Barton Clinic Summer 2008 Intern Report
Intern: Natalece Washington
Assignment: Jackson County Juvenile Court Attorney GAL Division
School: University of Georgia School of Law
As an intern in the Juvenile Court of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties I worked with a Child Advocate Attorney who is appointed by the court pursuant to statute O.C.G.A. §15-11-6 (b) that requires that all children in Juvenile Court be represented by council and § 15-11-9 (b) that requires a Guardian ad litem to be appointed in order to protect the interest of the children whose interests may be in conflict with their parents' interests. The Judge presiding over the Piedmont Judicial Circuit has enacted a standing order that requires a staff attorney who is assigned to the court's Child Advocate Division to serve as an attorney- Guardian ad litem in all deprivation actions of the Juvenile Courts of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties. At the start of the internship I identified the main goals of the Child Advocate Attorney. First, we investigate the child's or sibling group's situation. Next, we advocate in court hearings for what we have found to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, we monitor the child's ongoing best interest for as long as they remain in care or as long as they are in a placement that must be reviewed by the court periodically.
Generally, in our office the child advocate attorneys follows the Best Interest model. This means that it is our strategic goal to always secure outcomes that are in the child's best interest. During my internship, I only experienced one instance of conflicting roles. A teenager's desires were in conflict with the Child Advocate Attorney's best interest recommendation. Because of this conflict another attorney was appointed to follow the client-directed model of representation and represent the child's wishes. I learned that this happens rarely and that this situation was unique because of the child's age and competence.
Early into the summer I learned the models of representation to achieve the goals of the child advocate. However, there were many practical aspects of the task of child representation that could only be gained from work in the field. Efficiency, camaraderie among professionals in the Juvenile Court, and lawyering skill and savvy to work with an ever-changing group of babies, toddlers, pre-teens, and teenagers are the essential practical components of child advocacy.
The Juvenile Court's efficiency is a top priority in the Piedmont Judicial Circuit. One method the judge uses to ensure efficiency is the Pre-Trial Conference. This is a time for all parties to come together to decide on the particulars of an Adjudicatory hearing. Another effort to maintain court efficiency is timely appointment of council. Parents who are a part of deprivation actions have the legal right to an attorney. If they are without the state requisite income to hire an attorney, the Public Defender's office will have one appointed for them. In the Piedmont Judicial Circuit, parents often decide that they can use an attorney's services only after the original shelter care proceeding. Unbeknownst to a pro se parent, the shelter care hearing allows hearsay and can be damaging because the judge hears this information when he is first introduced to the case. I have learned that skilled parent attorneys, when appointed before the shelter care hearing, often consent to waive the shelter care hearing- stipulating deprivation- and make plans to advocate for their client in the Adjudicatory hearing that is governed by the rules of evidence. Often after experiencing the damaging effects of a shelter care without legal representation, parents opt to have council in subsequent proceedings. This creates backlog and the judge will have to continue any case scheduled prior to appointment of council. In this circuit, the judge never neglects to tell the parents of their right to an attorney early, at the start of a shelter care hearing. Unfortunately, despite his good effort, their change of heart is often unavoidable.
Surprisingly, there is high level of camaraderie among the attorneys, service providers, DFCS, DJJ, and placement representatives in our deprivation proceedings. The child advocates are frequently in friendly negotiations with parent's attorneys and the SAAG to achieve the best interest outcome. Although all attorneys involved have a distinct agenda, there is no embittered power struggle among them. Perhaps it is simply professional courtesy. Whatever the cause, I believe it is their relationships and discussion that clarify the issues of a case and each party's desired outcome. I think this is the best environment for a child client who is often present in the courtroom during proceedings that directly effect his or her welfare. This camaraderie may not exist in a metropolitan environment. I have heard that there is more hostility between parties. I believe this may be do to the greater number of players involved. In this circuit, we deal with the same parent's attorneys, private attorneys, SAAGs, and Child Advocates. There are not any surprises. We know who and what to expect and they are all familiar with the culture of the court. This probably differs from more populated counties.
Finally, a high level of technique and savvy is required to deal with child clients. Getting documented information from agencies, placements, schools, and doctors is relatively easy since we are equipped with a court order that requires that all reasonable requests be granted. Any requests found to be unreasonable must be challenged in writing before the court. What seems to be more difficult is getting information from a child. Child advocates interview children frequently. As an intern testing my interview skills I found myself often quite uncomfortable. I would often stutter and choose my words all too carefully. This only confused the child and discredited me as a professional. Children seemed to respond best when the interviewer is comfortable. So as the summer progressed I felt more at ease talking to kids about their home situations and desires and made more progress in that manner. When I watch my supervisor interview children it is as if she is working from a checklist of the perfect questions to ask. She does this all while playing with the child or casually speaking to a teenager, never note taking. Her casual nature seems to help the interviewee put their guard down just long enough for her to uncover the information that she needs. My supervisor assures me that interviewing skills are developed with time and practice.
I have notably learned this summer that the Attorney Child Advocates are expected to be much more than attorneys. They are social workers, counselors, therapists, pharmacology students, and friends to their clients. They perform each of these roles as they advocate for their clients best interest. Throughout the internship we'd visit clients' homes, schools, relatives, and service providers and conduct social worker-like investigations. Child Advocates often act as a check on DFCS personnel. I appreciate the work of the Child Advocate for this reason. The leg work and time put into investigation are our own "reasonable efforts" to ensure the child's best interest are being met. If you are advocating for a child to go live in their grandmother's home and you have never met grandmother, visited her home, or spoken with her to learn of her consent to this plan, then you are advocating blindly.
