State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics

State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics
By Tracy Vedder

StoryVideoPrintTwitterFacebook Summary
Last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington are dying at an alarming rate. Key lawmakers plan to use the data uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.




Story Published: Dec 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM PST
Story Updated: Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM PST
Comments (29)OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A ground-breaking problem solver investigation is firing up state lawmakers.

Late last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington state are dying at an alarming rate.

Key lawmakers plan to use the information uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.

"Am I fired up for this? you're darn right!" said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.

KOMO News spent more than two years analyzing the death reports of children who had had some contact with the state's children's administration. The investigation uncovered startling and disturbing numbers.

Since 2002, the state ruled 121 children died of abuse or neglect. That's more than one child dying every single month.

Michael Ravenell's son, Kekoa, was one of those children. Ravenell called Child Protective Services several times, concerned his son was being abused.

"Bottom line: the system failed me," said Ravenell. "I wish he was still with us here."

Both state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Armstrong were shocked by what KOMO's investigation revealed.

"My fire has just grown as I watched, as I watched your show and your presentation," Armstrong said. "I got emotional the first time I saw it."

Armstrong will push the Legislature in January to break apart the Department of Social and Health Services and make children's administration a separate agency.

Currently DSHS dwarfs all other state agencies with a nearly $20 billion budget and 19,000 employees.

"Everybody that works at DSHS considers their agency to be an agency, within an agency, within an agency," said Armstrong.

Stevens has worked for years to improve the system but says she's never been able to get hard numbers from the state. Those are the startling numbers of child fatalities that KOMO News compiled.

"(I've asked myself) 'Why are they doing this?Is it deliberate?' And I've come to the conclusion, 'oh, amen, it is deliberate.'"

Susan Dreyfus, the new secretary of DSHS, promises both accountability and transparency.

"We have to be accountable," she said. "There is no worse day in this state when a child's not safe in their own home. I mean, it is of urgent importance."

But both Armstrong and Stevens say while they respect Dreyfus' commitment, no one person can handle such a large agency.

"I have reached my limit - my patience - children are dying," Stevens said.

And while both Stevens and Armstrong are Republicans, they're adamant that protecting children isn't partisan. In fact, nearly as many Democrats as Republicans have signed onto Armstrong's bill.

"Somebody's gotta be fighting for these kids," said Armstrong.

But Armstrong is also realistic. January will be just a short legislative session, and the state is facing major budget shortfalls.

So Armstrong plans to use KOMO's investigation to push the issue this session, get other legislators on board and build up steam for 2011.

The state children's administration disputes the problem solvers numbers, saying only 105 children died of abuse or neglect since 2002. The agency claims "any death of a child is tragic" and "they continue to learn from these tragedies."

