We asked for help - but they took our kidsArticle from:
BRYAN LITTLELY
January 05, 2010 12:01am
..TRIGGER-HAPPY social workers are taking children from their homes and creating a new "stolen generation", a group of distraught mothers claim.
The four women, with 26 children between them, say what started as cries for help became the catalyst that destroyed their families.
They say care workers bullied and threatened them and coerced them to put their children into care.
In some cases, the children were ripped from the arms of their parents outside court houses and schools without any warning.
The mums also say their children are now living in situations worse than the conditions they had at home.
Some have unsupervised visits with fathers convicted of child neglect and other crimes, others are separated from siblings and children as young as three have run away from foster homes.
Recent FamiliesSA figures show that at the end of June last year, there were 2111 children under care and protection orders, an 8.6 per cent increase on the previous year's 1943.
HAVE YOU HAD DEALINGS WITH FAMILIES SA? Tell us your story in the comment box below.
There are now about 1780 children in state care, the office of Families and Communities Minister Jennifer Rankine confirmed yesterday.
The minister's office provided reasons for FamiliesSA intervention in each of the cases of the four mothers, and emphasised it was the Youth Court that assesses the department's applications and makes the protection orders. But the mums argue they face no charges of neglect and believe they are good and capable mothers who were "tricked" into handing over their children to the state when they asked for help.
The mothers say FamiliesSA social workers have been "jumpy" and "trigger-happy" since June, 2008 when 21 children were found living in squalid conditions at Parafield Gardens. Six people face child-neglect charges over that case.
All four mothers who approached The Advertiser to tell their stories say they have never been charged with any child neglect crimes.
MUM 1, a 21-year-old from the southern suburbs, has lost the neat, comfortable rental property she had secured to raise her two young children. She says FamiliesSA has not only "stolen" her children, but also her joy of being a mother. She first came to the attention of the service when she and her mother asked for help to deal with her six-week-old daughter.
"They told me that they would help me to get on my feet, that the order would only be for six weeks and I would get her back," the mum said.
"Three months after she was born, I was pregnant. The order got extended to 14 months and throughout my pregnancy they threatened to take my baby away when he was born."
Her daughter was returned to her care and she looked after both children until December, 2008, when her son, now aged three, was admitted to hospital with head injuries sustained while he was in the care of a babysitter. The mother claims her son was in the babysitter's care for just 15 minutes.
No charges were laid over the incident but both children were taken from the mother and are now in the care of their father's parents.
The father lives in the home with the children but an order states he is not to have unsupervised access to the children, the mum says.
The mother says she now lives with her parents and they would like to help her raise her children in that home. But they have only recently been allowed limited unsupervised access to the children.
She said she is required to undergo a psychological assessment before her case can progress and that the current guardians have taunted her, saying she would never get her children back because they are now accredited foster carers.
MUM 2 is a 26-year-old mother of six who was herself under the care of the state as a child.
"I was under the guardianship of the state from 11 to 18 and I learnt what I know about being a mum from FamiliesSA," said the southern suburbs mum, who is pregnant.
"When I needed help with my five-week-old twins, I had to turn to them for help . . . that's all I knew to do.
"They said I would get my boys back, but I can't see that I will get my boys back and now they have taken my other four children.
"I am pregnant and I am scared they will take my baby away, too."
The young mum said her infant twins were taken from her more than a year ago and her other four children - whom her current partner had helped care for - were placed under a protection order in November.
She said she now only has supervised visits with her children, for a few hours twice a week, while the father of the four eldest children has unsupervised access despite having being jailed for child neglect of her eldest son.
"The three eldest kids were taken from school . . . We didn't even know it was happening," the woman's partner said.
"We had our three-year-old daughter with us and they were forcibly removing our girl from my arms. I was distressed and they handcuffed me when they did it."
The mother said: "They are creating the new stolen generation.
"I just want to be a mother. I want for my children to not have to go through what I went through as a child in the care of the state."
MUM 3 lives in the northern suburbs, has 11 children, and seven of them were living with her.
In November, five children were taken from her outside the Youth Court under a protection order.
She said the children who were put into care, aged 3-11, had all tried to run away from their foster home.
These included a four year old and a five year old who had both tried to hitch-hike home. After a month in foster care, they were placed in the care of their grandmother.
The mother's lawyers wrote to the mother, saying the magistrate overseeing her case deemed the foster care home had not provided "superior care" to that which she had offered.
In May, the mother admitted in a TV interview to being a neglectful parent when she was evicted from a rental property because of the putrid environment she lived in.
This week, she told The Advertiser she had done the best she could and had asked for help in a bid to adequately provide for her children.
"This is the worst experience of my life," the mum said.
"The minister . . . needs to come out here and talk to people like me to work out what's going on."