Child advocates often are skilled in identifying a need for counseling or specialized treatment. They see problems and often know when a child is at their breaking point needing someone to talk to or therapy to keep them from harming themselves or others. As lay pharmacology students, child advocates often know just what a child's diagnoses are just by viewing their list of prescribed medications. I have also learned that if parents are on certain mood regulating drugs, then children are potentially suffering from the same mental health issues. In what might be considered their most important role, child advocates are the familiar friendly face that a child can see consistently in and out of court. In our court, children sit by their attorney when present. Unless it is a shelter care hearing, they have already talked to their attorney and had an opportunity to develop a relationship with someone not involved with DFCS who represents them. Unfortunately, a child's tears dampen many court proceedings. The child's attorney, not only represents them, but also helps them through this period of fear or frustration. Because this attorney wears so many hats the job is a little overwhelming. However, looking forward to the end result makes the multi-tasking worthwhile.
Because of the court's expectation that every child be effectively served and the heavy case loads that come along with that expectation there is a need to check that everyone's job is being completed adequately. There are means to review cases periodically, outside the setting of a hearing to ensure that kids are having all of their needs met. The Citizens Panel Reviews provide a way to review cases that hadn't been to court for a while. It makes the child advocate review the file and have a chance to meet with and discuss issues with other agencies. The community gets to participate to observe their tax dollars at work or to identify when some child is getting short changed.
http://childwelfare.net/activities/interns/2008summer/Washington_Final_Summary.html
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
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Mother Sues DHS for Taking Her Child Under False Allegations
Mother Sues DHS for Taking Her Child Under False Allegations
By Trish Mehaffey, Reporter
By Aaron Hepker
Story Created: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST
(Story Updated: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST )
IOWA CITY — A Guernsey mother filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Iowa Department of Human Services for placing her 5-year-old daughter in foster care based on a false allegation and asks the court to prevent this from happening again.
Jessica Wilbur, 20, filed the civil lawsuit in Johnson County District Court, claiming Paul Lafauce, a DHS abuse investigator, and DHS Director Charles Krogmeier violated her constitutional rights by placing her child in foster care based on document signed by the child’s non-custodial father Robert Nino of Marshalltown, a convicted sex offender.
Nino took the 5-year-old girl for a weekend visit in November and instead of returning her to Wilbur, he kept her and filed a false sexual abuse complaint against Wilbur with the department, according to petition filed Nov. 13. Nino then signed a voluntary foster care placement agreement with DHS and the child entered foster care for two weeks.
The sexual abuse allegation was false and no child abuse investigation was filed by DHS, but the department refused to return the child until after the article about the case ran in The Gazette, Natalie Cronk, Wilbur’s attorney, said.
Cronk said DHS contacted Wilbur at that point and said her child would be returned if she signed a plan to assure the child’s safety. The plan had nothing to do with the initial allegations.
Cronk then went with Wilbur to the foster care home of Nino’s sister, who wasn’t a qualified foster parent, to take the child home after DHS couldn’t produce an order granting authority to restrain or withhold the child from her mother.
The Johnson County DHS office has retaliated against Wilbur after she took her daughter home by proceeding with a baseless investigation and has threatened additional action, the lawsuit contends.
Roger Munns, DHS spokesman, said Tuesday after reading the lawsuit that he had to consult with department officials and didn’t think he could comment.
The suit asks the court to declare the DHS policy of taking children away from their parents by obtaining signatures on voluntary foster care placement from parents with no custodial rights as a violation of Iowa law and constitutional principles.
It also asks for punitive damages against LaFauce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/80757467.html
By Trish Mehaffey, Reporter
By Aaron Hepker
Story Created: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST
(Story Updated: Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM CST )
IOWA CITY — A Guernsey mother filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Iowa Department of Human Services for placing her 5-year-old daughter in foster care based on a false allegation and asks the court to prevent this from happening again.
Jessica Wilbur, 20, filed the civil lawsuit in Johnson County District Court, claiming Paul Lafauce, a DHS abuse investigator, and DHS Director Charles Krogmeier violated her constitutional rights by placing her child in foster care based on document signed by the child’s non-custodial father Robert Nino of Marshalltown, a convicted sex offender.
Nino took the 5-year-old girl for a weekend visit in November and instead of returning her to Wilbur, he kept her and filed a false sexual abuse complaint against Wilbur with the department, according to petition filed Nov. 13. Nino then signed a voluntary foster care placement agreement with DHS and the child entered foster care for two weeks.
The sexual abuse allegation was false and no child abuse investigation was filed by DHS, but the department refused to return the child until after the article about the case ran in The Gazette, Natalie Cronk, Wilbur’s attorney, said.
Cronk said DHS contacted Wilbur at that point and said her child would be returned if she signed a plan to assure the child’s safety. The plan had nothing to do with the initial allegations.
Cronk then went with Wilbur to the foster care home of Nino’s sister, who wasn’t a qualified foster parent, to take the child home after DHS couldn’t produce an order granting authority to restrain or withhold the child from her mother.
The Johnson County DHS office has retaliated against Wilbur after she took her daughter home by proceeding with a baseless investigation and has threatened additional action, the lawsuit contends.
Roger Munns, DHS spokesman, said Tuesday after reading the lawsuit that he had to consult with department officials and didn’t think he could comment.
The suit asks the court to declare the DHS policy of taking children away from their parents by obtaining signatures on voluntary foster care placement from parents with no custodial rights as a violation of Iowa law and constitutional principles.
It also asks for punitive damages against LaFauce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/80757467.html
Social worker now missing for 18 days
Social worker now missing for 18 days (Either she must have really pissed someone off, or she's sick of stealing children and ran away.)
Jan 5, 2010 10:12 PM | By JUDY LELLIOTT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A frantic father has been searching for his missing social worker daughter for 18 days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vuyelwa Phangwana, 40, disappeared on the morning of December 18, after leaving the offices of Johannesburg Child Welfare in Marshalltown, downtown Johannesburg, where she works.
"I don't know whether I am coming or going. I have been really miserable since my daughter disappeared," her 90-year-old father, Vincent Phangwana, told The Times.
"Vuyelwa left [work] with no explanation an hour after she arrived - at about 8.30am. She left her wallet and ID lying carelessly on the desk," said Child Welfare director Aileen Langley, who has been helping the family search for the mother of three.
Phangwana's sisters, Phakama, Ruth and Ellen, have taken in her three children, aged 17, 14 and two-and-a-half.
