(This is from the Child Welfare Information Gateway and are Federal Child Welfare Laws-Why aren't these laws adhered to by DCYF/CPS? Why do they still get their
federal funding when they do not abide by these laws?)
All families can benefit from information, guidance, and help in connecting with resources as they meet the challenges of parenthood and family life. Find resources and information on family support and family preservation services.
Overview
Explains the importance of supportive services for children and families, including frequently asked questions.
Cultural competence
The importance of cultural competence in family support and family preservation services and links to additional resources.
Assessing family strengths & needs
The role of assessment in family support and family preservation services and links to additional resources.
Family support services
Planning and implementing family support programs, specific types of programs, and program effectiveness.
Family preservation services
Underlying values and principles of family preservation services, core elements, policy implications, program approaches, and State and local examples. Also intensive family preservation services and evaluations of the effectiveness of family preservation services.
Supporting families across the service continuum
Family empowerment and participation, focusing on strengths, and community-based support can be employed in a variety of settings across the child welfare service continuum and in other service systems.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/supporting/
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
Monday, December 21, 2009
Witness-A Child's Testimony Is Key In Murder Trial
Witness
A Child's Testimony Is Key In Murder Trial
By Mary Jayne McKay
.
Foster father Charles Forshee is accused of killing 2-year-old Dillon Farrer. (CBS)
. Charles Forshee was a devoted father who had taken in more than 90 foster children. (CBS)
.
The Forshees, once honored as "foster parents of the year," seemed to be the answer to mother Amanda DeBerry's prayers. (CBS)
.How credible are child witnesses? Find out more about other cases in which child witnesses played a key role.
Find out more about forensics, DNA and some cases in which DNA has made a difference.
.(CBS) Everyone thought Charles Forshee was a devoted father.
Then, he was accused of killing 2-year-old Dillon Farrer. The prosecution's main witness against Charles was Dillon's 4-year-old brother, Lucas.
Can a jury trust the testimony of such a young child? Correspondent Troy Roberts reports on this 48 Hours Mystery, which first aired on Nov. 15, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story begins with Amanda DeBerry. Her parents divorced when she was a child, and she always wanted a family of her own.
She gave birth to Lucas when she was 16, and Dillon just a year later. By the time she was 19, she was trapped in an abusive relationship with Lucas’ father and pregnant with her third child.
Amanda sought refuge in a shelter for battered women in Houston, Texas. She decided to give the baby she was carrying up for adoption. But when doctors put her on bed rest, the shelter urged her to have someone else take care of her boys until she gave birth.
She says it was a decision that would haunt her for the rest of her life: "I really thought when I put my kids into foster care, I was doing the smart thing. And it didn't turn out like that at all."
The Homes of St. Mark, a private foster care agency licensed by the state of Texas, found Charles and Linda Forshee, a couple with 17 years of experience as foster parents.
Over the years, The Forshees had taken in more than 90 foster children.
"For us this wasn't chaotic; it was normal," Charles says.
Charles was a technician for Southwestern Bell, while Linda stayed home and took care of the children. The Forshees, once honored as “foster parents of the year,” seemed to be the answer to Amanda’s prayers.
The Forshees say Dillon – then almost 2 years old – seemed to adjust especially well to his new environment.
“He was Charlie’s favorite,” says Linda. “He would run to Charlie, give him big hugs and kisses.”
But on the evening of June 21, 2001, after Lucas and Dillon had gone to bed, Linda went into the room and found Dillon unconscious in his crib.
“I picked him up and took him out in the front room and told Charlie something was wrong,” she remembers. “And I happened to notice that he was a little blue around the lips, and Charlie took him and started CPR on him.”
Linda dialed 911 and the paramedics arrived and took Dillon to the hospital. By the time Amanda and her mother were called to the hospital, Dillon was dead.
Amanda and her mother, Judy, were in shock. The Forshees say they were just as devastated.
“I felt I lost a child that night,” says Charles. “You know, he was my child and I lost him.”
Everyone wondered how Dillon could suddenly die, one month shy of his second birthday. The answer came three months later when the autopsy report was released. The cause of death was asphyxia due to suffocation. It was ruled a homicide.
Charles was charged with murder, based on the statement of the only eyewitness to the murder – Dillon’s brother Lucas, who was only 3 at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas repeated his story the next day in a videotaped statement obtained exclusively by 48 Hours.
"Charlie yelled at him, he said, 'Lay down,' and he put the pillow on his face and police took him to the hospital," says Lucas.
A little over a year later, Charles, 56, found himself waiting to go on trial for murder. “At my age with what the charges are, if I go to jail I probably won’t come out,” he says.
“Kids don’t just say things like that off the top of their head,” says Amanda.
But don't children have wild imaginations? Yes, says Amanda, "About monsters, about creepy things in their closet. Not about someone they know walking into a room and hurting their best friend. Not about things like that.”
Forshee’s two adopted sons, Richard and Brian say he was a great father, a firm disciplinarian but never physical.
"So many people even at church would tell us, 'Oh, you've got a special gift, you're going to be rewarded in heaven," says Linda. "I feel like I don't know why we're going through this hell right now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Anshu “Sunni” Mitchell says Charles snapped that night because he was exhausted from working overtime for 13 days straight. She says Charles couldn’t cope with Dillon’s crying and smothered him.
“Anybody’s capable of snapping at any point,” she says, “I mean, anything can change how you’ve been all along.”
One thing, however, is undisputed. Dillon and Lucas were rambunctious and refused to go to sleep that night. First, Linda tried several times to calm Dillon down. Then her husband went into the room and says he tried soothing the baby with a backrub.
“I flipped him over onto his stomach. I then placed my hand on the middle of his back to hold him down," Charles said in a police statement. "Dillon was trying to get up and I held him down. I had my hand on his back for about a minute.”
He said Dillon was still crying – and therefore very much alive - when he left the room. Shortly afterwards, Linda found Dillon unconscious in his crib.
The Forshees hired prominent defense attorney Stanley Schneider, who launched a controversial defense strategy. He says Lucas killed his brother: “I don’t think it was intentional, I don’t think he realized what he was doing."
The Forshees say that from the beginning they were concerned about Lucas’ overly aggressive behavior. They knew Lucas’ father had physically abused Amanda, and that Lucas had seen the violence.
Linda Forshee documented Lucas’ behavior in her monthly reports to the foster care agency. She even took a photo of bruises she claims were from Lucas kicking and punching her. Then, one night, Lucas said something that worried Linda.
“He came in and told me he was going to kill his brother, his mother and me,” she says. “And I got on the phone and I called the agency right away.”
The agency set up a meeting for the following week, but it was too late. Dillon died two days after.
Will a jury believe a child so young could be so violent?
Part II: The Trial
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/48hours/main529398.shtml
A Child's Testimony Is Key In Murder Trial
By Mary Jayne McKay
.
Foster father Charles Forshee is accused of killing 2-year-old Dillon Farrer. (CBS)
. Charles Forshee was a devoted father who had taken in more than 90 foster children. (CBS)
.
The Forshees, once honored as "foster parents of the year," seemed to be the answer to mother Amanda DeBerry's prayers. (CBS)
.How credible are child witnesses? Find out more about other cases in which child witnesses played a key role.
Find out more about forensics, DNA and some cases in which DNA has made a difference.
.(CBS) Everyone thought Charles Forshee was a devoted father.
Then, he was accused of killing 2-year-old Dillon Farrer. The prosecution's main witness against Charles was Dillon's 4-year-old brother, Lucas.
Can a jury trust the testimony of such a young child? Correspondent Troy Roberts reports on this 48 Hours Mystery, which first aired on Nov. 15, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story begins with Amanda DeBerry. Her parents divorced when she was a child, and she always wanted a family of her own.
She gave birth to Lucas when she was 16, and Dillon just a year later. By the time she was 19, she was trapped in an abusive relationship with Lucas’ father and pregnant with her third child.
Amanda sought refuge in a shelter for battered women in Houston, Texas. She decided to give the baby she was carrying up for adoption. But when doctors put her on bed rest, the shelter urged her to have someone else take care of her boys until she gave birth.
She says it was a decision that would haunt her for the rest of her life: "I really thought when I put my kids into foster care, I was doing the smart thing. And it didn't turn out like that at all."
The Homes of St. Mark, a private foster care agency licensed by the state of Texas, found Charles and Linda Forshee, a couple with 17 years of experience as foster parents.
Over the years, The Forshees had taken in more than 90 foster children.