KOMO News stands by all of the information uncovered during the investigation

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80246122.html

NH Supreme Court Appeal to Return Austin Knightly to His Grandparents

Another Christmas has passed and still no Austin. We have a Supreme Court appeal pending for Austin's return. Will the NH Supreme Court do right by Austin and return him to us, the grandparents he long's for? Will they do the right thing and hold Nashua DCYF accountable for all the illegal practices they've used on Austin and his family? If there is any Justice in the State of NH, they will. Otherwise the corruption within DCYF will still go on until someone finally steps up and put's a stop to it.
I thought we were all set. The Attorney General's Office had ten days to file an objection. It never came, that is until yesterday. Ten days later than the time allotted by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court deny the objection, like they do with the citizens of NH? Or will the AG's office get away with their untimely filing? Like I said before, if there is any Justice, the AG's objection will be denied.
The AG's office claim I have NO Standing. They state the issue of Austin's illegal removal from my home was never brought up in Court and that I never filed anything to fight the removal. It was brought up in District Court and Probate Court. I am just a grandmother. A grandmother who knew nothing about the corruption within DCYF and knew nothing about the law. A grandmother who trusted her Government and it's State agencies. I alway's believed our Government was working for "We the People." Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought our own Government would treat it's own citizens in such an ungodly manner. The people we trusted. The people we voted into office, to work for us, not against us.
We were finally afforded a Home study in June of 2008, after the orphanage found a pre-adoptive home for Austin, but the people backed out. Austin know's what he want's and will never be a normal child as long as he is not with us. The people he cares about most in this world.He is now in a pre-adoptive home. The home of the first foster strangers where he tried to hang himself. The home where he was fed pretzels and water and lost three clothes sizes. The home where Anna the homewrecker told Austin not to tell his mother, but he did anyway and then Anna confirmed it.
Austin was scheduled to be adopted this month. He may already have been, since I filed a Stay to stop the adoption and was denied. No surprise. Every motion, petition and appeal I've filed has been denied. The State of NH doesn't treat Pro-Se litigants fairly. If you don't have a bundle of money to pay a Lawyer, your screwed every time.
At the time of the Home Study we were told by three caseworker's not to worry. That they were advocating for placement of Austin with us. We trusted them. Little did we know that their Supervisor and the Director had already set us up from the start, with no inclination to place Austin in our home. We bought him a bed and set up his bedroom with all his favorite toys and pictures. We even set up a Christmas tree, which we haven't done since he was taken. We no longer celebrate holidays. What's a holiday without a child? Losing children is worse than death.
We waited to hear something, constantly calling DCYF. We even asked if we could take Austin for Christmas. It never happened.
One of the Directors claimed the Home Study was done to show us why we couldn't have Austin. If we knew their deceitful plan, we never would have set up a bedroom for him. We were told Austin would be placed with us, so what were we supposed to think?
Were we denied because they had the first foster strangers to fall back on? The foster strangers who told his mother they wanted to adopt him way back when he was first placed?
Is there any justice in this God Forsaken state? Will the Supreme Court rule with fairness this once? Will this corruption end and DCYF be held accountable for their illegal practices? Will our Government bring back our trust? Isn't this America?

Parents Rights 2-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families

HomeSubscribeAbout NancyNews & IssuesNancy Schaefer's ArticlesParents' Rights
Child Protective ServicesGeorgia Eagle Forum ResourcesPhyllis Schlafly's Reports"Georgia Insights"/Legislation
Sue Ella DeadwylerU.S. Congressional and
Federal InformationGeorgia State and
Local Government Make Checks Payable to:
Eagle Forum of Georgia, Inc.
458 Yates Circle
Clakesville, Georgia 30523

Nancy Schaefer
Former State Senator of Georgia
President, Eagle Forum of Georgia
Eagle Forum National Chairman of Parents' Rights

Contact information
458 Yates Circle
Clarkesville, GA 30523
Phone: (706) 754-8321
Fax: (706) 754-1803
Website: EagleForumOfGeorgia.org
Email: nancy.schaefer@nancyschaefer.com
Parents' Rights
+ Review other Parents' Rights Articles

09-03-2009 Hear Nancy Schaefer's speech in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8-16-098-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families8-08-2009 Nancy Schaefer goes to Amsterdam7-18-2009 Texas Senate Bill 1440 to increase power to Child Protective Services was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.3-19-2009 What Happened to SB 4159-26-2008 Nancy Schaefer speaks on Child Protective Services at the Eagle Forum National Conference on September 26, 2008 in Washington, D.C.UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES2-18-2008 SB 415 - Senator Schaefer introduces legislation to protect children in government care2-18-2009 Senate Press Release on SB 41512-20-2007 The Mental Heath Screening of Children3-09-2007 - SB 278 - A Bill relating to Family Court and Juvenile Proceedings
8-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nancy Schaefer
President of Eagle Forum of Georgia Nancy Schaefer
August 27, 2009

Nancy Schaefer, President of Eagle Forum of Georgia and Eagle Forum's National Chairman for Parents' Rights, spoke at the World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009.