"We have been really miserable since she disappeared," said her father.
Vuyelwa's family, together with her co-workers, have been combing Johannesburg mortuaries, hospitals, police stations, jails, parks and public places for her.
No one close to her had any reason to believe she was in trouble at the time of her disappearance. Colleagues and her family do not believe that her disappearance was voluntary, as she had just landed her "dream job", after qualifying as a social worker in October, and would not leave it without cause. They also say she would never leave her children.
Ruth Mabuya, 50, a nurse at Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital, says she has "no idea" why her younger sister left.
"We have found nothing at this stage. I've been visiting hospitals once a week and I have not found anything yet," said the investigating officer, Constable PM Mashala.
Phangwana was last seen wearing brown pants and a white shirt with brown spots. She is dark-skinned and wears her hair short.
Anyone with information on her disappearance should call Mashala on 011-497-4072.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article250040.ece
Jan 5, 2010 10:12 PM | By JUDY LELLIOTT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A frantic father has been searching for his missing social worker daughter for 18 days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vuyelwa Phangwana, 40, disappeared on the morning of December 18, after leaving the offices of Johannesburg Child Welfare in Marshalltown, downtown Johannesburg, where she works.
"I don't know whether I am coming or going. I have been really miserable since my daughter disappeared," her 90-year-old father, Vincent Phangwana, told The Times.
"Vuyelwa left [work] with no explanation an hour after she arrived - at about 8.30am. She left her wallet and ID lying carelessly on the desk," said Child Welfare director Aileen Langley, who has been helping the family search for the mother of three.
Phangwana's sisters, Phakama, Ruth and Ellen, have taken in her three children, aged 17, 14 and two-and-a-half.
"We have been really miserable since she disappeared," said her father.
Vuyelwa's family, together with her co-workers, have been combing Johannesburg mortuaries, hospitals, police stations, jails, parks and public places for her.
No one close to her had any reason to believe she was in trouble at the time of her disappearance. Colleagues and her family do not believe that her disappearance was voluntary, as she had just landed her "dream job", after qualifying as a social worker in October, and would not leave it without cause. They also say she would never leave her children.
Ruth Mabuya, 50, a nurse at Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital, says she has "no idea" why her younger sister left.
"We have found nothing at this stage. I've been visiting hospitals once a week and I have not found anything yet," said the investigating officer, Constable PM Mashala.
Phangwana was last seen wearing brown pants and a white shirt with brown spots. She is dark-skinned and wears her hair short.
Anyone with information on her disappearance should call Mashala on 011-497-4072.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article250040.ece
Court hears arguments in RI foster care lawsuit
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 Court hears arguments in RI foster care lawsuit
BC-RI — Foster Care Lawsuit,0133
Court hears arguments in RI foster care lawsuit
Eds: APNewsNow.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has heard arguments on whether to reinstate a lawsuit that alleges major problems with Rhode Island’s foster care system.
The lawsuit from the child advocate’s office alleged widespread abuse and neglect of children in the state’s legal custody. But a federal judge dismissed it last spring, saying he didn’t believe the children’s interests were being adequately represented in the lawsuit.
A lawyer for Children’s Rights, a national watchdog and advocacy group, urged the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to reverse that decision and reinstate the case. The attorney general’s office urged the court to uphold the dismissal.
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter was part of a three-judge panel that heard the arguments.
Comments from unverified accounts will be reviewed twice daily. Details here. Please verify your email address to allow immediate posting of comments.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/517986-227/court-hears-arguments-in-ri-foster-care.html
BC-RI — Foster Care Lawsuit,0133
Court hears arguments in RI foster care lawsuit
Eds: APNewsNow.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has heard arguments on whether to reinstate a lawsuit that alleges major problems with Rhode Island’s foster care system.
The lawsuit from the child advocate’s office alleged widespread abuse and neglect of children in the state’s legal custody. But a federal judge dismissed it last spring, saying he didn’t believe the children’s interests were being adequately represented in the lawsuit.
A lawyer for Children’s Rights, a national watchdog and advocacy group, urged the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to reverse that decision and reinstate the case. The attorney general’s office urged the court to uphold the dismissal.
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter was part of a three-judge panel that heard the arguments.
Comments from unverified accounts will be reviewed twice daily. Details here. Please verify your email address to allow immediate posting of comments.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/517986-227/court-hears-arguments-in-ri-foster-care.html
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
An Admission that Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys in CPS Cases Are in Bed with CPS - Right Out of the Horse's Mouth
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 From CPS-A System Out of Control
An Admission that Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys in CPS Cases Are in Bed with CPS - Right Out of the Horse's Mouth
The paragraph highlighted in bold is very scary, in that DFCS is allowed to use heresay in the hearing. This is what causes most of the parents problems. The fact that the hearsay is allowed as fact in a hearing. Also it plainly states that all the lawyers, judges etc are in bed together to see that the parent is the guilty party. Just another piece of proof that the State is buying and selling our children illegally.
Barton Clinic Summer 2008 Intern Report
Intern: Natalece Washington
Assignment: Jackson County Juvenile Court Attorney GAL Division
School: University of Georgia School of Law
As an intern in the Juvenile Court of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties I worked with a Child Advocate Attorney who is appointed by the court pursuant to statute O.C.G.A. §15-11-6 (b) that requires that all children in Juvenile Court be represented by council and § 15-11-9 (b) that requires a Guardian ad litem to be appointed in order to protect the interest of the children whose interests may be in conflict with their parents’ interests. The Judge presiding over the Piedmont Judicial Circuit has enacted a standing order that requires a staff attorney who is assigned to the court’s Child Advocate Division to serve as an attorney- Guardian ad litem in all deprivation actions of the Juvenile Courts of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties. At the start of the internship I identified the main goals of the Child Advocate Attorney. First, we investigate the child’s or sibling group’s situation. Next, we advocate in court hearings for what we have found to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, we monitor the child’s ongoing best interest for as long as they remain in care or as long as they are in a placement that must be reviewed by the court periodically.