"For us this wasn't chaotic; it was normal," Charles says.
Charles was a technician for Southwestern Bell, while Linda stayed home and took care of the children. The Forshees, once honored as “foster parents of the year,” seemed to be the answer to Amanda’s prayers.
The Forshees say Dillon – then almost 2 years old – seemed to adjust especially well to his new environment.
“He was Charlie’s favorite,” says Linda. “He would run to Charlie, give him big hugs and kisses.”
But on the evening of June 21, 2001, after Lucas and Dillon had gone to bed, Linda went into the room and found Dillon unconscious in his crib.
“I picked him up and took him out in the front room and told Charlie something was wrong,” she remembers. “And I happened to notice that he was a little blue around the lips, and Charlie took him and started CPR on him.”
Linda dialed 911 and the paramedics arrived and took Dillon to the hospital. By the time Amanda and her mother were called to the hospital, Dillon was dead.
Amanda and her mother, Judy, were in shock. The Forshees say they were just as devastated.
“I felt I lost a child that night,” says Charles. “You know, he was my child and I lost him.”
Everyone wondered how Dillon could suddenly die, one month shy of his second birthday. The answer came three months later when the autopsy report was released. The cause of death was asphyxia due to suffocation. It was ruled a homicide.
Charles was charged with murder, based on the statement of the only eyewitness to the murder – Dillon’s brother Lucas, who was only 3 at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas repeated his story the next day in a videotaped statement obtained exclusively by 48 Hours.
"Charlie yelled at him, he said, 'Lay down,' and he put the pillow on his face and police took him to the hospital," says Lucas.
A little over a year later, Charles, 56, found himself waiting to go on trial for murder. “At my age with what the charges are, if I go to jail I probably won’t come out,” he says.
“Kids don’t just say things like that off the top of their head,” says Amanda.
But don't children have wild imaginations? Yes, says Amanda, "About monsters, about creepy things in their closet. Not about someone they know walking into a room and hurting their best friend. Not about things like that.”
Forshee’s two adopted sons, Richard and Brian say he was a great father, a firm disciplinarian but never physical.
"So many people even at church would tell us, 'Oh, you've got a special gift, you're going to be rewarded in heaven," says Linda. "I feel like I don't know why we're going through this hell right now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Anshu “Sunni” Mitchell says Charles snapped that night because he was exhausted from working overtime for 13 days straight. She says Charles couldn’t cope with Dillon’s crying and smothered him.
“Anybody’s capable of snapping at any point,” she says, “I mean, anything can change how you’ve been all along.”
One thing, however, is undisputed. Dillon and Lucas were rambunctious and refused to go to sleep that night. First, Linda tried several times to calm Dillon down. Then her husband went into the room and says he tried soothing the baby with a backrub.
“I flipped him over onto his stomach. I then placed my hand on the middle of his back to hold him down," Charles said in a police statement. "Dillon was trying to get up and I held him down. I had my hand on his back for about a minute.”
He said Dillon was still crying – and therefore very much alive - when he left the room. Shortly afterwards, Linda found Dillon unconscious in his crib.
The Forshees hired prominent defense attorney Stanley Schneider, who launched a controversial defense strategy. He says Lucas killed his brother: “I don’t think it was intentional, I don’t think he realized what he was doing."
The Forshees say that from the beginning they were concerned about Lucas’ overly aggressive behavior. They knew Lucas’ father had physically abused Amanda, and that Lucas had seen the violence.
Linda Forshee documented Lucas’ behavior in her monthly reports to the foster care agency. She even took a photo of bruises she claims were from Lucas kicking and punching her. Then, one night, Lucas said something that worried Linda.
“He came in and told me he was going to kill his brother, his mother and me,” she says. “And I got on the phone and I called the agency right away.”
The agency set up a meeting for the following week, but it was too late. Dillon died two days after.
Will a jury believe a child so young could be so violent?
Part II: The Trial
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/48hours/main529398.shtml
Safety data from kid drug trials often unpublished
Safety data from kid drug trials often unpublished
Megan Brooks
Tue, Nov 3 2009NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When drugs approved for adults are studied in youngsters, the research yields important safety data that could guide the use of these medications in children, a report published this week indicates.
Health
But in most cases these studies never appear in peer-reviewed journals, and when they do, half of them don't focus on the important new safety data that's been generated, Dr. Daniel K. Benjamin Jr., from Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina and colleagues found.
"Specifically, trials that uncover new safety findings are less likely to be published than other types of trials, and trials that uncover results unfavorable to a company (or its product) are less likely to be published than those with favorable results," they report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Prescription drugs are often administered "off-label" to children largely because many of them have only been tested in and approved for use in adults. As such, drugs are often given to children without fully knowing if they will be beneficial, harmful, or neither.
To address this problem, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act in 1997, which, in part, extends the exclusive marketing rights for a particular drug if the drug maker conducts FDA-requested studies of its effects in children. However, it is unclear how often the results of pediatric drug trials are published in peer-reviewed medical journals and just what information gets published.
In the first 10 years of the so-called "pediatric exclusivity" program, more than 95,000 children were enrolled in 365 pediatric trials for the 153 drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity extensions. Overall, there were 137 pediatric labeling changes, which means that changes were made to the information the drug company gives to doctors about how the drug should be used.
Benjamin and his team reviewed 129 of the 137 labeling changes. They found that for 96 products (74 percent), no new safety information was added to the product label. For 33 products (26 percent), new pediatric safety information was added to the product label. For 12 of these products, "unexpected and important neuropsychiatric safety findings" emerged in the pediatric drug trials.
For example, in a pediatric trial of ribavirin and interferon alpha for hepatitis C infection, FDA medical reviewers found an increase in suicidal thoughts compared with adults.
Agitation was observed in young children given the stomach acid drug famotidine (marketed as Pepcid or Fluxid). Aggressive and hyperactive behavior was more often seen in children exposed to the bladder-control drug tolterodine (Detrol), and post-marketing data for the migraine drug sumatriptan showed "serious adverse events" in children, which have been only rarely seen in adults, including stroke, vision loss and death.
In addition to the 12 products with neuropsychiatric safety issues, 21 products tested in children had "other important safety findings."
What's concerning, the researchers say, is that less than half of the trials (16 of 33) that generated new safety issues were ever reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
What's more, of the 16 trials that were published in reputable journals, 7 articles (44 percent) substantially differed in their presentation and interpretation of the data submitted to the FDA.
In an email to Reuters Health, Benjamin said: "The results investigators and pharmaceutical companies -- who have a conflict of interest -- emphasize in the peer-review literature are often different than what FDA reviewers report."
"Greater access to data will result in greater dissemination of findings, and thus improve children's health," Benjamin and colleagues conclude in their report.
SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, December 2009.
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B84UL20091209
Megan Brooks
Tue, Nov 3 2009NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When drugs approved for adults are studied in youngsters, the research yields important safety data that could guide the use of these medications in children, a report published this week indicates.
Health
But in most cases these studies never appear in peer-reviewed journals, and when they do, half of them don't focus on the important new safety data that's been generated, Dr. Daniel K. Benjamin Jr., from Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina and colleagues found.
"Specifically, trials that uncover new safety findings are less likely to be published than other types of trials, and trials that uncover results unfavorable to a company (or its product) are less likely to be published than those with favorable results," they report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Prescription drugs are often administered "off-label" to children largely because many of them have only been tested in and approved for use in adults. As such, drugs are often given to children without fully knowing if they will be beneficial, harmful, or neither.
To address this problem, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act in 1997, which, in part, extends the exclusive marketing rights for a particular drug if the drug maker conducts FDA-requested studies of its effects in children. However, it is unclear how often the results of pediatric drug trials are published in peer-reviewed medical journals and just what information gets published.
In the first 10 years of the so-called "pediatric exclusivity" program, more than 95,000 children were enrolled in 365 pediatric trials for the 153 drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity extensions. Overall, there were 137 pediatric labeling changes, which means that changes were made to the information the drug company gives to doctors about how the drug should be used.
Benjamin and his team reviewed 129 of the 137 labeling changes. They found that for 96 products (74 percent), no new safety information was added to the product label. For 33 products (26 percent), new pediatric safety information was added to the product label. For 12 of these products, "unexpected and important neuropsychiatric safety findings" emerged in the pediatric drug trials.
For example, in a pediatric trial of ribavirin and interferon alpha for hepatitis C infection, FDA medical reviewers found an increase in suicidal thoughts compared with adults.
