HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKS
Child Protective Services
google images Courtesy of: National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
"Most of the time, I was taking their kids away for no good reason" --A New York City CPS worker.
All it takes to begin the potential destruction of a family is a call to one of the child protective "hotlines" in every state. The call can be made anonymously, making the hotlines potent tools for harassment. More often, however, false allegations are well-meaning mistakes made by people who have taken the advice of the child savers.
Though state laws generally encourage -- or require -- reports if you have "reasonable cause to suspect" maltreatment, child savers urge us to call in our slightest suspicions about almost any parental behavior. (And that sort of advice is not limited to adults. One group has published a comic book effectively telling children to turn in their parents to "other grown-up friends" if they get a spanking). The hotlines then forward the calls to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies who send workers to investigate. These workers can go to a child's school or day care center and interrogate them without warning. Such an interrogation can undercut the bonds of trust essential for healthy parent-child relationships and traumatize children for whom the only harm is the harm of the investigation itself.
Workers can search homes and strip-search children without a warrant. Child savers insist such searches are rare. But in the course of defending against a lawsuit, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged how common they really are. In its legal papers, the department said that any effort to restrict strip-searching "would immediately bring the child abuse hotline investigations to a halt."Such a statement can be true only if strip-searching is routine.
Then it is up to the worker to decide if the case will be "substantiated" and the accused will be listed in a state "central register" of suspected child abusers. Workers make these decisions on their own. There is no hearing beforehand, no way for the accused to defend themselves. (In some states, they can try and fight their way out of the register after the fact).
No proof is required to "substantiate" a case. In most states, "substantiated" means only that there is "some credible evidence" of maltreatment, even if there is more evidence of innocence.
And what if parents object to all this? What if they want to defend their children against a strip-search, for example? Technically, in some circumstances, they can say no to a CPS worker (though the worker doesn't have to tell them this -- there is no equivalent of a "Miranda warning"). But if they do say no, the worker can wield the most feared power of all -- the power to remove a child from the home on the spot.
Workers have that power in 29 of America's 55 states and territories. In all but four of the rest, they need merely call the police to do it for them. Parents then must go to court to try and get their children back. In most states, there is supposed to be a hearing in a matter of days, but often it takes far longer before that child's parents get their day in court.
And it is a very short day. Such hearings tend to be five-minute assembly line procedures with a CPS lawyer who does this for a living on one side, and a bewildered, impoverished parent who just met her lawyer five minutes before -- if she has a lawyer at all -- on the other. Children are almost never returned at these hearings. If the children are lucky, they may get to go home after the next hearing in 30 or 90 days. Or maybe they will never go home at all.
And who are the CPS workers who wield this enormous power? In most states, a bachelor's degree in anything and a quickie training course devoted largely to how to fill out forms are the only requirements for the job. Turnover is enormous and caseloads are crushing. And the worker will find little guidance in the law, which is so broad that almost anything can be deemed abuse or, especially, neglect (See Family Preservation Issue Paper 5, Child Abuse and Poverty). Given all that, it's easy to see why so many children are needlessly removed from their homes.
But that is not the only tragedy. Enormous caseloads dominated by false and trivial cases steal workers' time from children in real danger. That's the real reason children sometimes are left in unsafe homes
There is a CPS worker who allegedly told several parents "I have the power of God."(Funny, this is exactly what the Nashua caseworkers and their sheisty Lawyer's say. I guess their all cut from the same disgusting cloth!)Even more frightening than the thought of a worker saying such a thing is the fact that it's true. CPS workers do have the power of God. And rarely is the power of God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
http://www.examiner.com/x-27585-San-Diego-Courts-Examiner~y2009m10d31-HOW-CHILD-PROTECTIVE-SERVICES-WORKS
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
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Child Abuse Is Erroneously Over-Diagnosed
Child Abuse Is Erroneously Over-Diagnosed
Governments too often use faulty diagnoses to take children away from innocent parents
Written By: Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: June 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The loss of a child is one of life's most painful experiences regardless of the cause, whether illness, accident, or injury. Parents describe it as unbearable, never-ending pain.
But how about having your child or children forcibly removed from your home based on suspicion of a crime you didn't commit? Adding insult to injury, the accusations in question are based on an overzealous medical diagnosis. This is a reality faced by far too many parents accused of child abuse.
Yes, some parents abuse their children. However, the medical profession and government officials often abuse the diagnosis of child abuse.
False Charges
Since our column on "Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures" appeared in 2005 (NewsMax.com, October 5, 2005), hundreds of parents, grandparents, attorneys, public defenders, other family members, and friends have contacted us about apparently false child abuse accusations.
Those that write present convincing stories of loving parents who would never abuse their children. They describe medical professionals and government officials instigating false charges, causing infants to be ripped from their mother's arms, essentially at the point of a gun.
In one such case, a mother described how her youngest, a four-month-old daughter, had multiple unexplained fractures. Because of suspicion of child abuse, government agents took all three of her children out of their home. The daughter had no bruising or other signs of trauma during eight previous well-baby medical visits.
Another person wrote us about a four-month-old grandson who had been found to have multiple fractures. The parents still had custody of the infant, but government agents were threatening to take him away.
TBBD Hypothesis
In our 2005 article, we explained how such a medical condition was possible without being caused by physical abuse. Our essay included information on clinical observations and research leading to the temporary brittle bone disease (TBBD) hypothesis.
While in their mothers' wombs, babies grow and develop at astonishing rates. Dr. Colin R. Paterson of Scotland discovered some babies' bones were prone to fracture during the first few months of life outside the womb. Since many of the fractured infants he examined lacked the bruises and internal injuries common to child abuse, Paterson hypothesized that these babies had a temporary form of brittle bone disease, different from osteogenesis imperfecta and other known medical conditions causing weak bones and multiple fractures.