Generally, in our office the child advocate attorneys follows the Best Interest model. This means that it is our strategic goal to always secure outcomes that are in the child’s best interest. During my internship, I only experienced one instance of conflicting roles. A teenager’s desires were in conflict with the Child Advocate Attorney’s best interest recommendation. Because of this conflict another attorney was appointed to follow the client-directed model of representation and represent the child’s wishes. I learned that this happens rarely and that this situation was unique because of the child’s age and competence.
Early into the summer I learned the models of representation to achieve the goals of the child advocate. However, there were many practical aspects of the task of child representation that could only be gained from work in the field. Efficiency, camaraderie among professionals in the Juvenile Court, and lawyering skill and savvy to work with an ever-changing group of babies, toddlers, pre-teens, and teenagers are the essential practical components of child advocacy.
The Juvenile Court’s efficiency is a top priority in the Piedmont Judicial Circuit. One method the judge uses to ensure efficiency is the Pre-Trial Conference. This is a time for all parties to come together to decide on the particulars of an Adjudicatory hearing. Another effort to maintain court efficiency is timely appointment of council. Parents who are a part of deprivation actions have the legal right to an attorney. If they are without the state requisite income to hire an attorney, the Public Defender’s office will have one appointed for them. In the Piedmont Judicial Circuit, parents often decide that they can use an attorney’s services only after the original shelter care proceeding. Unbeknownst to a pro se parent, the shelter care hearing allows hearsay and can be damaging because the judge hears this information when he is first introduced to the case. I have learned that skilled parent attorneys, when appointed before the shelter care hearing, often consent to waive the shelter care hearing- stipulating deprivation- and make plans to advocate for their client in the Adjudicatory hearing that is governed by the rules of evidence. Often after experiencing the damaging effects of a shelter care without legal representation, parents opt to have council in subsequent proceedings. This creates backlog and the judge will have to continue any case scheduled prior to appointment of council. In this circuit, the judge never neglects to tell the parents of their right to an attorney early, at the start of a shelter care hearing. Unfortunately, despite his good effort, their change of heart is often unavoidable.
Surprisingly, there is high level of camaraderie among the attorneys, service providers, DFCS, DJJ, and placement representatives in our deprivation proceedings. The child advocates are frequently in friendly negotiations with parent’s attorneys and the SAAG to achieve the best interest outcome. Although all attorneys involved have a distinct agenda, there is no embittered power struggle among them. Perhaps it is simply professional courtesy. Whatever the cause, I believe it is their relationships and discussion that clarify the issues of a case and each party’s desired outcome. I think this is the best environment for a child client who is often present in the courtroom during proceedings that directly effect his or her welfare. This camaraderie may not exist in a metropolitan environment. I have heard that there is more hostility between parties. I believe this may be do to the greater number of players involved. In this circuit, we deal with the same parent’s attorneys, private attorneys, SAAGs, and Child Advocates. There are not any surprises. We know who and what to expect and they are all familiar with the culture of the court. This probably differs from more populated counties.
Finally, a high level of technique and savvy is required to deal with child clients. Getting documented information from agencies, placements, schools, and doctors is relatively easy since we are equipped with a court order that requires that all reasonable requests be granted. Any requests found to be unreasonable must be challenged in writing before the court. What seems to be more difficult is getting information from a child. Child advocates interview children frequently. As an intern testing my interview skills I found myself often quite uncomfortable. I would often stutter and choose my words all too carefully. This only confused the child and discredited me as a professional. Children seemed to respond best when the interviewer is comfortable. So as the summer progressed I felt more at ease talking to kids about their home situations and desires and made more progress in that manner. When I watch my supervisor interview children it is as if she is working from a checklist of the perfect questions to ask. She does this all while playing with the child or casually speaking to a teenager, never note taking. Her casual nature seems to help the interviewee put their guard down just long enough for her to uncover the information that she needs. My supervisor assures me that interviewing skills are developed with time and practice.
I have notably learned this summer that the Attorney Child Advocates are expected to be much more than attorneys. They are social workers, counselors, therapists, pharmacology students, and friends to their clients. They perform each of these roles as they advocate for their clients best interest. Throughout the internship we’d visit clients’ homes, schools, relatives, and service providers and conduct social worker-like investigations. Child Advocates often act as a check on DFCS personnel. I appreciate the work of the Child Advocate for this reason. The leg work and time put into investigation are our own “reasonable efforts” to ensure the child’s best interest are being met. If you are advocating for a child to go live in their grandmother’s home and you have never met grandmother, visited her home, or spoken with her to learn of her consent to this plan, then you are advocating blindly.
Child advocates often are skilled in identifying a need for counseling or specialized treatment. They see problems and often know when a child is at their breaking point needing someone to talk to or therapy to keep them from harming themselves or others. As lay pharmacology students, child advocates often know just what a child’s diagnoses are just by viewing their list of prescribed medications. I have also learned that if parents are on certain mood regulating drugs, then children are potentially suffering from the same mental health issues. In what might be considered their most important role, child advocates are the familiar friendly face that a child can see consistently in and out of court. In our court, children sit by their attorney when present. Unless it is a shelter care hearing, they have already talked to their attorney and had an opportunity to develop a relationship with someone not involved with DFCS who represents them. Unfortunately, a child’s tears dampen many court proceedings. The child’s attorney, not only represents them, but also helps them through this period of fear or frustration. Because this attorney wears so many hats the job is a little overwhelming. However, looking forward to the end result makes the multi-tasking worthwhile.
Because of the court’s expectation that every child be effectively served and the heavy case loads that come along with that expectation there is a need to check that everyone’s job is being completed adequately. There are means to review cases periodically, outside the setting of a hearing to ensure that kids are having all of their needs met. The Citizens Panel Reviews provide a way to review cases that hadn’t been to court for a while. It makes the child advocate review the file and have a chance to meet with and discuss issues with other agencies. The community gets to participate to observe their tax dollars at work or to identify when some child is getting short changed.