Agitation was observed in young children given the stomach acid drug famotidine (marketed as Pepcid or Fluxid). Aggressive and hyperactive behavior was more often seen in children exposed to the bladder-control drug tolterodine (Detrol), and post-marketing data for the migraine drug sumatriptan showed "serious adverse events" in children, which have been only rarely seen in adults, including stroke, vision loss and death.
In addition to the 12 products with neuropsychiatric safety issues, 21 products tested in children had "other important safety findings."
What's concerning, the researchers say, is that less than half of the trials (16 of 33) that generated new safety issues were ever reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
What's more, of the 16 trials that were published in reputable journals, 7 articles (44 percent) substantially differed in their presentation and interpretation of the data submitted to the FDA.
In an email to Reuters Health, Benjamin said: "The results investigators and pharmaceutical companies -- who have a conflict of interest -- emphasize in the peer-review literature are often different than what FDA reviewers report."
"Greater access to data will result in greater dissemination of findings, and thus improve children's health," Benjamin and colleagues conclude in their report.
SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, December 2009.
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B84UL20091209
Kentucky chief justice supports attempt to open family courts
Kentucky chief justice supports attempt to open family courts
By Deborah Yetter • dyetter@courier-journal.com • December 18, 2009
Chief justice of Kentucky’s Supreme Court, John D. Minton, said he supports a pilot project to allow access to Kentucky’s now-secret family courts.
The project would require a change in state law and a similar effort failed two years ago. But some supporters of the measure, including Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, believe it’s time to try again in the 2010 legislative session.
“I think there’s a lot of interest in that,’’ said Burch, a sponsor of House Bill 421 that failed in 2008. “It’s still on my plate to do something about it.”
Citing the 2008 bill, Minton, in a statement released Wednesday by his office, said “I would support similar legislation if introduced again.”
Minton said the courts have a number of judges “who have openly expressed their support for allowing the public to see what is going on in certain types of juvenile proceedings” and “I support the work of these judges and encourage their efforts to provide greater accessibility.”
Rep. Susan Westrom, D-Lexington, a co-sponsor of the 2008 bill, said she’s willing to try again given the extent of problems that appear to beset the state’s child-protection system. Opening the courts might be a step toward shedding some light on the state’s overall system of protecting children from neglect and abuse, she said.
“Something is not working,” Westrom said. “If it were our child, we would want it to work.”
The Courier-Journal reported this week that the Kentucky, with the nation’s highest rates of child deaths from abuse and neglect, has repeatedly cut money from programs meant to protect vulnerable children.
It found that social workers are overloaded with cases to the point they lack time to adequately investigate problems. Some judges believe that opening the family courts, which handle abuse and neglect cases, might help the public understand the extent of the problem.
Patricia Walker FitzGerald, chief Family Court judge in Jefferson County, supported the 2008 bill and still believes family court should be open in most cases while allowing judges discretion to close some sensitive proceedings – such as a child sexual abuse case or a hearing involving medical or mental health information.
(2 of 2)
"I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
“I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
“I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091218/NEWS01/912180360/
By Deborah Yetter • dyetter@courier-journal.com • December 18, 2009
Chief justice of Kentucky’s Supreme Court, John D. Minton, said he supports a pilot project to allow access to Kentucky’s now-secret family courts.
The project would require a change in state law and a similar effort failed two years ago. But some supporters of the measure, including Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, believe it’s time to try again in the 2010 legislative session.
“I think there’s a lot of interest in that,’’ said Burch, a sponsor of House Bill 421 that failed in 2008. “It’s still on my plate to do something about it.”
Citing the 2008 bill, Minton, in a statement released Wednesday by his office, said “I would support similar legislation if introduced again.”
Minton said the courts have a number of judges “who have openly expressed their support for allowing the public to see what is going on in certain types of juvenile proceedings” and “I support the work of these judges and encourage their efforts to provide greater accessibility.”
Rep. Susan Westrom, D-Lexington, a co-sponsor of the 2008 bill, said she’s willing to try again given the extent of problems that appear to beset the state’s child-protection system. Opening the courts might be a step toward shedding some light on the state’s overall system of protecting children from neglect and abuse, she said.
“Something is not working,” Westrom said. “If it were our child, we would want it to work.”
The Courier-Journal reported this week that the Kentucky, with the nation’s highest rates of child deaths from abuse and neglect, has repeatedly cut money from programs meant to protect vulnerable children.
It found that social workers are overloaded with cases to the point they lack time to adequately investigate problems. Some judges believe that opening the family courts, which handle abuse and neglect cases, might help the public understand the extent of the problem.
Patricia Walker FitzGerald, chief Family Court judge in Jefferson County, supported the 2008 bill and still believes family court should be open in most cases while allowing judges discretion to close some sensitive proceedings – such as a child sexual abuse case or a hearing involving medical or mental health information.
(2 of 2)
"I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
“I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
“I would love to see that happen,’’ she said. “Any time people are permitted to operate in secrecy, it does create the potential for abuse of authority. It’s always good for people who have power over other people to be subject to public scrutiny.”
She said it also could make parties who appear in court more accountable. In some cases, FitzGerald said, parents have appeared before her and admitted they abused or neglected their children, then complained in public the state had taken their children away for no reason.
The system is meant to protect parents and children but “I think we are at times protecting the wrong people,” she said.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of which FitzGerald is a member, in 2005 endorsed opening family and juvenile courts as long as judges retained discretion to close hearings in sensitive cases.
Half the 50 states — including Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio — permit some access to juvenile and family courts, according to a 2008 joint report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School and First Star, a Washington child advocacy group.
FitzGerald said that had the 2008 bill passed, Jefferson Family Court judges had agreed to serve as a pilot project for allowing access to the courtroom.
But the measure ran into questions from lawmakers, some of whom feared it might stigmatize families and children involved in neglect or abuse cases. It was voted down in the House Judiciary Committee.
FitzGerald said she hopes lawmakers reconsider and approve a pilot project to open family courts.
“I think people would have a much better understanding of what goes on,’’ she said.
Reporter Deborah Yetter can be reached at (502) 582-4228.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091218/NEWS01/912180360/
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Psych evaluation for woman accused of sex with foster son
Psych evaluation for woman accused of sex with foster son
STANDARD-EXAMINER, OGDEN, UTAH | TIM GURRISTER | Sun, Dec 20, 10:41 AM
(Why is it Foster strangers aren't given psyche evals before foster placement, yet parents are court ordered psyche evals and CPS/DCYF try to make grandparents undergo pscyche evals for placement of grandchildren? What makes these foster strangers any better than the rest of us?)
Dec. 20--OGDEN -- A woman accused of having ongoing sexual relations with her 14-yearold foster son has been ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations.
Jennifer Ann Montag, 40, has been held in the Weber County Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail since her Oct. 29 arrest.
At the request of her public defender, 2nd District Judge Ernie Jones ordered the evaluations by two mental health professionals to determine Montag's competency to stand trial. A review date is set for Jan. 6.
The examinations typically explore a defendant's ability to assist in their own defense a n d t h e i r state of mind at the time of the alleged offenses.
Montag reportedly confessed that she and the teen had sexual contact and intercourse a number of times in her Hooper home in the last weeks of October, according to the probable cause affidavit in 2nd District Court.
Montag is charged with three counts of forcible sodomy and two counts of rape, all first-degree felonies, punishable by a prison term of five years to life. The charges are enhanced because Montag was in a position of special trust to the alleged victim as a foster parent, the affidavit states.
A victim of such charges, whether a willing participant in sexual acts or not, is not legally old enough at 4 to give consent, making the offense statutory.
At least one of her biological children walked in on Montag in the midst of sexual contact with the victim, according to reports from the Weber County Sheriff's Office, which investigated the case.
Montag has lost her job because of the charges, according to court records, making her eligible for a public defender.
You can find this article online at http://www.dailyme.com/xxxx
Copyright 2009 xxxxxxx
STANDARD-EXAMINER, OGDEN, UTAH | TIM GURRISTER | Sun, Dec 20, 10:41 AM
(Why is it Foster strangers aren't given psyche evals before foster placement, yet parents are court ordered psyche evals and CPS/DCYF try to make grandparents undergo pscyche evals for placement of grandchildren? What makes these foster strangers any better than the rest of us?)
Dec. 20--OGDEN -- A woman accused of having ongoing sexual relations with her 14-yearold foster son has been ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations.
Jennifer Ann Montag, 40, has been held in the Weber County Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail since her Oct. 29 arrest.