Dr. Marvin Miller, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology at Wright State School of Medicine in Dayton, Ohio, recently reported 65 infants with a similar pattern of medical findings in the journal Medical Hypotheses (2005 65, 880-886). He hypothesized that these babies were tightly confined in the womb and hadn't got enough exercise to produce normal bone strength. Such confinement can be due to a number of causes, such as large fibroids, twins, or diminished fluid around the baby.
Diagnosis by Exclusion
After birth these babies are able to exercise more normally. Their bones grow even more rapidly than normal babies' bones, to catch up with the new demands of living outside the womb. This rapid growth can produce new bone in multiple layers and simulate healing fractures. In addition, some of the weak bones actually do break during normal care, such as during diaper changes.
About 50 years ago, diagnosing child abuse from X-ray images alone became popular. In medical jargon, these X-ray findings were said to be "pathognomonic" of child abuse.
An X-ray image is simply a snapshot of the result of an event or condition; it cannot reveal with 100 percent certainty what that condition's cause was. In addition, medical scientists continue to discover previously unknown medical conditions.
For example, a group including Dr. Roy Morello of the Department of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas described a new genetic cause for brittle bones less than two years ago.
Based on current medical knowledge, and with only bone fractures as evidence, it is illogical to conclude an infant's injuries could only be due to child abuse. Such diagnosis by excluding everything else known to science, diagnosis by exclusion, is a logically false approach.
As physicians, we are grieved when medical professionals inadvertently abuse children by making diagnoses leading to false accusations of child abuse.
'Bounty Hunter' Incentives
In addition, some government social service workers face "bounty hunter" incentives. When they take children from their parents, especially when the move garners publicity, the government agents believe they gain by creating more "awareness" about child abuse--even when the charges are false. The agencies then refer to this publicity and generated "awareness" when asking the state legislature for more money so they can investigate, harass, and prosecute even more families.
New Procedures Needed
All other factors being equal, children thrive best when they grow up in their own parents' home.
As Voltaire said in 1747, "It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." We therefore ask medical, social service, legal, and law enforcement professionals to review the problem of false accusations. Applying scientific advances and logic should result in new procedures for evaluating infants with healing bones.
Doctors, and especially radiologists, must earn patients' trust by not making unsupported diagnoses, such as determining child abuse based on X-ray appearances alone.
Because doctors and medical science cannot be presumed to be perfect, those accused must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Justice must take precedence over the rush to convict.
Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a senior fellow and board member of the Discovery Institute. Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple-award-winning writer on medical-legal issues. Both doctors are board-certified diagnostic radiologists and regular contributors to Health Care News.
For more information ...
"Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures," NewsMax.com, October 5, 2005: http://archive.newsmax.
Governments too often use faulty diagnoses to take children away from innocent parents
Written By: Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: June 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The loss of a child is one of life's most painful experiences regardless of the cause, whether illness, accident, or injury. Parents describe it as unbearable, never-ending pain.
But how about having your child or children forcibly removed from your home based on suspicion of a crime you didn't commit? Adding insult to injury, the accusations in question are based on an overzealous medical diagnosis. This is a reality faced by far too many parents accused of child abuse.
Yes, some parents abuse their children. However, the medical profession and government officials often abuse the diagnosis of child abuse.
False Charges
Since our column on "Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures" appeared in 2005 (NewsMax.com, October 5, 2005), hundreds of parents, grandparents, attorneys, public defenders, other family members, and friends have contacted us about apparently false child abuse accusations.
Those that write present convincing stories of loving parents who would never abuse their children. They describe medical professionals and government officials instigating false charges, causing infants to be ripped from their mother's arms, essentially at the point of a gun.
In one such case, a mother described how her youngest, a four-month-old daughter, had multiple unexplained fractures. Because of suspicion of child abuse, government agents took all three of her children out of their home. The daughter had no bruising or other signs of trauma during eight previous well-baby medical visits.
Another person wrote us about a four-month-old grandson who had been found to have multiple fractures. The parents still had custody of the infant, but government agents were threatening to take him away.
TBBD Hypothesis
In our 2005 article, we explained how such a medical condition was possible without being caused by physical abuse. Our essay included information on clinical observations and research leading to the temporary brittle bone disease (TBBD) hypothesis.
While in their mothers' wombs, babies grow and develop at astonishing rates. Dr. Colin R. Paterson of Scotland discovered some babies' bones were prone to fracture during the first few months of life outside the womb. Since many of the fractured infants he examined lacked the bruises and internal injuries common to child abuse, Paterson hypothesized that these babies had a temporary form of brittle bone disease, different from osteogenesis imperfecta and other known medical conditions causing weak bones and multiple fractures.
Dr. Marvin Miller, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology at Wright State School of Medicine in Dayton, Ohio, recently reported 65 infants with a similar pattern of medical findings in the journal Medical Hypotheses (2005 65, 880-886). He hypothesized that these babies were tightly confined in the womb and hadn't got enough exercise to produce normal bone strength. Such confinement can be due to a number of causes, such as large fibroids, twins, or diminished fluid around the baby.
Diagnosis by Exclusion
After birth these babies are able to exercise more normally. Their bones grow even more rapidly than normal babies' bones, to catch up with the new demands of living outside the womb. This rapid growth can produce new bone in multiple layers and simulate healing fractures. In addition, some of the weak bones actually do break during normal care, such as during diaper changes.
About 50 years ago, diagnosing child abuse from X-ray images alone became popular. In medical jargon, these X-ray findings were said to be "pathognomonic" of child abuse.
An X-ray image is simply a snapshot of the result of an event or condition; it cannot reveal with 100 percent certainty what that condition's cause was. In addition, medical scientists continue to discover previously unknown medical conditions.
For example, a group including Dr. Roy Morello of the Department of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas described a new genetic cause for brittle bones less than two years ago.
Based on current medical knowledge, and with only bone fractures as evidence, it is illogical to conclude an infant's injuries could only be due to child abuse. Such diagnosis by excluding everything else known to science, diagnosis by exclusion, is a logically false approach.