Posted by Divotdawg at 12:18 AM
http://cpsasystemoutofcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/admission-that-court-appointed-defense.html
An Admission that Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys in CPS Cases Are in Bed with CPS - Right Out of the Horse's Mouth
The paragraph highlighted in bold is very scary, in that DFCS is allowed to use heresay in the hearing. This is what causes most of the parents problems. The fact that the hearsay is allowed as fact in a hearing. Also it plainly states that all the lawyers, judges etc are in bed together to see that the parent is the guilty party. Just another piece of proof that the State is buying and selling our children illegally.
Barton Clinic Summer 2008 Intern Report
Intern: Natalece Washington
Assignment: Jackson County Juvenile Court Attorney GAL Division
School: University of Georgia School of Law
As an intern in the Juvenile Court of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties I worked with a Child Advocate Attorney who is appointed by the court pursuant to statute O.C.G.A. §15-11-6 (b) that requires that all children in Juvenile Court be represented by council and § 15-11-9 (b) that requires a Guardian ad litem to be appointed in order to protect the interest of the children whose interests may be in conflict with their parents’ interests. The Judge presiding over the Piedmont Judicial Circuit has enacted a standing order that requires a staff attorney who is assigned to the court’s Child Advocate Division to serve as an attorney- Guardian ad litem in all deprivation actions of the Juvenile Courts of Banks, Barrow, and Jackson Counties. At the start of the internship I identified the main goals of the Child Advocate Attorney. First, we investigate the child’s or sibling group’s situation. Next, we advocate in court hearings for what we have found to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, we monitor the child’s ongoing best interest for as long as they remain in care or as long as they are in a placement that must be reviewed by the court periodically.
Generally, in our office the child advocate attorneys follows the Best Interest model. This means that it is our strategic goal to always secure outcomes that are in the child’s best interest. During my internship, I only experienced one instance of conflicting roles. A teenager’s desires were in conflict with the Child Advocate Attorney’s best interest recommendation. Because of this conflict another attorney was appointed to follow the client-directed model of representation and represent the child’s wishes. I learned that this happens rarely and that this situation was unique because of the child’s age and competence.
Early into the summer I learned the models of representation to achieve the goals of the child advocate. However, there were many practical aspects of the task of child representation that could only be gained from work in the field. Efficiency, camaraderie among professionals in the Juvenile Court, and lawyering skill and savvy to work with an ever-changing group of babies, toddlers, pre-teens, and teenagers are the essential practical components of child advocacy.
The Juvenile Court’s efficiency is a top priority in the Piedmont Judicial Circuit. One method the judge uses to ensure efficiency is the Pre-Trial Conference. This is a time for all parties to come together to decide on the particulars of an Adjudicatory hearing. Another effort to maintain court efficiency is timely appointment of council. Parents who are a part of deprivation actions have the legal right to an attorney. If they are without the state requisite income to hire an attorney, the Public Defender’s office will have one appointed for them. In the Piedmont Judicial Circuit, parents often decide that they can use an attorney’s services only after the original shelter care proceeding. Unbeknownst to a pro se parent, the shelter care hearing allows hearsay and can be damaging because the judge hears this information when he is first introduced to the case. I have learned that skilled parent attorneys, when appointed before the shelter care hearing, often consent to waive the shelter care hearing- stipulating deprivation- and make plans to advocate for their client in the Adjudicatory hearing that is governed by the rules of evidence. Often after experiencing the damaging effects of a shelter care without legal representation, parents opt to have council in subsequent proceedings. This creates backlog and the judge will have to continue any case scheduled prior to appointment of council. In this circuit, the judge never neglects to tell the parents of their right to an attorney early, at the start of a shelter care hearing. Unfortunately, despite his good effort, their change of heart is often unavoidable.
Surprisingly, there is high level of camaraderie among the attorneys, service providers, DFCS, DJJ, and placement representatives in our deprivation proceedings. The child advocates are frequently in friendly negotiations with parent’s attorneys and the SAAG to achieve the best interest outcome. Although all attorneys involved have a distinct agenda, there is no embittered power struggle among them. Perhaps it is simply professional courtesy. Whatever the cause, I believe it is their relationships and discussion that clarify the issues of a case and each party’s desired outcome. I think this is the best environment for a child client who is often present in the courtroom during proceedings that directly effect his or her welfare. This camaraderie may not exist in a metropolitan environment. I have heard that there is more hostility between parties. I believe this may be do to the greater number of players involved. In this circuit, we deal with the same parent’s attorneys, private attorneys, SAAGs, and Child Advocates. There are not any surprises. We know who and what to expect and they are all familiar with the culture of the court. This probably differs from more populated counties.
Finally, a high level of technique and savvy is required to deal with child clients. Getting documented information from agencies, placements, schools, and doctors is relatively easy since we are equipped with a court order that requires that all reasonable requests be granted. Any requests found to be unreasonable must be challenged in writing before the court. What seems to be more difficult is getting information from a child. Child advocates interview children frequently. As an intern testing my interview skills I found myself often quite uncomfortable. I would often stutter and choose my words all too carefully. This only confused the child and discredited me as a professional. Children seemed to respond best when the interviewer is comfortable. So as the summer progressed I felt more at ease talking to kids about their home situations and desires and made more progress in that manner. When I watch my supervisor interview children it is as if she is working from a checklist of the perfect questions to ask. She does this all while playing with the child or casually speaking to a teenager, never note taking. Her casual nature seems to help the interviewee put their guard down just long enough for her to uncover the information that she needs. My supervisor assures me that interviewing skills are developed with time and practice.
I have notably learned this summer that the Attorney Child Advocates are expected to be much more than attorneys. They are social workers, counselors, therapists, pharmacology students, and friends to their clients. They perform each of these roles as they advocate for their clients best interest. Throughout the internship we’d visit clients’ homes, schools, relatives, and service providers and conduct social worker-like investigations. Child Advocates often act as a check on DFCS personnel. I appreciate the work of the Child Advocate for this reason. The leg work and time put into investigation are our own “reasonable efforts” to ensure the child’s best interest are being met. If you are advocating for a child to go live in their grandmother’s home and you have never met grandmother, visited her home, or spoken with her to learn of her consent to this plan, then you are advocating blindly.