At the request of her public defender, 2nd District Judge Ernie Jones ordered the evaluations by two mental health professionals to determine Montag's competency to stand trial. A review date is set for Jan. 6.
The examinations typically explore a defendant's ability to assist in their own defense a n d t h e i r state of mind at the time of the alleged offenses.
Montag reportedly confessed that she and the teen had sexual contact and intercourse a number of times in her Hooper home in the last weeks of October, according to the probable cause affidavit in 2nd District Court.
Montag is charged with three counts of forcible sodomy and two counts of rape, all first-degree felonies, punishable by a prison term of five years to life. The charges are enhanced because Montag was in a position of special trust to the alleged victim as a foster parent, the affidavit states.
A victim of such charges, whether a willing participant in sexual acts or not, is not legally old enough at 4 to give consent, making the offense statutory.
At least one of her biological children walked in on Montag in the midst of sexual contact with the victim, according to reports from the Weber County Sheriff's Office, which investigated the case.
Montag has lost her job because of the charges, according to court records, making her eligible for a public defender.
You can find this article online at http://www.dailyme.com/xxxx
Copyright 2009 xxxxxxx
Suffer the Children: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable
Suffer the Children: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable
by Mirah Riben / November 23rd, 2009
The Littlest Casualties
Worldwide, there are approximately 143 million “orphans” based on figures that include children with only one living parent, approximately 90% of them (Oreskovi and Maskew, 2009). Approximately 2.6% of these children are housed in orphanages (Ibid).
Within the United States half a million children are wards of the state in foster care system, despite the well documented risks, impermanence and cost. Of these, an estimated 129,000 no longer have any chance of reunification with their families and could be adopted.
What is in their best interest? Is redistributing them to far—off cultures and expecting these children—many who may have learning disabilities and other emotional, attachment and physical challenges—to learn new languages in addition to being separated from family and community they likely remember?
Do domestic and international adoption policies put the best interests of these most vulnerable children first and foremost, or are they being used as pawns in a multibillion dollar industry designed to meet the demand for younger and healthier infants?
The number of American children in foster care who are eligible to be adopted is startling in view of the fact that an estimated 10 million American couples who “would likely attempt to adopt an infant domestically if they felt they had a realistic opportunity to do so,” according to a poll by the National Council for Adoption (Wirthin, 2007).
An August, 2008 survey of the National Center for Health Statistics estimated that nearly 600,000 women are seeking to adopt. Even using this more conservative figure it is incomprehensible that the children in temporary care are being by-and-large left behind.
Children adopted from foster care used to be called “hard-to-place” which evolved to the more sensitive and politically correct “Special Needs” children. American adopters, however, still prefer international adoption (or domestic infant adoption, albeit in short supply since birth control became widely available, abortion rights were upheld, and increased acceptance of single mothers, even providing for expectant mothers to continue high school.
International adoption is preferred over adoption from foster care for three main reasons:
■The desire for younger children from outside the country.
■The belief that internationally adopted children and t are less “damaged” despite reports of attachment difficulties of children coming form orphanages, fetal alcohol syndrome and other health issues, many of which are not revealed accurately and thoroughly by international adoption agencies here and abroad.
■Alleviation of the fear of an original parent (by birth) wanting contact, returning at any point, or worst of all attempting to overturn the adoption because of coercion—subtle or overt—including the lack of the birthfather signing a release of parental rights. However, these concerns would only apply to the small number of infant adoptions. The parents of children coming from state social services have had their parental rights terminated.
These fears, myths and misconceptions, coupled with the glamorization of rescuing orphans, are perpetrated by an adoption industry that generates an estimated 6.3 billion annually worldwide and 23 billion domestically.
Adoption Entrepreneurs
The reversal of supply and demand created a need for adoption profiteers to put a new positive spin on marketing. As opposed to the focus being on helping “wayward” girls of the 50’s 60’s and 70s ridding themselves of the shame of their indiscretions, today, adoption is encouraged as a way to rescue children from orphanages in impoverished parts of the world. This has resulted in international adoption by Americans nearly doubling during the 1990s, reaching twenty thousand annually and approximately 250,000 children in the last thirty years making the U.S. the number one receiving country. Globally, over a quarter million children have been redistributed by adoption in the past three decades.
Yet, one by one countries, which had been prime suppliers, have begun to investigate and validate the claims of corruption and child trafficking that is rampant in nations in political turmoil and developing countries with low per capita annual incomes. These investigations resulted in Vietnam, Romania, Guatemala disallowing the international adoption of their children at least until more restrictions can be enacted to prevent widespread corruption, Russia increased restrictions in an attempt to reduce the alarming number of Russian children murdered by their American adopters, and others sent back, abused or institutionalized.
The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an international agreement between participating countries requires their member nations adhere to two primary goals: to protect the best interest of children, as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are considered with each intercountry adoption, and to prevent abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children.
These restrictions have limited the supply of babies and in turn the incomes of adoption profiteers who now rely on international adoption to make up for the loss of domestic adoptions. Many American adoption agencies have closed as a result of the reduction in numbers of adoptions and the cost and difficulty complying with Hague requirements and becoming accredited.
The concerns of these entrepreneurs are represented by The National Council for Adoption (NCFA), lobbyists paid to represent the interests of adoption agency owners and employees in affecting U.S. adoption polices favorable to the encouragement of adoption and to assist in creating marketing programs aimed at mothers in crisis to increase adoptions.
The international equivalent of the NCFA is the Joint Council on International Children Services. In addition, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI), lobbies congress to effect incentives such as tax benefits and payments states to increase family separations. The CCA also sponsors National Adoption Day and Angels in Adoption program to honor those who adopt and help facilitate adoptions.
Adoption attorneys, are represented by The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA) and Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program (CAP) and the Center for Adoption Policy. ACT for Adoption, based in Rye, NY, is a coalition of adoption profiteers mobilized in late 2008 “to communicate with the White House, Members of Congress, government agencies and the press to educate and advocate for legislation, policies and administrative procedures supportive of adoption.”
ACT for Adoption is sponsored by the Center for Adoption Policy, and the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School intentionally both of whom intentionally grossly overestimate numbers of orphans, repeatedly quoting the figure of 143,000, well known to be extremely overinflated as 88.7% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans and not eligible for adoption (UNAIDS.2004). Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Bartholet of ACT and CAP, applauded Madonna’s second adoption and, speaking at the 2009 Adoption Policy Conference, “International Adoption, the United States, and the Reality of the Hague System” stated that heritage is over-rated.
To counter these facts, ACT creates newspeak such as their newly coined term “unparented children” and applaud the adoption of children of living parents while recognizing that International adoption “has come under fire recently from UNICEF” because corruption and baby selling. They also use language such as a need to eliminate “barriers that hinder children from realizing their basic right of a family and ways they might act to eliminate them” without any consideration of a child’s foremost basic right to have his family receive the resources they need to remain intact or reunify.
Pawns of Pretense
Pro-adoption lobbying is not difficult in a nation that does not prioritize family preservation and instead vilifies mothers because of age, marital or financial status, would cast a legislator as a villainous scrooge. Legislators are particularly eager to support adoption promotions and incentive programs which are proposed as helping children languishing in foster care to find “forever families”
Susan Jackson, a family advocate and member of CPS Watch observed: “No one dares risk being politically incorrect, even to save hundreds of thousands of children who are sentenced to a life of disassociation and despair in multiple foster homes, and then, if they are ‘lucky,’ into an adoptive home, never to see their parents or siblings again (TCB 2007).”
And so the U.S. enacted state incentives to move children quickly into “permanence.” in 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and states quickly enacted legislation modifying child welfare procedures to conform to ASFA’s guidelines and qualify for federal funding. The new procedures place a premium on removing children from their homes—often because of poverty and lack of resources such as adequate child-care. Well-documented maltreatment of children in foster homes is then used to utilize AFSA bonuses to states to accelerate substantially the time frame for severing their original parents’ constitutional right to parent without due process.
“The federal government offers a perverse incentive to states when they think that a family is having problems: Take children away and we’ll pick up a large share of the tab” observes Richard Wexler (2006) commenting on the rush for removals. “[The money is unlimited; the federal government helps pay for every eligible child thrown into foster care, no matter how many are taken. But if a state wants to use safe, proven alternatives to foster care, the state often must pay almost all of the bill itself.”
