannot be completed because she needs to examine the home environment in order to make an adequate determination that the children are safe. Instead, on multiple occasions the CPS worker confirmed that the children were appropriately groomed and dressed and appeared well. They were attending summer camp and attending school with no reports or concerns raised by any of the mandated reporters who interacted with the children on an almost daily basis and who the CPS worker spoke to during the course of her investigation.

Moreover, the family’s refusal to permit the CPS worker into the home cannot be the sole basis for an order of entry into the home. The intent of the amendments to FCA 1034 as well as the plain language of the statute is to provide child protective investigators the tools they need to complete investigations where there is reason to believe a child’s life or health is in immediate danger, or where probable cause exists that a neglected or abused child may be found in the home and an assessment of the home environment is necessary to make an adequate determination that the child is safe. Here, petitioner’s application does not involve children who have not been seen or located, or where there is any reason to believe their life of health are in immediate danger, or any reason offered for the necessity to assess the home environment to determine their safety.”

Read more on Examiner.com.

CPS review of Houston cases targets caseworkers

YouNews™
CPS review of Houston cases targets caseworkers
by Associated Press

Posted on December 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Updated today at 11:09 AM



AUSTIN, Texas -- Risk and safety were properly evaluated in only about half of the Child Protective Services cases in the Houston region during an internal review.

Details are from a review of 95 randomly selected caseworkers conducted by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

The report, released Monday in Austin, found caseworkers regularly missed warning signs that children were in danger.

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins says workers always tried to keep children safely in their own homes or with their extended family, if possible.

Suggestions for improvement included using more of the agency’s "special investigators," those workers with a law enforcement background. Another recommendation is to enroll parents more quickly in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment.

Reports on other CPS regions of Texas are expected next year.


http://www.khou.com/news/local/CPS-review-of-Houston-cases-targets-caseworkers--79317002.html

The Price of a Sentence

D.Heimpel
The Price of a Sentence – Newsweek




Please read the following story, which appears on Newsweek.com.

Over the last two weeks I started hearing some chatter from California advocates and administrators about the Golden State’s plans to recoup $60 million from the Federal Government in foster care payment.

In 2008, Congress passed, and Bush signed, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increased Adoptions Act. One of the laws most notable provisions was the extension of foster care to age 21. Another was federal funding for subsidized guardianship: payments to kin who take care of relatives that would otherwise end up in the foster care system.

This is where things get crazy. In the regulations given out at the end of Bush’s tenure, a stipulation was written in that states could only get funds for subsidized guardianship after the date of Fostering Connections being passed, Oct. 2008. In a state like CA and 26 others and the District of Columbia, which already have subsidized guardianship programs, this one sentence means that all the kids in kin care before that date are ineligible. In CA that means $60 million annually.

California is so desperate for that money that Child Protective Services is actually serious about moving kids who are in kin care back into straight foster care and then back out their family so that those kids are eligible for the Federal IVE funds. This would likely be a paper move, but disruptive none the less. Because of this one sentence it is fiscally responsible for California to go through this enormous task of moving kids back into the system just so that they can be eligible for funds. Further, in CA, where the budget is buckling the state is planning to use that $60 million to pay for legislation that would extend care to 21.

So the shining provision of Fostering Connections, extension of care, is in jeopardy all because of one sentence in the regulations.

Now, some members of congress are mobilizing to have those regulations change. The next phase will be their letters to Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families Assistant Secretary Carmen Nazario. The guidance is non-binding, so if enough pressure is applied Nazario could rescind it. That would free up hundreds of millions of federal dollars across 27 states and better the lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of foster kids.

With one sixth of the nation’s foster care population in California, what happens there sets the tone for the nation. If the guidelines are changed and the $60 million flows into the Golden State, then it has a real viable chance at extending foster care to age 21 despite the buckling budget. That will be a catalyst for sweeping implementation of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 – the most robust foster care reform of the past decade if not generation.

If you want to get involved the best thing would be to write to your Senator or Congressional Representative asking them to demand the guidance be rescinded.


http://dheimpel.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/the-price-of-a-sentence-newsweek/

A CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY?

A CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY?

As a practicing lawyer and a former legislative analyst, I have viewed as many disturbing trends as my broader research on the international scene. Our children and our rights to our children are all important and increasingly efforts are being made to separate those of us with strong religious and political beliefs from our children. Our raising our children up is increasingly being referred to as "radicalization" and "indoctrination." This applies particularly to home and religious schoolers.