Child advocates often are skilled in identifying a need for counseling or specialized treatment. They see problems and often know when a child is at their breaking point needing someone to talk to or therapy to keep them from harming themselves or others. As lay pharmacology students, child advocates often know just what a child’s diagnoses are just by viewing their list of prescribed medications. I have also learned that if parents are on certain mood regulating drugs, then children are potentially suffering from the same mental health issues. In what might be considered their most important role, child advocates are the familiar friendly face that a child can see consistently in and out of court. In our court, children sit by their attorney when present. Unless it is a shelter care hearing, they have already talked to their attorney and had an opportunity to develop a relationship with someone not involved with DFCS who represents them. Unfortunately, a child’s tears dampen many court proceedings. The child’s attorney, not only represents them, but also helps them through this period of fear or frustration. Because this attorney wears so many hats the job is a little overwhelming. However, looking forward to the end result makes the multi-tasking worthwhile.
Because of the court’s expectation that every child be effectively served and the heavy case loads that come along with that expectation there is a need to check that everyone’s job is being completed adequately. There are means to review cases periodically, outside the setting of a hearing to ensure that kids are having all of their needs met. The Citizens Panel Reviews provide a way to review cases that hadn’t been to court for a while. It makes the child advocate review the file and have a chance to meet with and discuss issues with other agencies. The community gets to participate to observe their tax dollars at work or to identify when some child is getting short changed.
Posted by Divotdawg at 12:18 AM
http://cpsasystemoutofcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/admission-that-court-appointed-defense.html
Parental Drug Abuse as Child Abuse
Current Through May 2009
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.
Abuse of drugs or alcohol by parents and other caregivers can have negative effects on the health, safety, and well-being of children. Approximately 47 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S Virgin Islands have laws within their child protection statutes that address the issue of substance abuse by parents.1 Two areas of concern are the harm caused by prenatal drug exposure and the harm caused to children of any age by exposure to illegal drug activity in their homes or environment.
Prenatal Drug Exposure
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires States to have policies and procedures in place to notify child protective services (CPS) agencies of substance-exposed newborns (SENs) and to establish a plan of safe care for newborns identified as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure.2 Several States currently address this requirement in their statutes. Approximately 16 States and the District of Columbia have specific reporting procedures for infants who show evidence at birth of having been exposed to drugs, alcohol, or other controlled substances; 12 States and the District of Columbia include this type of exposure in their definitions of child abuse or neglect.3
Some States specify in their statutes the response the CPS agency must make to reports of SENs. Hawaii and Maine require the State agency to develop a plan of safe care for the infant. California, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, and the District of Columbia require the agency to complete an assessment of needs for the infant and for the infant's family and make a referral to appropriate services. Illinois and Minnesota require mandated reporters to report when they suspect that pregnant women are substance abusers so that the women can be referred for treatment.
Children Exposed to Illegal Drug Activity
There is increasing concern about the negative effects on children when parents or other members of their households abuse alcohol or drugs or engage in other illegal drug-related activity, such as the manufacture of methamphetamines in home-based laboratories. Many States have responded to this problem by expanding the civil definition of child abuse or neglect to include this concern. Specific circumstances that are considered child abuse or neglect in some States include:
Manufacturing a controlled substance in the presence of a child or on premises occupied by a child4
Exposing a child to, or allowing a child to be present where, chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of controlled substances are used or stored5
Selling, distributing, or giving drugs or alcohol to a child6
Using a controlled substance that impairs the caregiver's ability to adequately care for the child7
Exposing a child to the criminal sale or distribution of drugs8
Approximately 25 States and the U.S. Virgin Islands address in their criminal statutes the issue of exposing children to illegal drug activity.9 For example, in 14 States the manufacture or possession of methamphetamine in the presence of a child is a felony,10 and in four States, the manufacture or possession of any controlled substance in the presence of a child is considered a felony.11 California, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington State have enacted enhanced penalties for any conviction for the manufacture of methamphetamine when a child was on the premises where the crime occurred.
Exposing children to the manufacture, possession, or distribution of illegal drugs is considered child endangerment in seven States.12 The exposure of a child to drugs or drug paraphernalia is a crime in North Dakota, Utah, and the Virgin Islands. In North Carolina and Wyoming, selling or giving an illegal drug to a child by any person is a felony.
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, Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 324 KB).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current through May 2009. The statutes in American Samoa, Connecticut, New Jersey, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Vermont do not currently address the issue of children exposed to illegal drug activity. back
2 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). For more information on these issues, as well as training resources and technical assistance, visit the website of the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare. back
3 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah have enacted specific reporting procedures for drug-exposed infants. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin include exposure of infants to drugs in their definitions of child abuse or neglect. back
4 Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. back
5 Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oregon. back
6 Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, and Guam. back
7 Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. back
8 Montana, South Dakota, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. back
9 Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming currently address the issue in their criminal statutes. back
10 Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
11 Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, and Ohio. back
12 Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Montana. 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/drugexposed.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.
Abuse of drugs or alcohol by parents and other caregivers can have negative effects on the health, safety, and well-being of children. Approximately 47 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S Virgin Islands have laws within their child protection statutes that address the issue of substance abuse by parents.1 Two areas of concern are the harm caused by prenatal drug exposure and the harm caused to children of any age by exposure to illegal drug activity in their homes or environment.
Prenatal Drug Exposure
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires States to have policies and procedures in place to notify child protective services (CPS) agencies of substance-exposed newborns (SENs) and to establish a plan of safe care for newborns identified as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure.2 Several States currently address this requirement in their statutes. Approximately 16 States and the District of Columbia have specific reporting procedures for infants who show evidence at birth of having been exposed to drugs, alcohol, or other controlled substances; 12 States and the District of Columbia include this type of exposure in their definitions of child abuse or neglect.3
Some States specify in their statutes the response the CPS agency must make to reports of SENs. Hawaii and Maine require the State agency to develop a plan of safe care for the infant. California, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, and the District of Columbia require the agency to complete an assessment of needs for the infant and for the infant's family and make a referral to appropriate services. Illinois and Minnesota require mandated reporters to report when they suspect that pregnant women are substance abusers so that the women can be referred for treatment.