Through waivers, states may spend Federal funds in alternative manners, since 1996, just 17 States have implemented 25 child welfare waiver programs including: assisted guardianship/kinship care; services for caregivers with substance use disorders; and adoption. A barrier to implementation of these programs is that while Federal title IV-E payments help States pay foster parents and adopters of special needs children, these funds cannot normally be used to pay subsidies to extended family members who provide legal guardians. According to the National Family Preservation Network, “[E]very dollar invested in keeping families together saves $2-$3 on placement services.”
In addition to state incentives to increase family separations and adoptions, the U.S. Federal government, prompted by pro-adoption profiteers and their lobbyists, enacted Adoption Tax Benefit legislation in starting in 1996 “to encourage further the adoption of special needs children.”
The “special needs” wording in the original legislation was the foot in the door need. A summary of the data from the U.S. Treasury Department to determine who most benefits from the credit, however, reveals:
■The vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients completed private or foreign adoptions rather than adoptions from foster care. The tax credit disproportionately supports higher-income families.
■The tax credit primarily supports the adoption of younger children.
Nearly 90% of those receiving the credit have incomes above $100,000 benefitting only one in four adopting from U.S. foster care, but nearly all who adopted children from other countries were supported by the tax credit. . From 1999 to 2005, the vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients adopted infants or younger children via private domestic or international adoptions, doing nothing to reduce the number of children in foster care, despite that being the alleged intent of the tax incentive.
In 2004 just 18 percent of children supported by the tax credit and 17 percent of the funds so allocated, assisted children from foster care. In 2005, nearly 90 percent of filers with, and 71 percent of all families adopted children under age five. Only about 10 percent of higher-income families adopted from foster care, and very few adopted older children.
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, whose goal is to promote ethical adoption polices and legal reforms, reported (1999), “The federal government, for example, offers financial incentives in the form of tax credits to families who privately adopt infants (and who are often affluent), yet does not offer the same support to those families who adopt children in foster care (and who usually have the greatest need for such support). Is it ethical that intermediaries and those least in need benefit the most from these tax credits?”
“Today’s reality,” comments Joe Kroll, executive director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) “is that the original intent of the adoption tax credit legislation has been turned upside down. Those who most need support to adopt (lower-income families who are adopting children from foster care) are receiving the least benefit, and those for whom the financial outlay is not a barrier to adoption benefit the most.” Elizabeth Samuels (2005) likewise found that “federal tax benefits for adopters generally provide greater benefits to families involved in more expensive healthy newborn and international adoptions, although the benefits are promoted as a means to increase adoptions of children out of foster care.”
And, as with state incentives, these funds are allocated to adopters but are not available to assist families in crisis who are instead stigmatized if they need and or accept government financial assistance. Nor are tax credits available for extended family who care for a related child.
Exportation of American Children
While Americans are adopting allegedly unwanted orphans from impoverished orphanages, in larger number than those of any other country, plans are underway to increase the adoption of our own children who are fostered and institutionalized in small orphanages called group homes… by exporting them.
Placing American born children out of the country is nothing new. Quietly, approximately19 states including Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and Arkansas allow “home state finalization” for the outgoing international adoption of U.S. children. The U.S. State Department indicates that seventeen American adoption agencies have been accredited or temporarily accredited under the new Hague rules for outgoing adoptions. Some, American based adoption agencies such as VidaAdoptions.org and IllienAdoptions.org, have included exportation of children as rates of international adoptions into the U.S. have dropped post Hague.
The process has been called “reverse commute adoptions” by attorney Michael Goldstein and his social worker wife, Joy, founders of Forever Families Through Adoption (FFTA), who claim to have placed some 65 American born babies for adoptions out of the U.S. between 1997 to 2007. Some of Goldstein’s adoptions have been high profile cases such as two American babies adopted by British Foreign Secretary David Milliband and his wife.
Additional international demand for U.S. born children is currently being created by same sex couples in Europe who see America as the perfect source inasmuch as it is currently the only country which allows––in at least some states––for adoption by same sex couples. But these type of adoptions and those conducted by FFTAs are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Donaldson Adoption Institute estimates the current number of children exported from the U.S. for adoption at 500 a year (Smolowe, 1994) while Thomas DiFilipo, president of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services in Virginia puts the number of American children exported for adoption at “[a]pproximately 800” a year going to “Canada, Mexico and France,” adding that Irish families who wish to adopt privately from the U.S. are also free to do so (Palmer 2008). In 2008 189 American children were adopted by Canadians, second only to China.
Intercountry adoption has traditionally been divided into sending and receiving countries with the senders being nations under political and social unrest or entrenched in widespread poverty making incomprehensible the out of country placement of children born in America—an industrialized stable nation with millions vying to adopt and taking children from all over the world.
The redistribution of children is frowned upon by NGOs such as Save the Children. Sarah Jacobs, Save the Children’s Africa specialist, working on issues of child protection, hunger, health and education asserts that “children are much better looked after, even if they’ve lost their parents, within their home communities.” Dominic Nutt, spokesperson for Save the Children UK concurs (CNN, 2009) on opposing Madonna’s Malawian adoption: “children in poverty should be best looked after by their own people in their own environment.”
Likewise, Roelie Post (2008), of the European Commission, who has an intimate knowledge of the exportation of Romanian children and defines herself as neither pro- not anti-adoption, asks: “is intercountry adoption a child protection measure, or do children have rights in their own country and is intercountry adoption the ultimate breach of such rights?”
Proponents of the redistribution of children in and out of the U.S. have a clear financial stake in adoptions and have persuaded well-meaning organizations and politicians that the need to perpetuate all of these adoptions is noble. They claim that nations such the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Great Britain—all of which have adopted American children—have less issue with adopting non-white children than do Americans, pointing to reports that indicate African American children are over represented in national foster care, have to wait a long time for permanent placements, and leave institutional care at an older age. During the time adoption and reunification are being weighed and options sought, non-white infants remain foster care, often in several families or homes, notes those in the Netherlands and elsewhere eager to obtain such children.
The Dutch Minister of Justice, Hirsch Ballin, is quite mindful of American adoption trends and polices and has argued that Americans are less inclined to adopt children over the age of five—as are the majority of adoptable children in U.S. foster care. And thus would be suitable for Dutch adoption. Additionally, a recent Dutch petition pointed out that foster families in the U.S. often have as many as six l children at a time, breaching the principles of the Hague Adoption Treaty. Conversely, the pursuit of younger babies than are available to be adopted domestically is what drives U.S. citizens to prefer to adopt internationally.
Once again children in foster care—America’s most vulnerable—are being used to support the adopting infants who have never been in state care. Goldstein, in fact, claims that most of the children he places out of the country, like those adopted by the Milibands are “healthy white Caucasians” (The Rye Chronicle, 2007). Additionally, the The Texas Cradle places 10 to 20 percent of American children with wealthy Mexicans who seek white children.
Conclusion
Babies are being kidnapped, stolen or coerced from their mothers and trafficked to meet the demand (Smolin, 2007) while older children, and children with disabilities are left behind and are like a lost leader in advertising to push the sale of the higher priced goods––younger and presumably healthier babies.
How large a community should it take to share the responsibility of children in need? With adoption in the hands of entrepreneurs in a “free market,” which is more often than not a fair market, who is advocating for the interests of these voiceless victims? Is passing them around ever in their best interest? Is it as some opponents say, cultural genocide to sever children form family, extended kinship or is it preferable to remaining in institutions or foster care within their own culture?
Hw do we justify using our most needy children as “fronts” to promote adoptions that do nothing to help the children in the most need here and abroad? “The most vulnerable children are not the group most in demand for international adoption. Demand is focused on quite a small group of under three-year olds, where the number of potential parents far exceeds the supply of children,” according to Riitta Högbacka, University of Helsinki, Finland (2006).
When reviewing the pros and cons, it is imperative to consider the financial motivation of those weighing in as “experts” on what is best for children. Adoption practitioners including, but not limited to, attorneys? Lobbyists? Professional marketers? None of these actors have any specific education or training in child care of social services and their income is derived directly or indirectly from non-relatives placement of children. Save the Children, on the other hand, spends 92% on services and just 4% on fundraising and another 4% on management and all other expenditures.
ACT for Adoption is right on target when they state that children being dislocated from their families “have no seat at the policy table, and no voice.” Their claim, however, that their pro-adoption position speaks for or represents the children whose custody is being transferred assumes that children want advocates who support adoption over helping their families overcome non-endangering problems and remain intact.