I have found an amazingly dedicated blogger, Beverly Tran, who has single handedly uncovered, researched in depth and had the courage to speak on amazing money and power issues in these areas.


This is an area of the law likely to personally affect us at any time, particularly as the Alliance of Civilizations agenda advances in tandem with the powers of the state to remove children from loving parents on all too often flimsy pretenses.


In 1986 I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a Dallas, Texas convention on "the Abuse of Child Abuse laws." Having been in the system as long as I have, I have seen both sides of the issue. I have seen real abused children and indifferent workers. Equally, I have seen overzealous workers disliking religious preferences of parents and seeking to remove children on the flimsiest of pretenses. I have also seen blatant disregard of existing family ties in a rush to place children with non-related foster parents who are paid large adoption subsidies.


Tomorrow night, Michigander, Beverly Tran, analyst and expositor par excellence has agreed to join me on MY PERSPECTIVE and share valuable information that all of you need to survive similar systems in your own regions. Join us on www.themicroeffect.com at 8 p.m. Eastern time, 7 p.m. Central time, 6 p.m. Mountain time and 5 p.m. Pacific time. Alaskan listeners should be able to reach us at 4 p.m.


Stay tuned!


Constance


# posted by Constance Cumbey : 10:06 PM
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Concerns Over Children's Services Raised

Video
•Subsidized Childcare May Be In Jeopardy



Concerns Over Children's Services Raised
Cuts Proposed For Early-Education Services

POSTED: 12:00 pm EST December 14, 2009
UPDATED: 5:40 pm EST December 14, 2009

facebookdel.icio.usbuzzdiggreddit›› Email›› PrintHARTFORD, Conn. -- Concerns are being raised over children’s services in the state budget.

Early child-care and education advocates spoke out against the proposed cuts in Hartford on Monday. They urged the governor to not balance the budget at the expense of young children and their families.

Several agencies, including the Boys And Girls Club and the Head Start programs across the state joined Rep. Toni Harding from the Human Services Committee on Monday. The group is urging the governor to not cut services for children, specifically subsidized child care, saying if parents don’t have it, they can’t work.

“We are looking at a loss of 5,000 jobs in the area of child care,” said Walker.

Walker said the cuts to kids in the areas of education, family services and after-school programs total more than $47 million.

“If the cuts go through, which is about $4 million for state-funded centers, there will be a lot of families affected, and we would have to cut slots, which would impact the workforce,” said Mary Cecchinato, of Torrington Child Care Center.

"Gov. Rell is proposing cuts to state government bureaucracy and is not making cuts to direct care," said Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot. "The bigger question is what alternative equivalent spending cuts are these program advocates and legislative Democrats proposing?"

Democrats planned to caucus at 1:30 p.m. to come up with alternatives to the cuts. E-mail news tips to Eyewitness News, or dial: 866-289-0333.


http://www.wfsb.com/politics/21961249/detail.html

Barbaric’ family courts behind ‘state sponsored kidnap’ – Bob Geldof

‘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

A Child Welfare Timeline

A Child Welfare Timeline
1961: Congress allows AFDC payments to follow a child into foster care. Previously, such payments were made only to children in their own homes. This makes foster care much cheaper for states and localities. The foster care population starts to increase sharply. [1]

LATE 1970s: The foster care population reaches 503,000. [2] As a proportion of the total child population, that’s about as high as it is now. Congress becomes concerned about large numbers of children languishing in foster care, and removal of children whose poverty is confused with child “neglect.”

1980: Congress passes one of the last initiatives of the Carter Administration, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.

THE MYTH: The claim is now made that this law promoted “family preservation at all costs” that it made family preservation “the overriding goal” that it forced states to return children to dangerous homes and led to children languishing in foster care because agencies were forced to give parents “too many chances.”

THE REALITY: The words “family preservation” do not even appear in this law. In fact, this law is the first law to encourage permanence in both directions – returning children home and getting them adopted. It is the first federal law to attempt to set any time limits on how long children could stay in foster care (18 months), and the first to offer federal aid for subsidized adoption. It also required “reasonable efforts” – and nothing more – to keep families together.

Both legislative history and guidance from the federal Department of Health and Human Services make clear that “reasonable efforts” are never to be made if it would mean a child has to stay in or return to a dangerous home. [3]

But the law does have one crucial flaw: It does nothing to change the way child welfare services are financed. Foster care reimbursement remains an open-ended federal entitlement for states and localities. Far less is available to prevent foster care, and those funds are “capped.” (See NCCPR Issue Paper #12).