Children Exposed to Illegal Drug Activity
There is increasing concern about the negative effects on children when parents or other members of their households abuse alcohol or drugs or engage in other illegal drug-related activity, such as the manufacture of methamphetamines in home-based laboratories. Many States have responded to this problem by expanding the civil definition of child abuse or neglect to include this concern. Specific circumstances that are considered child abuse or neglect in some States include:
Manufacturing a controlled substance in the presence of a child or on premises occupied by a child4
Exposing a child to, or allowing a child to be present where, chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of controlled substances are used or stored5
Selling, distributing, or giving drugs or alcohol to a child6
Using a controlled substance that impairs the caregiver's ability to adequately care for the child7
Exposing a child to the criminal sale or distribution of drugs8
Approximately 25 States and the U.S. Virgin Islands address in their criminal statutes the issue of exposing children to illegal drug activity.9 For example, in 14 States the manufacture or possession of methamphetamine in the presence of a child is a felony,10 and in four States, the manufacture or possession of any controlled substance in the presence of a child is considered a felony.11 California, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington State have enacted enhanced penalties for any conviction for the manufacture of methamphetamine when a child was on the premises where the crime occurred.
Exposing children to the manufacture, possession, or distribution of illegal drugs is considered child endangerment in seven States.12 The exposure of a child to drugs or drug paraphernalia is a crime in North Dakota, Utah, and the Virgin Islands. In North Carolina and Wyoming, selling or giving an illegal drug to a child by any person is a felony.
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, Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 324 KB).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current through May 2009. The statutes in American Samoa, Connecticut, New Jersey, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Vermont do not currently address the issue of children exposed to illegal drug activity. back
2 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). For more information on these issues, as well as training resources and technical assistance, visit the website of the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare. back
3 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah have enacted specific reporting procedures for drug-exposed infants. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin include exposure of infants to drugs in their definitions of child abuse or neglect. back
4 Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. back
5 Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oregon. back
6 Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, and Guam. back
7 Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. back
8 Montana, South Dakota, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. back
9 Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming currently address the issue in their criminal statutes. back
10 Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
11 Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, and Ohio. back
12 Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Montana. 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/drugexposed.cfm
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights New Hampshire
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights New Hampshire
Statute: §§ 170-C:5; 169-C:24-a
Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination
Abandonment or Extreme Parental Disinterest
Abuse/Neglect
Mental Illness or Deficiency
Felony Conviction/Incarceration
Failure of Reasonable Efforts
Sexual Abuse
Failure to Provide Support
Child Judged in Need of Services/Dependent
Child's Best Interest
Child in care 15 of 22 months (or less)
Felony assault of child or sibling
Murder/Manslaughter of sibling child
Circumstances That Are Not Grounds for Termination
Alcohol or Drug Induced Incapacity
Abuse/Neglect or Loss of Rights of Another Child
Failure to Maintain Contact
Failure to Establish Paternity
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:24-a (Lexis, WESTLAW through 1999 Reg. Sess.)
The State, through an authorized agency, or if required by a district court, shall file a petition for termination of parental rights or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, the State shall seek to be joined as a party to such petition, where any one of the following circumstances exist:
Where a child has been an out-of-home placement pursuant to a finding of child neglect or abuse, under the responsibility of the State, for 12 of the most recent 22 months;
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a child has been abandoned;
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has made any one or more of the following determinations: That the parent has been convicted of murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent; the parent has been convicted of attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of the offenses above; or the parent has been convicted of a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent.
The State may not be required to file a petition for termination of parental rights, or seek to be joined as a party to such a petition, if one or more of the following conditions exist:
The child is being appropriately cared for by a relative;
A State agency has documented in the case file a compelling reason for determining that filing a petition for termination of parental rights would not be in the best interests of the child; or
The State has not provided to the family of the child such services and reasonable efforts as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child's home. In determining whether the State has made reasonable efforts to prevent placement and reunify the family, the district court shall consider whether services to the family have been accessible, available, and appropriate.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 170-C:5 (Lexis, WESTLAW through N.H. 2003 Legis. Serv., Ch. 79)
The petition may be granted where the court finds that one or more of the following conditions exist:
The parent has abandoned the child. It shall be presumed that the parent intended to abandon the child if the parent left the child without provision for his identification or left the child in the care and custody of another without any provision for his support or without communication from such parent for a period of six months. If, in the opinion of the court, the evidence indicates that such parent has made only minimal efforts to support or communicate with the child, the court may declare the child to be abandoned;
Although the parents are financially able, they have substantially and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary subsistence, education, or other care necessary for his mental, emotional, or physical health or have substantially and continuously neglected to pay for such subsistence, education, or other care when legal custody is lodged with others. However, it shall not be grounds for the termination of the parent-child relationship for the sole reason that the parent relied upon spiritual means through prayer in accordance with a recognized religious method of healing in lieu of medical treatment for the healing of the child;
The parents, subsequent to a finding of child neglect or abuse, have failed to correct the conditions leading to such a finding within 12 months of the finding, despite reasonable efforts under the direction of the district court to rectify the conditions;
Because of mental deficiency or mental illness, the parent is, and will continue to be, incapable of giving the child proper parental care and protection for a longer period of time than would be wise or prudent to leave the child in an unstable or impermanent environment;
The parent knowingly or willfully caused or permitted another to cause severe sexual, physical, emotional or mental abuse of the child. Subsequent to a finding of such abuse, the parent-child relationship may be terminated if return of the child to the parent would result in a substantial possibility of harm to the child. A substantial possibility of harm to the child shall be established by testimony of at least two of the following factors:
The parent's conduct toward the child has
resulted in severe harm to the child;
The parent's conduct toward the child has continued despite the reasonable efforts of authorized agencies in obtaining or providing services for the parent to reduce or alleviate such conduct;
The parent's conduct has continued to occur either over a period of time, or many times, or to such a degree so as to indicate a pattern of behavior on the part of the parent which indicates a complete disregard for the child's health and welfare;
Such conduct is likely to continue with no change in parental behavior, attitude, or actions.