As physicians, we are grieved when medical professionals inadvertently abuse children by making diagnoses leading to false accusations of child abuse.
'Bounty Hunter' Incentives
In addition, some government social service workers face "bounty hunter" incentives. When they take children from their parents, especially when the move garners publicity, the government agents believe they gain by creating more "awareness" about child abuse--even when the charges are false. The agencies then refer to this publicity and generated "awareness" when asking the state legislature for more money so they can investigate, harass, and prosecute even more families.
New Procedures Needed
All other factors being equal, children thrive best when they grow up in their own parents' home.
As Voltaire said in 1747, "It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." We therefore ask medical, social service, legal, and law enforcement professionals to review the problem of false accusations. Applying scientific advances and logic should result in new procedures for evaluating infants with healing bones.
Doctors, and especially radiologists, must earn patients' trust by not making unsupported diagnoses, such as determining child abuse based on X-ray appearances alone.
Because doctors and medical science cannot be presumed to be perfect, those accused must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Justice must take precedence over the rush to convict.
Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a senior fellow and board member of the Discovery Institute. Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple-award-winning writer on medical-legal issues. Both doctors are board-certified diagnostic radiologists and regular contributors to Health Care News.
For more information ...
"Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures," NewsMax.com, October 5, 2005: http://archive.newsmax.
No Positive Stories of CPS/DCYF Involvement
There are no positive stories of CPS involvement. They are rotten to the core. Proof of innocence when a child is stolen by CPS, is not even allowed into the courtroom. Families feel as if they are living under Hitlers rule. CPS is accountable to no-one. I was told by a worker in Nashua, NH that they can do whatever they want where families are concerned, because our government gave them the power to do so. I was also told by the same worker, once a parents rights are terminated in N.H. and they alway's are, the decision is never and has never been reversed. That doesn't say much for our judicial system either.
Federal mandates are not being followed. Services are not given to at-risk families before a child is removed. Relative preference in placement of the child is never considered. If it were, CPS would receive less federal funding. Licensed foster care is where the money is for CPS. In NH the law states in order to be a licensed foster, the foster must live in the same household with the same household members for a minimum of two years. Another law broken by CPS. People move here from other states and are immediately given a foster license and immediately given our stolen children. Background checks are not being given to all foster family members eighteen and over. Fingerprinting isn't being done in all cases either. Home studies are being ripped up by unethical CPS Lawyers and caseworkers. Perjury and hearsay is being admitted where no proof of wrongdoing is admitted in court. Proof of innocence is hidden by cohort hospitals and clinics, which doesn't appear until after the child is stolen. The Judges admit the child was taken illegally, but still bows down to the almighty CPS. Parents are given real estate Lawyers who refuse to file motions and appeals, in which the parent is not allowed to fire these puppets of the court. Is this done on purpose to make sure the parent loses. Only child custody Lawyers should be allowed in these proceedings.
Parents are threatened into signing the case plan. Their told if they don't, they will never see their children again, given the excuse there will be no funding to hire parent-aides for visitation.
Federal mandates state these laws are to be adhered to by CPS in order for them to obtain federal funding. CPS believes they are above the law and do not abide by any laws. Paperwork submitted to the federal government by CPS has to fraudalent. How else are they getting away with all this fraud and deceit?
I spoke to our Congressmans office about the fraudalent use of federal money by CPS. I was told once the money is given to the state, its up to the state how its used. This federal funding needs to stop. Our children and grandchildren are being stolen by these animals at an alarming rate, due to false allegations. Our children have become a huge money market for CPS and our state government, not only in NH, but throughout our nation. Our country is so worried about the prisoners being tortured at Guatonomo Bay. What about all the American families being tortured by CPS throughout our country? Our Government doesn't even care about it's own people.
So the question is: Is CPS the Enemy? Your Dam Right it is! There is no worse enemy in our country than the legal kidnappers our government has hired to protect our children. There is no protection for our children or us. There is no such thing as Family Preservation!
Federal mandates are not being followed. Services are not given to at-risk families before a child is removed. Relative preference in placement of the child is never considered. If it were, CPS would receive less federal funding. Licensed foster care is where the money is for CPS. In NH the law states in order to be a licensed foster, the foster must live in the same household with the same household members for a minimum of two years. Another law broken by CPS. People move here from other states and are immediately given a foster license and immediately given our stolen children. Background checks are not being given to all foster family members eighteen and over. Fingerprinting isn't being done in all cases either. Home studies are being ripped up by unethical CPS Lawyers and caseworkers. Perjury and hearsay is being admitted where no proof of wrongdoing is admitted in court. Proof of innocence is hidden by cohort hospitals and clinics, which doesn't appear until after the child is stolen. The Judges admit the child was taken illegally, but still bows down to the almighty CPS. Parents are given real estate Lawyers who refuse to file motions and appeals, in which the parent is not allowed to fire these puppets of the court. Is this done on purpose to make sure the parent loses. Only child custody Lawyers should be allowed in these proceedings.
Parents are threatened into signing the case plan. Their told if they don't, they will never see their children again, given the excuse there will be no funding to hire parent-aides for visitation.
Federal mandates state these laws are to be adhered to by CPS in order for them to obtain federal funding. CPS believes they are above the law and do not abide by any laws. Paperwork submitted to the federal government by CPS has to fraudalent. How else are they getting away with all this fraud and deceit?
I spoke to our Congressmans office about the fraudalent use of federal money by CPS. I was told once the money is given to the state, its up to the state how its used. This federal funding needs to stop. Our children and grandchildren are being stolen by these animals at an alarming rate, due to false allegations. Our children have become a huge money market for CPS and our state government, not only in NH, but throughout our nation. Our country is so worried about the prisoners being tortured at Guatonomo Bay. What about all the American families being tortured by CPS throughout our country? Our Government doesn't even care about it's own people.