EARLY 1980s: The law works. This first federal effort to deal with foster care by encouraging permanence – including, but not restricted to keeping families together -- cuts the foster care population by more than half – to 243,000.[4]

But by now the Reagan Administration is in office. They hate the law because it’s seen as unnecessary federal interference in state and local decisions. They pull back proposed regulations to enforce it.[5] That sends a signal to the states: You can go back to business as usual. Since the financial incentives were never changed, business as usual – placing more and more children in foster care – is the easier course of action.

Once again, children are taken from homes that are safe or could be made safe with the right kind of services. Once taken, the children are filed away and forgotten as overwhelmed workers rush on to the next case. The “reasonable efforts” requirement is ignored. Children again languish in foster care – not because of “reasonable efforts” but because of the lack of reasonable efforts. So the foster care population begins to rise again. The increase doesn’t stop until 1999.

1992: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that individuals cannot sue to have the “reasonable efforts” requirement enforced. [6]

1992: Congress begins talking about putting serious money into family preservation. It passes the Family Preservation and Support Act. President Bush vetoes it. It passes again in 1993 and President Clinton signs it.

THE MYTH: In subsequent years this law would be described as “spending $1 billion on family preservation.”

THE REALITY: The $1 billion is over five years, and it’s for a huge range of child welfare services – including foster care, adoption, and even things like after school recreation programs. None of the money has to be spent on family preservation, and very little actually has been. (The legislation was reauthorized – and renamed – in 1997 and 2002. It’s now the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act).

But even the prospect of putting federal money into family preservation scares a child welfare establishment that is invested – literally and figuratively -- in foster care. They begin attacking family preservation at every opportunity. Any death of any child “known to the system” is blamed on “family preservation” even if the child was nowhere near a real family preservation program – and even when it was a family preservation worker who warned that the child was in danger in the first place. Ignored, amid all the hype, is the fact that real family preservation programs actually have a better track record for safety than foster care. (See NCCPR Issue Paper #1).

1997: The twin myths – that family preservation supposedly is unsafe and leads to children languishing in foster care – lead Congress to pass the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act. This law blows huge holes in what little was left of “reasonable efforts.” Backers claim it makes exceptions only for extreme cases but, in fact, the law is filled with broad, vague “catch-all” clauses that effectively make reasonable efforts optional in every case. The law also demands that, with limited exceptions, states seek termination of parental rights whenever a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months – even if the child should not have been taken away in the first place. Even more important than any specific provision is the general message to the states: You’ve been doing too much to keep families together, you need to take away more children.

2008: Small increases in adoptions occur until 2000, but then the increases stop.[7] The average annual increase in adoptions attributable to ASFA equals less than 2.5 percent of the number of children in foster care on any given day.[8] The small increase in adoptions is outweighed by the children coming into care because ASFA encourages so many more children to be taken in the first place. As a result, during a time when crime went down and child abuse itself went down, and despite the fact that many foster children "aged out" of the system without ever finding a permanent home, the total number of children in foster care on any given day actually increased until 1999.[9] It wasn't until 2003 that this number finally fell below where it was when ASFA became law - six years earlier.[10]

Worse, until 2006, the number of children taken from their parents over the course of a year increased every year but two since ASFA passed, with a record 307,000 children torn from their homes in 2005.[11] Because ASFA was built on a foundation of false premises, it has backfired.

Updated October 23, 2008

[1] Marguerite Rosenthal and James A. Louis, “The Law’s Evolving Role in Child Abuse and Neglect,” in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1985, pp. 62-64.

[2] Leroy Pelton, For Reasons of Poverty: A Critical Analysis of the Public Child Welfare System in the United States (New York: Praeger, 1989), Chart, p.6

[3] Testimony of MaryLee Allen, Director, Child Welfare and Mental Health division Children's Defense Fund, before the House Ways and Means Committee Human resources subcommittee, April 8, 1997.

[4] Pelton, note 2, Supra.

[5] Allen, note 3, Supra.

[6] Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992)

[7] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm For data before 2000 see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Foster Care FY1999-FY2004 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children In Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/entryexit2004.htm

[8] Penelope L. Maza, Adoption Data Update, presentation to Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalition, Washington, DC, May 13, 2003.

[9] HHS, note 7, supra.

[10] Ibid.

[11] ibid.