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26552705-5006301,00.html
MUM 4 is the 32-year-old Frewville mother who had seven children removed from her care on Christmas Eve. She said she handed her children to social workers on the promise they would be kept together.
She first visited the children briefly five days after they were removed and she says they are being cared for in four different homes.
Share this article What is this?
Add to MySpace Digg itPost to del.icio.usPost to NewsvinePost to FacebookAdd to kwoffStumble Upon
HEARTBROKEN: One of the mothers places a doll she made in a cot for her daughter who was taken from her along with her son by FamiliesSA.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, January 4, 2010
Drugging Kids For Profit
Drugging Kids for Profit by Ed Silverman Jan 04 2010
As uses for antipsychotic drugs multiply, these powerful substances with strong side effects are being used to treat kids more and more often.
Sales, Stat!
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire. Read More
Out of Sight
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards. Read More
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More
Antipsychotics have been linked to an increased risk of death, according to some experts.
If elderly people with dementia are so vulnerable to the risks posed by antipsychotics, why are so many nursing-home residents regularly prescribed the medications?
The answer can be found in a controversy with its roots in aggressive marketing and lackadaisical supervision. Known in the medical community as atypical antipsychotics, this group of drugs was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat adults suffering from schizophrenia. They go by snazzy names such as Zyprexa, Geodon, Abilify, and Seroquel. Later, regulators allowed doctors to prescribe them for treating bipolar disorder. Over the past decade, the pills have become a veritable goldmine; in 2008 alone, sales in the U.S. reached $14.6 billion.
But critics say those big sales are actually due, in part, to an epidemic of off-label marketing, which is promoting a drug for unapproved uses, although doctors are free to write a prescription regardless. And so drugmakers encouraged doctors to prescribe these meds for children before the FDA sanctioned their use for youngsters. This was particularly troubling, given that the drugs can cause diabetes and weight gain, side effects that prompted thousands of lawsuits claiming that drugmakers tried to hide evidence of these problems.
Another side effect is even more disturbing—unnecessary deaths among elderly patients, who shouldn’t receive these medicines if they suffer from dementia. A recent study found that more than 140,000 dementia patients in the U.K. are given these meds needlessly and some 1,800 elderly deaths are linked each year to overprescribing. Moreover, only 20 percent of 180,000 dementia patients received any benefit.
In general, people taking antipsychotics are nearly twice as likely to have a stroke compared with those not on the meds, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. And the risk is higher—about 3.5 times—for those with dementia, which means doctors should only prescribe the pills as a last resort.
Of course, there are people in nursing homes with behavioral problems such as agitation and psychotic episodes. Yet reports periodically emerge that chronically understaffed nursing homes all too often dispense antipsychotics in order to subdue patients. A recent investigation by the Chicago Tribune, for instance, found that nursing-home residents in Illinois are drugged without their consent or without a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis that would justify treatment.
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire.
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards.
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More “Companies want to sell drugs, doctors prescribe the drugs most heavily marketed, nursing homes need doctors to legitimize their actions, and nurses are probably overworked and want doctors to medicate people so they’re more malleable,” says Robert Rosenheck, a Yale University professor of psychiatry and epidemiology and director of the Division of Mental Health Services and Outcomes Research.
“The participants start to gain, but the general public and the patients may not be better off. There’s evidence the drugs aren’t always effective, may be harmful, and can cost a good deal of money, but there’s nothing we can do about it, because we’re committed to the principal that doctors should be able to choose whatever treatments are best for their patients,” he continues. “About 60 percent are prescribed off label for non-psychiatric conditions for which there’s no FDA approval.”
Off-label marketing has led to huge fines. Last year, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion fine to settle civil and criminal investigations into fraudulent marketing of several drugs, including Geodon. Eli Lilly, which markets Zyprexa, paid a $1.4 billion fine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor for promoting its drug to the elderly with dementia, even though the pill was never approved for that use. And AstraZeneca reached a tentative $520 million deal to settle probes into off-label marketing, among other charges.
But drugmakers weren’t the only ones tagged. Omnicare, a big pharmacy that specializes in providing drugs to nursing homes, agreed to pay $98 million to settle charges of soliciting or paying kickbacks. One example—payments were made in exchange for recommending Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal antipsychotic to nursing homes. “Illegal conduct like this can undermine the medical judgments of health care professionals, lead to patients being prescribed medications they do not need, and drive up the costs of health care,” Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in announcing the settlement.
Whether the fines will alter marketing practices—and by extension, prescribing habits—remains to be seen. But Sube Banerjee, a professor of mental health and aging at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, says changes must be made immediately and recommends that the use of antipsychotics be cut by two thirds over the next three years in order to minimize deaths.