So the question is: Is CPS the Enemy? Your Dam Right it is! There is no worse enemy in our country than the legal kidnappers our government has hired to protect our children. There is no protection for our children or us. There is no such thing as Family Preservation!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Federal law requires that they "consider giving prefer ence to an adult relative over a non related caregiver when determining placement of a Child
Current Through January 2008
You may wish to review this introductory text to better understand the information contained in your State's statute. To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards." 1 (Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center.) Approximately 36 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.2 Approximately six States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.3 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives. (In NH, relative placement is not an option because they don't follow the law.)
Preference to Relatives
Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives through blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, six States allow members of the child’s Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.4
The main requirements for placement are that the relative be "fit and willing," able to ensure the child’s safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Approximately 23 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.5
Financial Support
Approximately 14 States and the District of Columbia have established "kinship care" or "relative caregiver" programs by statute to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.6 Nine States address foster care payments for kin caregivers in statute.7 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services.
(Back to Top)
Adoption by Relatives
Approximately seven States also give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements.8 However, in Tennessee, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for 12 months or longer when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent is given first preference to adopt.
In approximately 29 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.9 In 11 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.10 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adoptive parents and other adult household members.11
To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
To find information on all of the States and territories, view the complete printable PDF, Placement of Children With Relatives: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 301 KB).
(Back to Top)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(19). back
2 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws; this information is current only through January 2008. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back
3 Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
4 Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back
5 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
6 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back
7 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. back
8 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska (for Indian children), Ohio, and Wisconsin. back
9 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back
10 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back
11 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/placement.cfm
You may wish to review this introductory text to better understand the information contained in your State's statute. To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards." 1 (Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center.) Approximately 36 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.2 Approximately six States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.3 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives. (In NH, relative placement is not an option because they don't follow the law.)
Preference to Relatives
Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives through blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, six States allow members of the child’s Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.4
The main requirements for placement are that the relative be "fit and willing," able to ensure the child’s safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Approximately 23 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.5
Financial Support
Approximately 14 States and the District of Columbia have established "kinship care" or "relative caregiver" programs by statute to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.6 Nine States address foster care payments for kin caregivers in statute.7 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services.
(Back to Top)
Adoption by Relatives
Approximately seven States also give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements.8 However, in Tennessee, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for 12 months or longer when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent is given first preference to adopt.
In approximately 29 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.9 In 11 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.10 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adoptive parents and other adult household members.11
To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
To find information on all of the States and territories, view the complete printable PDF, Placement of Children With Relatives: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 301 KB).
(Back to Top)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(19). back
2 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws; this information is current only through January 2008. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back
3 Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
4 Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back
5 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
6 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back
7 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. back
8 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska (for Indian children), Ohio, and Wisconsin. back
9 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back
10 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back
11 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/placement.cfm
Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 985)
Summary of the Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 985)
On May 10, 2005, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 985). Other sponsors include Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Kerry (R-MA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Charles Schumer (D-NY). The bill takes three important steps to assist children being raised and cared for by grandparents and other relatives:
establishes a Kinship Navigator Program,
establishes a Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program to provide federal assistance to states for subsidized guardianship programs to assist relative caregivers and their children,
ensures notice to relative when children enter foster care.
Each of these steps is described in detail below.
Kinship Navigator Program
Findings
The 2000 U.S. Census reports that more that 4.5 million children in the United States are living in grandparent-headed households--a 30% increase from 1990 to 2000--and an additional 1.5 million children are living in households headed by other relatives.
Some 2.4 million grandparents reported that they were primarily responsible for meeting the basic needs of their grandchildren; parents were not present in about one-third of these families.
Grandparents and other relatives raising children face a variety of unnecessary barriers, including difficulties enrolling children in school, access to and authorization of medical treatment, maintaining public housing leases, obtaining affordable legal services, and accessing a variety of federal benefits and services. Almost one-fifth of grandparents responsible for their grandchildren live in poverty.
Kinship caregivers can help keep children from entering foster care but need services and supports.
Purpose
To establish kinship navigator programs in states, large metropolitan areas, and Indian tribal organizations to help kinship caregivers navigate existing programs and services to help them learn about and obtain assistance to meet the needs of the children they are raising, and their own needs.
To promote effective partnerships between government organizations, private not-for-profit agencies, and community and faith-based organizations to help them more effectively and efficiently serve kinship care families and address the fragmentation that creates barriers to meeting their needs.
Funding for kinship navigator programs can help kinship care families better use existing programs and services and increase the capacity of government, private not-for-profit, community, and faith-based agencies and related federal programs, such as the National Family Caregiver Support Program, to better serve the needs of kinship care families.
Grantees
Grantees may include states, cities of 1 million or more people, agencies serving a large metropolitan area including counties, and Indian tribal organizations.
Grantees must have experience in addressing the needs of kinship caregivers or children and in connecting children or caregivers with services that address various human service needs.
Grants are for three years. A qualifying grantee would receive annual federal funding for each of these three years. In the first year, 100% of funding would be from the federal government; the federal portion of the grant would be reduced to 75% in year two and 50% in year three. Half of the non-federal part of the matching funds may be "in-kind."
Use of Grant Funds
Activities may be delivered directly by the state grantee, the entity applying for the metropolitan area, or the Indian tribal organization or through grants or contracts with other public or private not-for-profit agencies, including community and faith-based organizations, that have experience in connecting kinship caregivers with the services and assistance they need.
Funds may be used for activities that help link kinship caregivers to the services and assistance required to meet the needs of the children they are raising, and their own needs, such as
Establishing and maintaining information and referral systems that assist, through toll-free access, kinship caregivers, kinship care providers, kinship care support group facilitators, and others to learn about and link to
eligibility and enrollment information for local, state, and federal benefits, including but not limited to education (including preschool, elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and special education), family support services, early intervention services, help with mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence problems, HIV/AIDS, legal services, child support, housing assistance, child care, State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Security Disability Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Food Stamps;
relevant training to help kinship caregivers obtain benefits and services and perform their caregiving activities; and
legal assistance and help obtaining access to legal services.