Pro-family leaders and groups from 63 nations attended the World Congress of Families V. 900 delegates were Dutch and other nations represented included, United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, the U.K., Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Moldavia, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, the Democratic Republic, of Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, and the Philippines. More than 3,000 people around the world watched the live telecast via the Internet.

On August 16th, Schaefer delivered, via cyber space, her speech to the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) in Gothenburg, Sweden on the protection of Family Rights in Nordic countries.

Schaefer spoke on "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" (CPS).

She told her audience "children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to federal aid created in 1974 entitled "The Adoption and Safe Families Act." It offers financial incentives to the States that increase adoption numbers. To receive the 'adoption incentives' or 'bonuses', local CPS must have more children. They must have merchandise that sells… this is an abuse of power. It is lack of accountability and it is a growing criminal/political phenomenon spreading around the globe."

To hear the entire speech click here.

Nancy Schaefer wrote a scathing report on "The Corruption of Child Protective Services" while serving as a State Senator of Georgia.

To read or to get a copy of Schaefer's "Report" or her speech in Amsterdam, please visit the Eagle Forum of Georgia website at www.eagleforumofgeorgia.org

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”
Psalm 33:12

Eagle Forum of Georgia
Phone: 706-754-8321

http://www.eagleforumofga.org/parents_rights_child_protective_services.php?filter=10

Cut the Power of the Family Courts

Cut the Power of the Family Courts
by Phyllis Schlafly December 25, 2009

Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.
Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.

As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.

Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.

In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."

Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."

This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.

When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.

The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.

The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.

Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."

Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.

Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.

Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/dec09/09-12-25.html

DHS balks at disclosing more records (What aboud court recordings proving perjury by DCYF Lawyer's?)

Saturday, December 26, 2009

DHS balks at disclosing more records
The plaintiffs say the records might show improper practices in the placing of children.

By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 12/25/2009 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 12/25/2009 4:29 AM

The plaintiffs' attorneys in a lawsuit that seeks top-to-bottom reform in the state's child-welfare system say the disclosure of additional records is needed to "ascertain the full extent of the deficiencies" at the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

However, lawyers for the state counter that the plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to engage in a "fishing expedition" for information, even after they have already received about 600,000 pages of materials related to the case from the defense.

It's the latest dispute in a lawsuit that was filed in February 2008 in federal court in Tulsa. The lawsuit named various DHS officials as defendants and alleged that the agency routinely places children who are in state custody in unsafe situations in which many suffer further abuse and even death.

The original plaintiffs were nine children — who ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years when the complaint was filed — whom the lawsuit alleges suffered in DHS placements.

In May, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell granted the plaintiffs' request to make the lawsuit a class-action case, which expanded the number of potential plaintiffs to about 10,000 children.

Frizzell's ruling was appealed by the defendants to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering the issue after hearing oral arguments in Denver last month.

On July 8, Frizzell ended classwide pretrial "discovery" — or exchange of evidence between the parties — while the appeal of his ruling
was pending.

The move allowed disclosure of relevant information concerning the original plaintiffs.

The defense claimed in a recent filing that on July 15, "as a gesture of good faith," it produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents it had "tediously collected and reviewed."

However, the plaintiffs claimed in a Nov. 11 motion that the defense has "refused to provide discovery concerning the improper practices and deficiencies to which the named plaintiffs have been subjected."

Accompanying the plaintiffs' motion were two expert reports. Included in those filings were reports of children in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services who reportedly were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree switches and belts, and hit in the mouth.

In its response, the defense claims that the November filings by the plaintiffs had "nothing to do with the production of documents and everything to do with creating a media blitz."

The defense claims that the inclusion of the expert reports, which reinforce some of the broader claims in the lawsuit, was a "charade" meant to confuse the court and that the motion itself was an attempt to prematurely begin expensive class-wide discovery at state expense.

The DHS defendants claimed in their response that "the discovery material plaintiffs seek through their motion to compel has already been provided to them."

The plaintiffs countered in their recent reply that what they seek now is relevant to the scope of the danger that the plaintiffs are now facing and also to the issue of whether the defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to that alleged peril.