Many pro-adoption organizations as Donaldson (which recently partnered with LifeCare to encourage employer benefits in support of adoption) and Ehica want to see adoptions, including international continue, as long as they are ethical. However other than agreeing that child trafficking needs to be curbed, there are few guidelines for what is ethical and what is not, rendering the word as meaningless and subjective as the word nice. Ignoring and exploiting our treatment of our tiniest and most at-risk victims—our foster children—is neither nice nor ethical.
References:
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. 1999. Money, Power and Accountability: The “Business” of Adoption. Conference summary Anaheim, November.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. International Fact Sheet International Adoption in the U.S. Prompted by War, Poverty and Social Upheaval.
Hilborn, Robin, “2008 jump in international adoptions to Canada: latest statistics” Adoption Helper.
Högbacka, Riitta. 2006. “The Global Market for Adoption.” SixDegrees. Feb 22.
Kroll, Joe. 2007. “The Adoption Tax Credit: An Ethical Dilemma” Fall Adoptalk North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC).
National Council for Adoption. 2007. Adoption Facebook IV.
Oreskovi, Johanna and Maskew, Trish. 2009. Red Thread1 Or Slender Reed: Deconstructing Prof. Bartholet’s Mythology of International Adoption. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. Vol. 14.
Plmer, Caitriona 2008. “So you want to adopt a baby … then head to the United States where it’s an easier, but more expensive, process than in Ireland.” January 2.
Post, Roelie 2008. “The Perverse Effects Of The Hague Adoption Convention” Research Center of Ministry of Justice.
Samuels, Elizabeth. 2005. Time To Decide? The Laws Governing Mothers’ Consents To The Adoption Of Their Newborn Infants. 72 Tenn. Law Rev.
Smolin, David 2007. Child Laundering as Exploitation: Applying Anti—Trafficking Norms to Intercountry Adoption Under the Coming Hague Regime, Vermont Law Review.
Smolowe, Jill, 1994. “Babies for Export,” Time, Aug. 22,
TCB Chronicles Staff. 2007. “Dorothy’s Never Coming Home: New Law Puts Families in Crisis: States Report They are Increasing Efforts to Take Children From Their Homes to Collect Federal Bounty” From CPS Watch, ©2000. Oct.
Wexler, Richard. 2006. “‘Family Last’ Policy May Have Killed Ricky.” Detroit News, March 8.
UNAIDS, 2004. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). “Children on the brink 2004: a joint report of new orphan Estimates and a Framework for Action.”
Mirah Riben is an activist/author/lecturer. Read other articles by Mirah, or visit Mirah's website.
This article was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 8:59am and is filed under Children, Human Rights, United Nations. ShareThis
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/suffer-the-children-the-exploitation-of-america%e2%80%99s-most-vulnerable/
by Mirah Riben / November 23rd, 2009
The Littlest Casualties
Worldwide, there are approximately 143 million “orphans” based on figures that include children with only one living parent, approximately 90% of them (Oreskovi and Maskew, 2009). Approximately 2.6% of these children are housed in orphanages (Ibid).
Within the United States half a million children are wards of the state in foster care system, despite the well documented risks, impermanence and cost. Of these, an estimated 129,000 no longer have any chance of reunification with their families and could be adopted.
What is in their best interest? Is redistributing them to far—off cultures and expecting these children—many who may have learning disabilities and other emotional, attachment and physical challenges—to learn new languages in addition to being separated from family and community they likely remember?
Do domestic and international adoption policies put the best interests of these most vulnerable children first and foremost, or are they being used as pawns in a multibillion dollar industry designed to meet the demand for younger and healthier infants?
The number of American children in foster care who are eligible to be adopted is startling in view of the fact that an estimated 10 million American couples who “would likely attempt to adopt an infant domestically if they felt they had a realistic opportunity to do so,” according to a poll by the National Council for Adoption (Wirthin, 2007).
An August, 2008 survey of the National Center for Health Statistics estimated that nearly 600,000 women are seeking to adopt. Even using this more conservative figure it is incomprehensible that the children in temporary care are being by-and-large left behind.
Children adopted from foster care used to be called “hard-to-place” which evolved to the more sensitive and politically correct “Special Needs” children. American adopters, however, still prefer international adoption (or domestic infant adoption, albeit in short supply since birth control became widely available, abortion rights were upheld, and increased acceptance of single mothers, even providing for expectant mothers to continue high school.
International adoption is preferred over adoption from foster care for three main reasons:
■The desire for younger children from outside the country.
■The belief that internationally adopted children and t are less “damaged” despite reports of attachment difficulties of children coming form orphanages, fetal alcohol syndrome and other health issues, many of which are not revealed accurately and thoroughly by international adoption agencies here and abroad.
■Alleviation of the fear of an original parent (by birth) wanting contact, returning at any point, or worst of all attempting to overturn the adoption because of coercion—subtle or overt—including the lack of the birthfather signing a release of parental rights. However, these concerns would only apply to the small number of infant adoptions. The parents of children coming from state social services have had their parental rights terminated.
These fears, myths and misconceptions, coupled with the glamorization of rescuing orphans, are perpetrated by an adoption industry that generates an estimated 6.3 billion annually worldwide and 23 billion domestically.
Adoption Entrepreneurs
The reversal of supply and demand created a need for adoption profiteers to put a new positive spin on marketing. As opposed to the focus being on helping “wayward” girls of the 50’s 60’s and 70s ridding themselves of the shame of their indiscretions, today, adoption is encouraged as a way to rescue children from orphanages in impoverished parts of the world. This has resulted in international adoption by Americans nearly doubling during the 1990s, reaching twenty thousand annually and approximately 250,000 children in the last thirty years making the U.S. the number one receiving country. Globally, over a quarter million children have been redistributed by adoption in the past three decades.
Yet, one by one countries, which had been prime suppliers, have begun to investigate and validate the claims of corruption and child trafficking that is rampant in nations in political turmoil and developing countries with low per capita annual incomes. These investigations resulted in Vietnam, Romania, Guatemala disallowing the international adoption of their children at least until more restrictions can be enacted to prevent widespread corruption, Russia increased restrictions in an attempt to reduce the alarming number of Russian children murdered by their American adopters, and others sent back, abused or institutionalized.
The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an international agreement between participating countries requires their member nations adhere to two primary goals: to protect the best interest of children, as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are considered with each intercountry adoption, and to prevent abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children.
These restrictions have limited the supply of babies and in turn the incomes of adoption profiteers who now rely on international adoption to make up for the loss of domestic adoptions. Many American adoption agencies have closed as a result of the reduction in numbers of adoptions and the cost and difficulty complying with Hague requirements and becoming accredited.
The concerns of these entrepreneurs are represented by The National Council for Adoption (NCFA), lobbyists paid to represent the interests of adoption agency owners and employees in affecting U.S. adoption polices favorable to the encouragement of adoption and to assist in creating marketing programs aimed at mothers in crisis to increase adoptions.
The international equivalent of the NCFA is the Joint Council on International Children Services. In addition, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI), lobbies congress to effect incentives such as tax benefits and payments states to increase family separations. The CCA also sponsors National Adoption Day and Angels in Adoption program to honor those who adopt and help facilitate adoptions.
Adoption attorneys, are represented by The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA) and Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program (CAP) and the Center for Adoption Policy. ACT for Adoption, based in Rye, NY, is a coalition of adoption profiteers mobilized in late 2008 “to communicate with the White House, Members of Congress, government agencies and the press to educate and advocate for legislation, policies and administrative procedures supportive of adoption.”
ACT for Adoption is sponsored by the Center for Adoption Policy, and the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School intentionally both of whom intentionally grossly overestimate numbers of orphans, repeatedly quoting the figure of 143,000, well known to be extremely overinflated as 88.7% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans and not eligible for adoption (UNAIDS.2004). Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Bartholet of ACT and CAP, applauded Madonna’s second adoption and, speaking at the 2009 Adoption Policy Conference, “International Adoption, the United States, and the Reality of the Hague System” stated that heritage is over-rated.
To counter these facts, ACT creates newspeak such as their newly coined term “unparented children” and applaud the adoption of children of living parents while recognizing that International adoption “has come under fire recently from UNICEF” because corruption and baby selling. They also use language such as a need to eliminate “barriers that hinder children from realizing their basic right of a family and ways they might act to eliminate them” without any consideration of a child’s foremost basic right to have his family receive the resources they need to remain intact or reunify.