Establishing, distributing, and regularly updating a kinship care resource guide, website, or other relevant outreach materials
Promoting partnerships between government and private not-for-profit agencies and community and faith-based organizations to help them more efficiently and effectively serve the needs of kinship care families, and to familiarize them about their special needs; policies that affect their eligibility for a range of health, mental health, social service, child welfare, and other services and benefits; and how to make policies more supportive of kinship care families.
Establishing and supporting a kinship care ombudsman with the authority to intervene with state agency staff or service providers to help ensure that kinship caregivers get the services they need and for which they are eligible.
Supporting activities that are designed to help kinship caregivers obtain benefits and services and activities designed to improve caregiving services.
Application and Eligibility Requirements
The applicant must describe the steps it will take during the first six months of the grant to
identify gaps in services for kinship care families in the state, metropolitan area, or area served by the Indian tribal organization, and the specific activities needed;
convene partners to assist in the operation of the kinship navigator program;
use or develop relevant technology;
conduct outreach to kinship caregivers about the kinship navigator program; and
develop a plan for reaching kinship caregivers, ensuring they can access the kinship navigator program, and following up to ensure they actually receive necessary services and supports.
The applicant must specify how it will involve the following on an ongoing basis in the planning and operation of the kinship navigator system:
kinship caregivers and representatives of kinship care support organizations;
relevant government agencies (aging, mental health, mental retardation and developmental disabilities, substance abuse treatment, health, youth services, human services, education, child welfare, child support enforcement);
not-for-profit services providers;
community and faith-based organizations;
educational institutions; and
other state or local agencies or systems that promote services coordination or information and referral services, including the 2-1-1 information systems, where applicable.
The applicant must describe how it will coordinate its activities with other state or local agencies that promote services coordination and referral services for children, families, and seniors, so as to avoid duplication of services and the fragmentation of services that prevents kinship care families from getting the help they need, and how it will encourage regional cooperation among agencies, particularly those in border communities that may cross jurisdictional lines, to ensure that kinship care families will get help.
Administration of the Program
The program will be administered by the Administration for Children and Families (SCF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In administering the program, the ACF will consult from time to time with the Administration on Aging.
Funding
$25 million is authorized for FY 2005, $50 million for FY 2006, and $75 million for FY 2007.
A grantee match of 25% in the second year and 50% in the third year will be required. Up to 50% of the match each year may be in-kind.
HHS may withhold up to 1% of the funds under the navigator program to provide technical assistance to the grantees related to the purposes of the grant.
Subsidized Guardianship Option Through Title IV-E
States may apply to provide kinship guardianship assistance payment through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This does not require a waiver through HHS but does require a change to a state's plan.
If a state does not provide kinship guardianship assistance payments under this option, then cities with a million or more people within that state may apply to HHS to provide a kinship guardianship program.
Agreement with Guardian
If a state implements this service, it must negotiate and enter a written agreement with the perspective relative guardian. It must provide a copy to the kinship guardian and certify the child will be eligible for health coverage through the state Medicaid program.
The agreement shall remain in effect regardless of state residency of the relative and for the protection of the child in any case where the relative guardian and child move while the agreement is still in effect.
Services and Assistance
The agreement with the kinship guardian must explain how payments, if any, will be provided, the additional services and assistance for which the child and relative will be eligible, the procedures for obtaining such services, and state payment of nonrecurring expenses associated with obtaining the legal guardianship.
Assistance payments to the relative guardian shall be based on consideration of circumstances and needs of the relative and child and be equal to foster care maintenance payments.
Adjustments to the payment may be adjusted periodically based on relevant changes with the concurrence of the relative guardian.
The child must be under age 18 or, if a full-time student in high school or its equivalent, under age 19, or, if the child has a physical or mental disability, until age 21.
Child's Eligibility
The child must have been removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or the result of a judicial determination, under the care of a state agency for a 12-month period, and eligible for foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E foster care funding.
Returning home or adoption are not appropriate options for the child, and the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the relative guardian and the guardian has a commitment to the child.
If the child is 14 or older, he or she must be consulted.
Siblings who may not be covered by these eligibility requirements may be placed in the same kinship guardianship families if the state and the relative are in agreement. The kinship guardianship payments may be made on behalf of these siblings.
Notice of Children Entering Foster Care
Within 60 days of a child's removal from custody of the parent or parents, the state must give notice to all adult grandparents and other adult relatives, including relatives suggested by the parent(s).
Exceptions can be made to this requirement in cases of family or domestic violence.
The notice must provide specifics that the child has been removed and explain the options a relative may have in the care and placement of the child according to federal, state, or local law.
For more information, contact John Sciamanna, CWLA Senior Government Affairs Associate, at 703/412-3161 or jsciamanna@cwla.org.
Contact Us
http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/summarykinshipact.htm
On May 10, 2005, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 985). Other sponsors include Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Kerry (R-MA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Charles Schumer (D-NY). The bill takes three important steps to assist children being raised and cared for by grandparents and other relatives:
establishes a Kinship Navigator Program,
establishes a Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program to provide federal assistance to states for subsidized guardianship programs to assist relative caregivers and their children,
ensures notice to relative when children enter foster care.
Each of these steps is described in detail below.
Kinship Navigator Program
Findings
The 2000 U.S. Census reports that more that 4.5 million children in the United States are living in grandparent-headed households--a 30% increase from 1990 to 2000--and an additional 1.5 million children are living in households headed by other relatives.
Some 2.4 million grandparents reported that they were primarily responsible for meeting the basic needs of their grandchildren; parents were not present in about one-third of these families.
Grandparents and other relatives raising children face a variety of unnecessary barriers, including difficulties enrolling children in school, access to and authorization of medical treatment, maintaining public housing leases, obtaining affordable legal services, and accessing a variety of federal benefits and services. Almost one-fifth of grandparents responsible for their grandchildren live in poverty.