"It is precisely because additional records are required to make these determinations that the named plaintiffs seek, and are entitled to, the records in question," the plaintiffs' reply claims.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091225_11_A13_Thepla330141

Fictitious Mens Rights Terminated in N.H.

This is a follow-up to the article I posted concerning the illegal adoption of children without the consent of their father's.
My grandson, Austin's father's rigths were illegally terminated by the Nashua Probate Court Judge. Austin's father was out of the country and knew nothing pertaining to the State of NH taking custody of his son. Nashua DCYF was given his father's name, address, phone number, date of birth and social security number.The state found a man in Nashua, with the same name and twenty years younger and terminated his rights instead of Austin's father's. When we read the court paperwork showing the date of birth for the man, we immediately told the caseworker they had the wrong man. She was told this was not the man on Austin's birth certificate.The caseworker's response,"No big deal. It doesn't matter." It most certainly does matter. How many more father's have to suffer this abuse by the state? Home many more families have to suffer? Austin is now up for adoption or may have already been adopted as his adoption was planned for this month. His adoption WILL be illegal!
The father of my granddaughter Isabella's rights were terminated illegally also. His name was given to Nashua DCYF, yet the caseworker gave a fictitious name to the court.If anyone had bothered to look through my daughter's medical file, they would have seen his name there also. But they couldn't have, or they did and just didn't care.
I tried to find Isabella's father myself. I contacted his relatives and friends to let him know Isabella was indeed his daughter and that the state put her in fostercare. Nobody knew where he was.
By the time I finally found him, a fictitious mans rights had been terminated, even after my daughter submitted a signed affidavit to the court giving his name as the father of her daughter. Isabella was illegally adopted, but it was not yet final. Her father filed a motion with the court for custody and a paternity test and was denied. The Judge's response stated Isabella's father's rights were terminated and a notice had been published in the Nashua Telegraph with the date published. I obtained a copy of the the publication and saw it was the wrong man's name. The Judge also stated the court never received my daughter's signed affidavit, yet a copy of the affidavit was in an objection from the AG's office to a Supreme Court appeal I filed month's earlier. Therefore the Judge knew all along and granted the adoption of Isabella illegally, knowing Isabella's father's rights were NOT terminated.
Isabella's father filed a motion to reconsider and was again denied. No surprise!
Father's as well as mother's and grandparents are being screwed over by DCYF and the Court's. When will this corruption end? By rights, neither of these children were freed for adoption, but finding anyone to hold these people accountable is another story in itself. But the fight goes on. More people are speaking up and fighting back. This is a fight to the finish!

Peyton's Story Adoption Without The Father’s Consent

Peyton's Story
A father's quest to re-unite with his daughter.HomeWhat Is Peyton’s StoryAdoption Without The Father’s Consent
December 26th, 2009
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever think that something like this would happen to me. I didn’t think that it really happened to any father who wanted to raise their child. When my daughter Peyton was adopted without my consent I went through a roller coaster ride of emotions and still do to this day. I felt hopeless, helpless, and still have a lot of hatred towards her mother for doing this.

Lawyers that I’ve spoken to haven’t been able to offer much guidance and don’t seem to know just how to handle this situation any more than I do. Not that I have the resources to hire an attorney for a lengthy legal battle, but I’d at least like to know what possible options that I do have, and how to proceed from here. I’ve thought that maybe I could do some of the work myself, but still don’t quite know what to do or who to talk to.

One of the things that has been the most surprising to me is how common this exact scenario is. After doing some research online I discovered that there are many other men out there that have lost all rights to their child unwillingly and with no consent given. The road to reunification seems nearly impossible without truckloads of money for legal fees. I even read about a man who took his custody case the whole way to the supreme court and lost. What the HELL? I have yet to read about a man who’s child has been placed for adoption without his consent and has re-gained custody.

So I decided to start this thread to gain your experience. What’s your story? How have you been affected? What did you do?
http://peytons-story.com/