Testimony shall be provided by any combination of at least two of the following people: a licensed psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, a physician, or social worker who possesses a master's degree in social work and is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers.
If the parent or guardian is, as a result of incarceration for a felony offense, unable to discharge his responsibilities to and for the child, and in addition, has been found to have abused or neglected his child or children, the court may review the conviction of the parent or guardian to determine whether the felony offense is of such nature, and the period of incarceration imposed such duration, that the child would be deprived of proper parental care and left in an unstable or impermanent environment for a longer period of time than would be prudent. Placement of the child in foster care shall not be considered proper parental care and protection. Incarceration, in and of itself, shall not be grounds for termination of parental rights;
The parent has been convicted of one or more of the following offenses: Murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent or of the child's other parent; attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of the above offenses; or a felony assault which resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent, or of the child's other parent.
http://library.adoption.com/articles/grounds-for-termination-of-parental-rights-new-hampshire.html
Statute: §§ 170-C:5; 169-C:24-a
Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination
Abandonment or Extreme Parental Disinterest
Abuse/Neglect
Mental Illness or Deficiency
Felony Conviction/Incarceration
Failure of Reasonable Efforts
Sexual Abuse
Failure to Provide Support
Child Judged in Need of Services/Dependent
Child's Best Interest
Child in care 15 of 22 months (or less)
Felony assault of child or sibling
Murder/Manslaughter of sibling child
Circumstances That Are Not Grounds for Termination
Alcohol or Drug Induced Incapacity
Abuse/Neglect or Loss of Rights of Another Child
Failure to Maintain Contact
Failure to Establish Paternity
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:24-a (Lexis, WESTLAW through 1999 Reg. Sess.)
The State, through an authorized agency, or if required by a district court, shall file a petition for termination of parental rights or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, the State shall seek to be joined as a party to such petition, where any one of the following circumstances exist:
Where a child has been an out-of-home placement pursuant to a finding of child neglect or abuse, under the responsibility of the State, for 12 of the most recent 22 months;
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a child has been abandoned;
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has made any one or more of the following determinations: That the parent has been convicted of murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent; the parent has been convicted of attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of the offenses above; or the parent has been convicted of a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent.
The State may not be required to file a petition for termination of parental rights, or seek to be joined as a party to such a petition, if one or more of the following conditions exist:
The child is being appropriately cared for by a relative;
A State agency has documented in the case file a compelling reason for determining that filing a petition for termination of parental rights would not be in the best interests of the child; or
The State has not provided to the family of the child such services and reasonable efforts as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child's home. In determining whether the State has made reasonable efforts to prevent placement and reunify the family, the district court shall consider whether services to the family have been accessible, available, and appropriate.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 170-C:5 (Lexis, WESTLAW through N.H. 2003 Legis. Serv., Ch. 79)
The petition may be granted where the court finds that one or more of the following conditions exist:
The parent has abandoned the child. It shall be presumed that the parent intended to abandon the child if the parent left the child without provision for his identification or left the child in the care and custody of another without any provision for his support or without communication from such parent for a period of six months. If, in the opinion of the court, the evidence indicates that such parent has made only minimal efforts to support or communicate with the child, the court may declare the child to be abandoned;
Although the parents are financially able, they have substantially and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary subsistence, education, or other care necessary for his mental, emotional, or physical health or have substantially and continuously neglected to pay for such subsistence, education, or other care when legal custody is lodged with others. However, it shall not be grounds for the termination of the parent-child relationship for the sole reason that the parent relied upon spiritual means through prayer in accordance with a recognized religious method of healing in lieu of medical treatment for the healing of the child;
The parents, subsequent to a finding of child neglect or abuse, have failed to correct the conditions leading to such a finding within 12 months of the finding, despite reasonable efforts under the direction of the district court to rectify the conditions;
Because of mental deficiency or mental illness, the parent is, and will continue to be, incapable of giving the child proper parental care and protection for a longer period of time than would be wise or prudent to leave the child in an unstable or impermanent environment;
The parent knowingly or willfully caused or permitted another to cause severe sexual, physical, emotional or mental abuse of the child. Subsequent to a finding of such abuse, the parent-child relationship may be terminated if return of the child to the parent would result in a substantial possibility of harm to the child. A substantial possibility of harm to the child shall be established by testimony of at least two of the following factors:
The parent's conduct toward the child has
resulted in severe harm to the child;
The parent's conduct toward the child has continued despite the reasonable efforts of authorized agencies in obtaining or providing services for the parent to reduce or alleviate such conduct;
The parent's conduct has continued to occur either over a period of time, or many times, or to such a degree so as to indicate a pattern of behavior on the part of the parent which indicates a complete disregard for the child's health and welfare;
Such conduct is likely to continue with no change in parental behavior, attitude, or actions.
Testimony shall be provided by any combination of at least two of the following people: a licensed psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, a physician, or social worker who possesses a master's degree in social work and is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers.
If the parent or guardian is, as a result of incarceration for a felony offense, unable to discharge his responsibilities to and for the child, and in addition, has been found to have abused or neglected his child or children, the court may review the conviction of the parent or guardian to determine whether the felony offense is of such nature, and the period of incarceration imposed such duration, that the child would be deprived of proper parental care and left in an unstable or impermanent environment for a longer period of time than would be prudent. Placement of the child in foster care shall not be considered proper parental care and protection. Incarceration, in and of itself, shall not be grounds for termination of parental rights;
The parent has been convicted of one or more of the following offenses: Murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent or of the child's other parent; attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of the above offenses; or a felony assault which resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent, or of the child's other parent.
http://library.adoption.com/articles/grounds-for-termination-of-parental-rights-new-hampshire.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)