Kinship caregivers can help keep children from entering foster care but need services and supports.
Purpose
To establish kinship navigator programs in states, large metropolitan areas, and Indian tribal organizations to help kinship caregivers navigate existing programs and services to help them learn about and obtain assistance to meet the needs of the children they are raising, and their own needs.
To promote effective partnerships between government organizations, private not-for-profit agencies, and community and faith-based organizations to help them more effectively and efficiently serve kinship care families and address the fragmentation that creates barriers to meeting their needs.
Funding for kinship navigator programs can help kinship care families better use existing programs and services and increase the capacity of government, private not-for-profit, community, and faith-based agencies and related federal programs, such as the National Family Caregiver Support Program, to better serve the needs of kinship care families.
Grantees
Grantees may include states, cities of 1 million or more people, agencies serving a large metropolitan area including counties, and Indian tribal organizations.
Grantees must have experience in addressing the needs of kinship caregivers or children and in connecting children or caregivers with services that address various human service needs.
Grants are for three years. A qualifying grantee would receive annual federal funding for each of these three years. In the first year, 100% of funding would be from the federal government; the federal portion of the grant would be reduced to 75% in year two and 50% in year three. Half of the non-federal part of the matching funds may be "in-kind."
Use of Grant Funds
Activities may be delivered directly by the state grantee, the entity applying for the metropolitan area, or the Indian tribal organization or through grants or contracts with other public or private not-for-profit agencies, including community and faith-based organizations, that have experience in connecting kinship caregivers with the services and assistance they need.
Funds may be used for activities that help link kinship caregivers to the services and assistance required to meet the needs of the children they are raising, and their own needs, such as
Establishing and maintaining information and referral systems that assist, through toll-free access, kinship caregivers, kinship care providers, kinship care support group facilitators, and others to learn about and link to
eligibility and enrollment information for local, state, and federal benefits, including but not limited to education (including preschool, elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and special education), family support services, early intervention services, help with mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence problems, HIV/AIDS, legal services, child support, housing assistance, child care, State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Security Disability Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Food Stamps;
relevant training to help kinship caregivers obtain benefits and services and perform their caregiving activities; and
legal assistance and help obtaining access to legal services.
Establishing, distributing, and regularly updating a kinship care resource guide, website, or other relevant outreach materials
Promoting partnerships between government and private not-for-profit agencies and community and faith-based organizations to help them more efficiently and effectively serve the needs of kinship care families, and to familiarize them about their special needs; policies that affect their eligibility for a range of health, mental health, social service, child welfare, and other services and benefits; and how to make policies more supportive of kinship care families.
Establishing and supporting a kinship care ombudsman with the authority to intervene with state agency staff or service providers to help ensure that kinship caregivers get the services they need and for which they are eligible.
Supporting activities that are designed to help kinship caregivers obtain benefits and services and activities designed to improve caregiving services.
Application and Eligibility Requirements
The applicant must describe the steps it will take during the first six months of the grant to
identify gaps in services for kinship care families in the state, metropolitan area, or area served by the Indian tribal organization, and the specific activities needed;
convene partners to assist in the operation of the kinship navigator program;
use or develop relevant technology;
conduct outreach to kinship caregivers about the kinship navigator program; and
develop a plan for reaching kinship caregivers, ensuring they can access the kinship navigator program, and following up to ensure they actually receive necessary services and supports.
The applicant must specify how it will involve the following on an ongoing basis in the planning and operation of the kinship navigator system:
kinship caregivers and representatives of kinship care support organizations;
relevant government agencies (aging, mental health, mental retardation and developmental disabilities, substance abuse treatment, health, youth services, human services, education, child welfare, child support enforcement);
not-for-profit services providers;
community and faith-based organizations;
educational institutions; and
other state or local agencies or systems that promote services coordination or information and referral services, including the 2-1-1 information systems, where applicable.
The applicant must describe how it will coordinate its activities with other state or local agencies that promote services coordination and referral services for children, families, and seniors, so as to avoid duplication of services and the fragmentation of services that prevents kinship care families from getting the help they need, and how it will encourage regional cooperation among agencies, particularly those in border communities that may cross jurisdictional lines, to ensure that kinship care families will get help.
Administration of the Program
The program will be administered by the Administration for Children and Families (SCF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In administering the program, the ACF will consult from time to time with the Administration on Aging.
Funding
$25 million is authorized for FY 2005, $50 million for FY 2006, and $75 million for FY 2007.
A grantee match of 25% in the second year and 50% in the third year will be required. Up to 50% of the match each year may be in-kind.
HHS may withhold up to 1% of the funds under the navigator program to provide technical assistance to the grantees related to the purposes of the grant.
Subsidized Guardianship Option Through Title IV-E
States may apply to provide kinship guardianship assistance payment through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This does not require a waiver through HHS but does require a change to a state's plan.
If a state does not provide kinship guardianship assistance payments under this option, then cities with a million or more people within that state may apply to HHS to provide a kinship guardianship program.
Agreement with Guardian
If a state implements this service, it must negotiate and enter a written agreement with the perspective relative guardian. It must provide a copy to the kinship guardian and certify the child will be eligible for health coverage through the state Medicaid program.
The agreement shall remain in effect regardless of state residency of the relative and for the protection of the child in any case where the relative guardian and child move while the agreement is still in effect.
Services and Assistance
The agreement with the kinship guardian must explain how payments, if any, will be provided, the additional services and assistance for which the child and relative will be eligible, the procedures for obtaining such services, and state payment of nonrecurring expenses associated with obtaining the legal guardianship.
Assistance payments to the relative guardian shall be based on consideration of circumstances and needs of the relative and child and be equal to foster care maintenance payments.
Adjustments to the payment may be adjusted periodically based on relevant changes with the concurrence of the relative guardian.
The child must be under age 18 or, if a full-time student in high school or its equivalent, under age 19, or, if the child has a physical or mental disability, until age 21.