But as Yale’s Rosenheck notes, billions of dollars are at stake, and changing habits can be difficult. “It’s a major problem, and it goes well beyond these drugs. It’s really the system in which they all participate and has determined the culture in which we live and think about these medications,” he says. “Once you persuade doctors to use these drugs for every mental illness, well, you can sue the company, but litigation won’t make a company go back to doctors and tell them not to use the drugs as they have been doing. The horse is out of the barn.”
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/health-care/2010/01/04/drugging-kids-for-profit/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As uses for antipsychotic drugs multiply, these powerful substances with strong side effects are being used to treat kids more and more often.
Sales, Stat!
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire. Read More
Out of Sight
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards. Read More
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More
Antipsychotics have been linked to an increased risk of death, according to some experts.
If elderly people with dementia are so vulnerable to the risks posed by antipsychotics, why are so many nursing-home residents regularly prescribed the medications?
The answer can be found in a controversy with its roots in aggressive marketing and lackadaisical supervision. Known in the medical community as atypical antipsychotics, this group of drugs was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat adults suffering from schizophrenia. They go by snazzy names such as Zyprexa, Geodon, Abilify, and Seroquel. Later, regulators allowed doctors to prescribe them for treating bipolar disorder. Over the past decade, the pills have become a veritable goldmine; in 2008 alone, sales in the U.S. reached $14.6 billion.
But critics say those big sales are actually due, in part, to an epidemic of off-label marketing, which is promoting a drug for unapproved uses, although doctors are free to write a prescription regardless. And so drugmakers encouraged doctors to prescribe these meds for children before the FDA sanctioned their use for youngsters. This was particularly troubling, given that the drugs can cause diabetes and weight gain, side effects that prompted thousands of lawsuits claiming that drugmakers tried to hide evidence of these problems.
Another side effect is even more disturbing—unnecessary deaths among elderly patients, who shouldn’t receive these medicines if they suffer from dementia. A recent study found that more than 140,000 dementia patients in the U.K. are given these meds needlessly and some 1,800 elderly deaths are linked each year to overprescribing. Moreover, only 20 percent of 180,000 dementia patients received any benefit.
In general, people taking antipsychotics are nearly twice as likely to have a stroke compared with those not on the meds, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. And the risk is higher—about 3.5 times—for those with dementia, which means doctors should only prescribe the pills as a last resort.
Of course, there are people in nursing homes with behavioral problems such as agitation and psychotic episodes. Yet reports periodically emerge that chronically understaffed nursing homes all too often dispense antipsychotics in order to subdue patients. A recent investigation by the Chicago Tribune, for instance, found that nursing-home residents in Illinois are drugged without their consent or without a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis that would justify treatment.
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire.
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards.
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More “Companies want to sell drugs, doctors prescribe the drugs most heavily marketed, nursing homes need doctors to legitimize their actions, and nurses are probably overworked and want doctors to medicate people so they’re more malleable,” says Robert Rosenheck, a Yale University professor of psychiatry and epidemiology and director of the Division of Mental Health Services and Outcomes Research.
“The participants start to gain, but the general public and the patients may not be better off. There’s evidence the drugs aren’t always effective, may be harmful, and can cost a good deal of money, but there’s nothing we can do about it, because we’re committed to the principal that doctors should be able to choose whatever treatments are best for their patients,” he continues. “About 60 percent are prescribed off label for non-psychiatric conditions for which there’s no FDA approval.”
Off-label marketing has led to huge fines. Last year, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion fine to settle civil and criminal investigations into fraudulent marketing of several drugs, including Geodon. Eli Lilly, which markets Zyprexa, paid a $1.4 billion fine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor for promoting its drug to the elderly with dementia, even though the pill was never approved for that use. And AstraZeneca reached a tentative $520 million deal to settle probes into off-label marketing, among other charges.
But drugmakers weren’t the only ones tagged. Omnicare, a big pharmacy that specializes in providing drugs to nursing homes, agreed to pay $98 million to settle charges of soliciting or paying kickbacks. One example—payments were made in exchange for recommending Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal antipsychotic to nursing homes. “Illegal conduct like this can undermine the medical judgments of health care professionals, lead to patients being prescribed medications they do not need, and drive up the costs of health care,” Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in announcing the settlement.
Whether the fines will alter marketing practices—and by extension, prescribing habits—remains to be seen. But Sube Banerjee, a professor of mental health and aging at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, says changes must be made immediately and recommends that the use of antipsychotics be cut by two thirds over the next three years in order to minimize deaths.
But as Yale’s Rosenheck notes, billions of dollars are at stake, and changing habits can be difficult. “It’s a major problem, and it goes well beyond these drugs. It’s really the system in which they all participate and has determined the culture in which we live and think about these medications,” he says. “Once you persuade doctors to use these drugs for every mental illness, well, you can sue the company, but litigation won’t make a company go back to doctors and tell them not to use the drugs as they have been doing. The horse is out of the barn.”