Pawns of Pretense
Pro-adoption lobbying is not difficult in a nation that does not prioritize family preservation and instead vilifies mothers because of age, marital or financial status, would cast a legislator as a villainous scrooge. Legislators are particularly eager to support adoption promotions and incentive programs which are proposed as helping children languishing in foster care to find “forever families”
Susan Jackson, a family advocate and member of CPS Watch observed: “No one dares risk being politically incorrect, even to save hundreds of thousands of children who are sentenced to a life of disassociation and despair in multiple foster homes, and then, if they are ‘lucky,’ into an adoptive home, never to see their parents or siblings again (TCB 2007).”
And so the U.S. enacted state incentives to move children quickly into “permanence.” in 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and states quickly enacted legislation modifying child welfare procedures to conform to ASFA’s guidelines and qualify for federal funding. The new procedures place a premium on removing children from their homes—often because of poverty and lack of resources such as adequate child-care. Well-documented maltreatment of children in foster homes is then used to utilize AFSA bonuses to states to accelerate substantially the time frame for severing their original parents’ constitutional right to parent without due process.
“The federal government offers a perverse incentive to states when they think that a family is having problems: Take children away and we’ll pick up a large share of the tab” observes Richard Wexler (2006) commenting on the rush for removals. “[The money is unlimited; the federal government helps pay for every eligible child thrown into foster care, no matter how many are taken. But if a state wants to use safe, proven alternatives to foster care, the state often must pay almost all of the bill itself.”
Through waivers, states may spend Federal funds in alternative manners, since 1996, just 17 States have implemented 25 child welfare waiver programs including: assisted guardianship/kinship care; services for caregivers with substance use disorders; and adoption. A barrier to implementation of these programs is that while Federal title IV-E payments help States pay foster parents and adopters of special needs children, these funds cannot normally be used to pay subsidies to extended family members who provide legal guardians. According to the National Family Preservation Network, “[E]very dollar invested in keeping families together saves $2-$3 on placement services.”
In addition to state incentives to increase family separations and adoptions, the U.S. Federal government, prompted by pro-adoption profiteers and their lobbyists, enacted Adoption Tax Benefit legislation in starting in 1996 “to encourage further the adoption of special needs children.”
The “special needs” wording in the original legislation was the foot in the door need. A summary of the data from the U.S. Treasury Department to determine who most benefits from the credit, however, reveals:
■The vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients completed private or foreign adoptions rather than adoptions from foster care. The tax credit disproportionately supports higher-income families.
■The tax credit primarily supports the adoption of younger children.
Nearly 90% of those receiving the credit have incomes above $100,000 benefitting only one in four adopting from U.S. foster care, but nearly all who adopted children from other countries were supported by the tax credit. . From 1999 to 2005, the vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients adopted infants or younger children via private domestic or international adoptions, doing nothing to reduce the number of children in foster care, despite that being the alleged intent of the tax incentive.
In 2004 just 18 percent of children supported by the tax credit and 17 percent of the funds so allocated, assisted children from foster care. In 2005, nearly 90 percent of filers with, and 71 percent of all families adopted children under age five. Only about 10 percent of higher-income families adopted from foster care, and very few adopted older children.
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, whose goal is to promote ethical adoption polices and legal reforms, reported (1999), “The federal government, for example, offers financial incentives in the form of tax credits to families who privately adopt infants (and who are often affluent), yet does not offer the same support to those families who adopt children in foster care (and who usually have the greatest need for such support). Is it ethical that intermediaries and those least in need benefit the most from these tax credits?”
“Today’s reality,” comments Joe Kroll, executive director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) “is that the original intent of the adoption tax credit legislation has been turned upside down. Those who most need support to adopt (lower-income families who are adopting children from foster care) are receiving the least benefit, and those for whom the financial outlay is not a barrier to adoption benefit the most.” Elizabeth Samuels (2005) likewise found that “federal tax benefits for adopters generally provide greater benefits to families involved in more expensive healthy newborn and international adoptions, although the benefits are promoted as a means to increase adoptions of children out of foster care.”
And, as with state incentives, these funds are allocated to adopters but are not available to assist families in crisis who are instead stigmatized if they need and or accept government financial assistance. Nor are tax credits available for extended family who care for a related child.
Exportation of American Children
While Americans are adopting allegedly unwanted orphans from impoverished orphanages, in larger number than those of any other country, plans are underway to increase the adoption of our own children who are fostered and institutionalized in small orphanages called group homes… by exporting them.
Placing American born children out of the country is nothing new. Quietly, approximately19 states including Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and Arkansas allow “home state finalization” for the outgoing international adoption of U.S. children. The U.S. State Department indicates that seventeen American adoption agencies have been accredited or temporarily accredited under the new Hague rules for outgoing adoptions. Some, American based adoption agencies such as VidaAdoptions.org and IllienAdoptions.org, have included exportation of children as rates of international adoptions into the U.S. have dropped post Hague.
The process has been called “reverse commute adoptions” by attorney Michael Goldstein and his social worker wife, Joy, founders of Forever Families Through Adoption (FFTA), who claim to have placed some 65 American born babies for adoptions out of the U.S. between 1997 to 2007. Some of Goldstein’s adoptions have been high profile cases such as two American babies adopted by British Foreign Secretary David Milliband and his wife.
Additional international demand for U.S. born children is currently being created by same sex couples in Europe who see America as the perfect source inasmuch as it is currently the only country which allows––in at least some states––for adoption by same sex couples. But these type of adoptions and those conducted by FFTAs are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Donaldson Adoption Institute estimates the current number of children exported from the U.S. for adoption at 500 a year (Smolowe, 1994) while Thomas DiFilipo, president of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services in Virginia puts the number of American children exported for adoption at “[a]pproximately 800” a year going to “Canada, Mexico and France,” adding that Irish families who wish to adopt privately from the U.S. are also free to do so (Palmer 2008). In 2008 189 American children were adopted by Canadians, second only to China.
Intercountry adoption has traditionally been divided into sending and receiving countries with the senders being nations under political and social unrest or entrenched in widespread poverty making incomprehensible the out of country placement of children born in America—an industrialized stable nation with millions vying to adopt and taking children from all over the world.
The redistribution of children is frowned upon by NGOs such as Save the Children. Sarah Jacobs, Save the Children’s Africa specialist, working on issues of child protection, hunger, health and education asserts that “children are much better looked after, even if they’ve lost their parents, within their home communities.” Dominic Nutt, spokesperson for Save the Children UK concurs (CNN, 2009) on opposing Madonna’s Malawian adoption: “children in poverty should be best looked after by their own people in their own environment.”
Likewise, Roelie Post (2008), of the European Commission, who has an intimate knowledge of the exportation of Romanian children and defines herself as neither pro- not anti-adoption, asks: “is intercountry adoption a child protection measure, or do children have rights in their own country and is intercountry adoption the ultimate breach of such rights?”
Proponents of the redistribution of children in and out of the U.S. have a clear financial stake in adoptions and have persuaded well-meaning organizations and politicians that the need to perpetuate all of these adoptions is noble. They claim that nations such the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Great Britain—all of which have adopted American children—have less issue with adopting non-white children than do Americans, pointing to reports that indicate African American children are over represented in national foster care, have to wait a long time for permanent placements, and leave institutional care at an older age. During the time adoption and reunification are being weighed and options sought, non-white infants remain foster care, often in several families or homes, notes those in the Netherlands and elsewhere eager to obtain such children.
The Dutch Minister of Justice, Hirsch Ballin, is quite mindful of American adoption trends and polices and has argued that Americans are less inclined to adopt children over the age of five—as are the majority of adoptable children in U.S. foster care. And thus would be suitable for Dutch adoption. Additionally, a recent Dutch petition pointed out that foster families in the U.S. often have as many as six l children at a time, breaching the principles of the Hague Adoption Treaty. Conversely, the pursuit of younger babies than are available to be adopted domestically is what drives U.S. citizens to prefer to adopt internationally.
Once again children in foster care—America’s most vulnerable—are being used to support the adopting infants who have never been in state care. Goldstein, in fact, claims that most of the children he places out of the country, like those adopted by the Milibands are “healthy white Caucasians” (The Rye Chronicle, 2007). Additionally, the The Texas Cradle places 10 to 20 percent of American children with wealthy Mexicans who seek white children.
Conclusion
Babies are being kidnapped, stolen or coerced from their mothers and trafficked to meet the demand (Smolin, 2007) while older children, and children with disabilities are left behind and are like a lost leader in advertising to push the sale of the higher priced goods––younger and presumably healthier babies.