Child's Eligibility
The child must have been removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or the result of a judicial determination, under the care of a state agency for a 12-month period, and eligible for foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E foster care funding.
Returning home or adoption are not appropriate options for the child, and the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the relative guardian and the guardian has a commitment to the child.
If the child is 14 or older, he or she must be consulted.
Siblings who may not be covered by these eligibility requirements may be placed in the same kinship guardianship families if the state and the relative are in agreement. The kinship guardianship payments may be made on behalf of these siblings.
Notice of Children Entering Foster Care
Within 60 days of a child's removal from custody of the parent or parents, the state must give notice to all adult grandparents and other adult relatives, including relatives suggested by the parent(s).
Exceptions can be made to this requirement in cases of family or domestic violence.
The notice must provide specifics that the child has been removed and explain the options a relative may have in the care and placement of the child according to federal, state, or local law.
For more information, contact John Sciamanna, CWLA Senior Government Affairs Associate, at 703/412-3161 or jsciamanna@cwla.org.
Contact Us
http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/summarykinshipact.htm
Human Rights Violations in the United States (DCYF/CPS)
Human Rights Violations in the United States (CPS)
Posted: 01 Jan 2010 09:48 PM PST
The United States is the worlds biggest violator of human rights, since the Germans.
How and why do I say this? Any time senators pass laws that allow a person’s children to be removed from a home, with out due cause, it is a human rights violation. When child protective services can enter your home, remove your children, and not allow the parents to see them, it is a human rights violation. When child protective services can have your child placed on mind altering drugs, it’s a human rights violation. When a school wants your child placed on medication, because they will receive funds from the drug maker. It’s a human rights violation. When the person that decides your child’s future has little more that a high school diploma, it’s a human rights violation.
All of this takes me back to Nazi Germany, when families were torn a part in the middle of the night, by SS officers.
No one wants to believe this is happening in this country. Most certainly not in the land of the free.
Since the passage of the Mondale Act in 1974, families have been torn apart, children have been seized, adopted, never to see their parents again.
Anyone can say you are abusing your child, and they will be picked up.
Children are being snatched from loving homes every day, because of this system.
When a child is picked up, CPS is going to receive over 200.000 dollars, which will be divided between specific case worker, counselors, and foster parents.
these children are placed with specific foster parents, because they are to be brain-washed, and taught how to behave, all of this is done in preperation for them receiving mental care. Eventually they will receive mind-altering drugs.
When a foster parent cares for a child classified as having “behavior problems”, the parent receives more compensation. If that child is actually sent to a hospital. they are classified as being “institutionalized”, the pay more than doubles.
Parents that try to fight this abuse, find themselves up against a brick wall, because people believe the state is always right, and you must be a “bad person”.
If your child is in custody for 18 months, they can put them up for adoption. Don’t think someone new will adopt your child, because, that won’t happen. They knew who wanted your child, before they were picked up.
The counselors, case workers, CASA, and GAL, all work to gain your child’s confidence, and they are coached in what to say, but remember, you can’t see your child.
If a school hotlines you, they will get money from the drug company, and payments go to the teachers union.
Usuall, there are specific teachers in schools that work directly with Child Protective Services, these teachers have children identified for the worker, they put a plan in motion to set the parents up. The CPS officer will hot-line you, all of this is done to build a case.
If you know of a child that is being abused, or harmed in any way, try hot-lining the parent. You will probably never have a response to your tip, because the system is not equipped to deal with children in a real crisis. This is most unfortunate, because there a thousands of children that need help.
If you have experienced any of these problems, you can visit the blog legally kidnapped, you will find links there to other sites. One person can’t fight this alone, united we are strong.
Posted: 01 Jan 2010 09:48 PM PST
The United States is the worlds biggest violator of human rights, since the Germans.
How and why do I say this? Any time senators pass laws that allow a person’s children to be removed from a home, with out due cause, it is a human rights violation. When child protective services can enter your home, remove your children, and not allow the parents to see them, it is a human rights violation. When child protective services can have your child placed on mind altering drugs, it’s a human rights violation. When a school wants your child placed on medication, because they will receive funds from the drug maker. It’s a human rights violation. When the person that decides your child’s future has little more that a high school diploma, it’s a human rights violation.
All of this takes me back to Nazi Germany, when families were torn a part in the middle of the night, by SS officers.
No one wants to believe this is happening in this country. Most certainly not in the land of the free.
Since the passage of the Mondale Act in 1974, families have been torn apart, children have been seized, adopted, never to see their parents again.
Anyone can say you are abusing your child, and they will be picked up.
Children are being snatched from loving homes every day, because of this system.
When a child is picked up, CPS is going to receive over 200.000 dollars, which will be divided between specific case worker, counselors, and foster parents.
these children are placed with specific foster parents, because they are to be brain-washed, and taught how to behave, all of this is done in preperation for them receiving mental care. Eventually they will receive mind-altering drugs.
When a foster parent cares for a child classified as having “behavior problems”, the parent receives more compensation. If that child is actually sent to a hospital. they are classified as being “institutionalized”, the pay more than doubles.
Parents that try to fight this abuse, find themselves up against a brick wall, because people believe the state is always right, and you must be a “bad person”.
If your child is in custody for 18 months, they can put them up for adoption. Don’t think someone new will adopt your child, because, that won’t happen. They knew who wanted your child, before they were picked up.
The counselors, case workers, CASA, and GAL, all work to gain your child’s confidence, and they are coached in what to say, but remember, you can’t see your child.
If a school hotlines you, they will get money from the drug company, and payments go to the teachers union.
Usuall, there are specific teachers in schools that work directly with Child Protective Services, these teachers have children identified for the worker, they put a plan in motion to set the parents up. The CPS officer will hot-line you, all of this is done to build a case.
If you know of a child that is being abused, or harmed in any way, try hot-lining the parent. You will probably never have a response to your tip, because the system is not equipped to deal with children in a real crisis. This is most unfortunate, because there a thousands of children that need help.