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/health-care/2010/01/04/drugging-kids-for-profit/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH INSIDER
Your Source for NH Politics
Front Page Bloggers R Barnes S Connolly Dranotoon Mark Hounsell S Mac Donald E Naile
Thursday
31Dec2009
Laws That Say Follow The Law
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 09:12AM
It always amazes me when I see we've gotten to a point in our society that laws need to be written reminding the government that it too needs to follow the laws. This is being done once again with one of the new bills submitted for 2010.
HB 1330
This bill restricts government action from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.
Isn't this already a right guaranteed by our federal Constitution?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And guaranteed by our NH Constitution?
[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Its sad that our state and federal Constitutions are not respected enough to stand on their own. What's even sadder is that only one single elected official has attached their name on this bill. Rep Wendelboe is so far the sole sponsor on this bill. You would think that any representative that respects their oath to honor and uphold the Constitution would quickly sign their name onto a bill that essentially reminds the government to follow their own rules.
This bill will be one worth watching and those reps who vote against it should be noted.
Richard Barnes | 1 Comment | Share Article
tagged Artticle 5, Constitution, First Amendment, HB 1330 in Constitution
Reader Comments (1)
WHY isn't NH following the US Constitution? Family Rights are also of great concern, as Fathers' Rights, Grandparents rights included under the topic of Parents' Rights have been so very ignored and constantly refused and continually pained by the State of NH. Families have been completely destroyed at the hands of the Dept of "Human Services" including the "Division" of Children Youth and Families, much to the emotional/social/financial detriment of the parents, grandparents, and mostly to the detriment of the children whom "The System" is supposedly servicing. Religious Freedom of the people of NH including the religious freedom of the children who have been taken from their families and placed in "the System" have also been ignored. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness certainly does include Family Rights, yet the State of NH, acting as a toxic-dynamic to We The People, thinks it should be charge of the educational, medical/health and general welfare instead of the parents being incharge of their own children? It's about time that the NH judicial system smartens up enough to recognize that our Laws are based on The US Constitution and that WE THE PEOPLE is not a Judicial System/Dept of "Human Services" State Employee Members-Only-Club! Constitutional Rights belong to our Citizens and therefore these Rights should never be violated by our state, including by our judicial system.
January 3, 2010 | Parentassist
(I had to include this comment. Please go to the link at the bottom and comment.)
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2009/12/31/laws-that-say-follow-the-law.html
Your Source for NH Politics
Front Page Bloggers R Barnes S Connolly Dranotoon Mark Hounsell S Mac Donald E Naile
Thursday
31Dec2009
Laws That Say Follow The Law
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 09:12AM
It always amazes me when I see we've gotten to a point in our society that laws need to be written reminding the government that it too needs to follow the laws. This is being done once again with one of the new bills submitted for 2010.
HB 1330
This bill restricts government action from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.
Isn't this already a right guaranteed by our federal Constitution?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And guaranteed by our NH Constitution?
[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Its sad that our state and federal Constitutions are not respected enough to stand on their own. What's even sadder is that only one single elected official has attached their name on this bill. Rep Wendelboe is so far the sole sponsor on this bill. You would think that any representative that respects their oath to honor and uphold the Constitution would quickly sign their name onto a bill that essentially reminds the government to follow their own rules.
This bill will be one worth watching and those reps who vote against it should be noted.
Richard Barnes | 1 Comment | Share Article
tagged Artticle 5, Constitution, First Amendment, HB 1330 in Constitution
Reader Comments (1)
WHY isn't NH following the US Constitution? Family Rights are also of great concern, as Fathers' Rights, Grandparents rights included under the topic of Parents' Rights have been so very ignored and constantly refused and continually pained by the State of NH. Families have been completely destroyed at the hands of the Dept of "Human Services" including the "Division" of Children Youth and Families, much to the emotional/social/financial detriment of the parents, grandparents, and mostly to the detriment of the children whom "The System" is supposedly servicing. Religious Freedom of the people of NH including the religious freedom of the children who have been taken from their families and placed in "the System" have also been ignored. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness certainly does include Family Rights, yet the State of NH, acting as a toxic-dynamic to We The People, thinks it should be charge of the educational, medical/health and general welfare instead of the parents being incharge of their own children? It's about time that the NH judicial system smartens up enough to recognize that our Laws are based on The US Constitution and that WE THE PEOPLE is not a Judicial System/Dept of "Human Services" State Employee Members-Only-Club! Constitutional Rights belong to our Citizens and therefore these Rights should never be violated by our state, including by our judicial system.
January 3, 2010 | Parentassist
(I had to include this comment. Please go to the link at the bottom and comment.)
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2009/12/31/laws-that-say-follow-the-law.html
Sunday, January 3, 2010
HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKS
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)