How large a community should it take to share the responsibility of children in need? With adoption in the hands of entrepreneurs in a “free market,” which is more often than not a fair market, who is advocating for the interests of these voiceless victims? Is passing them around ever in their best interest? Is it as some opponents say, cultural genocide to sever children form family, extended kinship or is it preferable to remaining in institutions or foster care within their own culture?
Hw do we justify using our most needy children as “fronts” to promote adoptions that do nothing to help the children in the most need here and abroad? “The most vulnerable children are not the group most in demand for international adoption. Demand is focused on quite a small group of under three-year olds, where the number of potential parents far exceeds the supply of children,” according to Riitta Högbacka, University of Helsinki, Finland (2006).
When reviewing the pros and cons, it is imperative to consider the financial motivation of those weighing in as “experts” on what is best for children. Adoption practitioners including, but not limited to, attorneys? Lobbyists? Professional marketers? None of these actors have any specific education or training in child care of social services and their income is derived directly or indirectly from non-relatives placement of children. Save the Children, on the other hand, spends 92% on services and just 4% on fundraising and another 4% on management and all other expenditures.
ACT for Adoption is right on target when they state that children being dislocated from their families “have no seat at the policy table, and no voice.” Their claim, however, that their pro-adoption position speaks for or represents the children whose custody is being transferred assumes that children want advocates who support adoption over helping their families overcome non-endangering problems and remain intact.
Many pro-adoption organizations as Donaldson (which recently partnered with LifeCare to encourage employer benefits in support of adoption) and Ehica want to see adoptions, including international continue, as long as they are ethical. However other than agreeing that child trafficking needs to be curbed, there are few guidelines for what is ethical and what is not, rendering the word as meaningless and subjective as the word nice. Ignoring and exploiting our treatment of our tiniest and most at-risk victims—our foster children—is neither nice nor ethical.
References:
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. 1999. Money, Power and Accountability: The “Business” of Adoption. Conference summary Anaheim, November.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. International Fact Sheet International Adoption in the U.S. Prompted by War, Poverty and Social Upheaval.
Hilborn, Robin, “2008 jump in international adoptions to Canada: latest statistics” Adoption Helper.
Högbacka, Riitta. 2006. “The Global Market for Adoption.” SixDegrees. Feb 22.
Kroll, Joe. 2007. “The Adoption Tax Credit: An Ethical Dilemma” Fall Adoptalk North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC).
National Council for Adoption. 2007. Adoption Facebook IV.
Oreskovi, Johanna and Maskew, Trish. 2009. Red Thread1 Or Slender Reed: Deconstructing Prof. Bartholet’s Mythology of International Adoption. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. Vol. 14.
Plmer, Caitriona 2008. “So you want to adopt a baby … then head to the United States where it’s an easier, but more expensive, process than in Ireland.” January 2.
Post, Roelie 2008. “The Perverse Effects Of The Hague Adoption Convention” Research Center of Ministry of Justice.
Samuels, Elizabeth. 2005. Time To Decide? The Laws Governing Mothers’ Consents To The Adoption Of Their Newborn Infants. 72 Tenn. Law Rev.
Smolin, David 2007. Child Laundering as Exploitation: Applying Anti—Trafficking Norms to Intercountry Adoption Under the Coming Hague Regime, Vermont Law Review.
Smolowe, Jill, 1994. “Babies for Export,” Time, Aug. 22,
TCB Chronicles Staff. 2007. “Dorothy’s Never Coming Home: New Law Puts Families in Crisis: States Report They are Increasing Efforts to Take Children From Their Homes to Collect Federal Bounty” From CPS Watch, ©2000. Oct.
Wexler, Richard. 2006. “‘Family Last’ Policy May Have Killed Ricky.” Detroit News, March 8.
UNAIDS, 2004. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). “Children on the brink 2004: a joint report of new orphan Estimates and a Framework for Action.”
Mirah Riben is an activist/author/lecturer. Read other articles by Mirah, or visit Mirah's website.
This article was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 8:59am and is filed under Children, Human Rights, United Nations. ShareThis
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/suffer-the-children-the-exploitation-of-america%e2%80%99s-most-vulnerable/
Child services fail, Mother under supervision kills her 4 daughters believing them to be demons.
Child services fail, Mother under supervision kills her 4 daughters believing them to be demons.
Woman Who Killed Her 4 Daughters Is Given 120 Years
WASHINGTON — A woman convicted of killing her four daughters and living for months with their decomposing bodies was sentenced Friday to 120 years in prison.
2 Years After 4 Deaths, D.C. Welfare System Remains Under Scrutiny (October 22, 2009) The woman, Banita M. Jacks, 35, was found living with the corpses of her daughters, ages 5 to 16, when deputy federal marshals served an eviction notice at her home in southeast Washington on Jan. 9, 2008. Autopsies later indicated that the girls had been dead for at least seven months.
The deaths plunged the local child welfare agency into turmoil amid accusations that more should have been done to prevent them. The agency has been under federal court oversight for two decades.
This case “will probably haunt me for the rest of my life,” Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the District of Columbia Superior Court said as he handed down the mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years for the murder of each child. He rejected a request from Ms. Jacks’s lawyer that the sentences run concurrently.
!!!! Warning for triggering and all sorts of heartbreaking tragedy !!!!
During her trial, Ms. Jacks’s lawyers had pressed her to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and argued that she was not competent after she rejected that advice.
An April report by the city inspector general cited a lack of follow-through and coordination among city agencies as the reason the girls were not saved.
“Multiple entities worked effectively, but largely obliviously to each other’s efforts, to put in place many of the elements necessary for the family to sustain itself,” the report said. “Yet, no single organization seemingly had the full perspective necessary to see and follow the family’s progress, and intervene when these elements of self-sufficiency began to destabilize.”
The Jacks family was supposed to receive monthly visits based on its housing placement, but it never did, the report said. Education officials failed to follow through when the girls dropped out of school.
In May, Judith W. Meltzer, who was appointed to track the child welfare agency by a federal judge, Thomas F. Hogan, said the agency was still failing to offer adequate care for abused and neglected children.
City officials say the agency has improved significantly. Judge Hogan’s decision on whether to end the court oversight is pending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/19sentence.html
More on the trial itself,
-Banita Jacks repeatedly told District homicide detectives that demons possessed her daughters but that she was confident that they would return from the dead when the demons died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071402559.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/4880454.html
Woman Who Killed Her 4 Daughters Is Given 120 Years
WASHINGTON — A woman convicted of killing her four daughters and living for months with their decomposing bodies was sentenced Friday to 120 years in prison.
2 Years After 4 Deaths, D.C. Welfare System Remains Under Scrutiny (October 22, 2009) The woman, Banita M. Jacks, 35, was found living with the corpses of her daughters, ages 5 to 16, when deputy federal marshals served an eviction notice at her home in southeast Washington on Jan. 9, 2008. Autopsies later indicated that the girls had been dead for at least seven months.
The deaths plunged the local child welfare agency into turmoil amid accusations that more should have been done to prevent them. The agency has been under federal court oversight for two decades.
This case “will probably haunt me for the rest of my life,” Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of the District of Columbia Superior Court said as he handed down the mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years for the murder of each child. He rejected a request from Ms. Jacks’s lawyer that the sentences run concurrently.
!!!! Warning for triggering and all sorts of heartbreaking tragedy !!!!
During her trial, Ms. Jacks’s lawyers had pressed her to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and argued that she was not competent after she rejected that advice.
An April report by the city inspector general cited a lack of follow-through and coordination among city agencies as the reason the girls were not saved.
“Multiple entities worked effectively, but largely obliviously to each other’s efforts, to put in place many of the elements necessary for the family to sustain itself,” the report said. “Yet, no single organization seemingly had the full perspective necessary to see and follow the family’s progress, and intervene when these elements of self-sufficiency began to destabilize.”
The Jacks family was supposed to receive monthly visits based on its housing placement, but it never did, the report said. Education officials failed to follow through when the girls dropped out of school.
In May, Judith W. Meltzer, who was appointed to track the child welfare agency by a federal judge, Thomas F. Hogan, said the agency was still failing to offer adequate care for abused and neglected children.
City officials say the agency has improved significantly. Judge Hogan’s decision on whether to end the court oversight is pending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/19sentence.html
More on the trial itself,
-Banita Jacks repeatedly told District homicide detectives that demons possessed her daughters but that she was confident that they would return from the dead when the demons died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071402559.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/4880454.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)