If you have experienced any of these problems, you can visit the blog legally kidnapped, you will find links there to other sites. One person can’t fight this alone, united we are strong.
States focus on limiting psychiatric drugging of kids
Awareness »Finally, Some Action on This Insane Drugging of Our Children.
April 8th, 2009 | Author: admin
Honolulu Chiropractor: It is unbelievable to me that it is legal to prescribe psychiatric drugs that have not gone through clinical trials for children. I was so glad to read this article and see some states starting to take action.
States focus on limiting psychiatric drugging of kids
The Texas legislature is considering a bill that would require doctors to get prior approval before prescribing atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa, Risperdal, Invega, Abilify, Seroquel and Geodon to children under 11 who are covered by Medicaid in that state, the Dallas Morning News reported on April 1, 2009.The reports on Texas foster childrenin recent years provide evidence to support such a bill.
The atypicals are the most expensive psychiatric drugs on the market and children all across the US have become the target of the off-label marketing campaigns of their makers.
The atypicals are being prescribed more often than antidepressants to children in foster care for everything from ADHD to depression to sleep problems. A report on Texas foster children for the year 2005 has a list of the top ten drugs prescribed to children ages 6 to 12, and Seroquel and Risperdal combined beat out the two antidepressants on the list.
In the three-year-old toddler age group, Seroquel and Risperdal combined were prescribed 115 times.
With infants, age 0 to 2, Risperdal and Seroquel prescriptions had a combined total of 28.
In May 2008, a group of New Hampshire legislators wrote to the state’s attorney general asking for a criminal investigation of the atypical makers after learning about the increasingly large amounts of spending by Medicaid for children on the drugs.
Atypical antipsychotic drugging “of children in the Granite state has skyrocketed from under $300,000 in 2000 to nearly $4 million in 2007,” the letter states.
“As you are likely aware, antipsychotics are psychiatry’s most powerful medications with very little FDA approval for children and include side effects ranging such as early death, diabetes, heart failure, psychosis, permanent muscle spasms and more,” the lawmakers pointed out.
They noted the $515 million civil settlement the DOJ entered into with Bristol-Myers Squibb for illegally marketing Abilify for off-label uses and the settlements between private plaintiffs and Eli Lilly for “causing diabetes in 28,500 people with Zyprexa.”
“Any ordinary citizen would minimally be charged with manslaughter or second degree murder for such criminal negligence,” the letter advised.
“It is very important to take such criminal actions as the civil actions merely appear to be write-offs as business expenses to drug manufacturers in cases like Vioxx, OxyContin, Neurontin, Paxil and those mentioned above,” the lawmakers pointed out.
“A criminal deterrent is needed to protect our children and others placed on powerful medications,” they stated.
Last September, attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the patient advocacy organization, PsychRights, filed a lawsuit against the state of Alaska seeking to bar the state from paying for off-label prescriptions of all psychiatric drugs to children covered by Medicaid in Alaska.
Evelyn Pringle
(Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)
http://www.patientsarepowerful.org/uncategorized/finally-some-action-on-this-insane-drugging-of-our-children
April 8th, 2009 | Author: admin
Honolulu Chiropractor: It is unbelievable to me that it is legal to prescribe psychiatric drugs that have not gone through clinical trials for children. I was so glad to read this article and see some states starting to take action.
States focus on limiting psychiatric drugging of kids
The Texas legislature is considering a bill that would require doctors to get prior approval before prescribing atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa, Risperdal, Invega, Abilify, Seroquel and Geodon to children under 11 who are covered by Medicaid in that state, the Dallas Morning News reported on April 1, 2009.The reports on Texas foster childrenin recent years provide evidence to support such a bill.
The atypicals are the most expensive psychiatric drugs on the market and children all across the US have become the target of the off-label marketing campaigns of their makers.
The atypicals are being prescribed more often than antidepressants to children in foster care for everything from ADHD to depression to sleep problems. A report on Texas foster children for the year 2005 has a list of the top ten drugs prescribed to children ages 6 to 12, and Seroquel and Risperdal combined beat out the two antidepressants on the list.
In the three-year-old toddler age group, Seroquel and Risperdal combined were prescribed 115 times.
With infants, age 0 to 2, Risperdal and Seroquel prescriptions had a combined total of 28.
In May 2008, a group of New Hampshire legislators wrote to the state’s attorney general asking for a criminal investigation of the atypical makers after learning about the increasingly large amounts of spending by Medicaid for children on the drugs.
Atypical antipsychotic drugging “of children in the Granite state has skyrocketed from under $300,000 in 2000 to nearly $4 million in 2007,” the letter states.
“As you are likely aware, antipsychotics are psychiatry’s most powerful medications with very little FDA approval for children and include side effects ranging such as early death, diabetes, heart failure, psychosis, permanent muscle spasms and more,” the lawmakers pointed out.
They noted the $515 million civil settlement the DOJ entered into with Bristol-Myers Squibb for illegally marketing Abilify for off-label uses and the settlements between private plaintiffs and Eli Lilly for “causing diabetes in 28,500 people with Zyprexa.”
“Any ordinary citizen would minimally be charged with manslaughter or second degree murder for such criminal negligence,” the letter advised.
“It is very important to take such criminal actions as the civil actions merely appear to be write-offs as business expenses to drug manufacturers in cases like Vioxx, OxyContin, Neurontin, Paxil and those mentioned above,” the lawmakers pointed out.
“A criminal deterrent is needed to protect our children and others placed on powerful medications,” they stated.
Last September, attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the patient advocacy organization, PsychRights, filed a lawsuit against the state of Alaska seeking to bar the state from paying for off-label prescriptions of all psychiatric drugs to children covered by Medicaid in Alaska.
Evelyn Pringle
(Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)
http://www.patientsarepowerful.org/uncategorized/finally-some-action-on-this-insane-drugging-of-our-children
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)