Examiner Bio Fed court rules lawyers acting as prosecutors in abuse cases have full immunity but not caseworkers
January 7, 10:10 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel Weaver
Copyright Wikimedia CommonsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Second District ruled on January 4, 2010 in Cornejo v. Bell that lawyers operating in the capacity of prosecutors for the New York City Administration of Children's Services have complete immunity from liability while performing their duties in charging parents with abuse and neglect.* But the court disagreed with a New York State court's ruling that other employees such as Child Protective Services investigators have complete immunity from liability. Instead, the federal court said they only have limited immunity.
The case arose from the death of Sally Cornejo's son. Because this case is quite important, I will quote the facts of the case from the federal court's description.
"The pertinent facts, largely undisputed and, where disputed,
3 taken most favorably to the plaintiff, are as follows:
4 On October 30, 2002, plaintiff Cornejo returned from work to
5 find her fiancé, Rothman Salas, holding their five-month-old son
6 Kenny, who was not breathing. Kenny was subsequently brought to
7 Schneider Children’s Hospital (“Hospital”) at 11:30 PM. On the
8 afternoon of October 31, 2002, a nonphysician Hospital employee
9 reported (via telephone call) to the New York State Central
10 Registry of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (the “SCR”) that Kenny
11 had suffered a broken rib, diffuse cerebral edema, and a heart
12 attack as a result of being violently shaken by his father. The
13 Oral Report Transmittal (“ORT”) documenting the call stated that
14 Cornejo was not present during the shaking incident. A second
15 ORT made at approximately 5:30 PM stated that the rib fracture
16 was several weeks old but that the parents had “failed to provide
17 a plausible explanation” for how Kenny’s rib was fractured.
18 Upon receiving the two ORTs from SCR, ACS assigned
19 caseworker Cerrito to investigate. Cerrito spoke by telephone
20 with Dr. Debra Esernio-Jenssen, a pediatric specialist in charge
21 of the Hospital’s Child Protection Consulting Team, who reported
22 that Kenny’s immediate brain and heart injuries were most likely
23 caused by Shaken Baby Syndrome. She also expressed her belief
24 that Cornejo had “no part” in the immediate injuries, which"
1 “would happen immediately after violent shaking.” Dr. Esernio-
2 Jenssen further opined, however, that the broken rib could have
3 been the result of a prior shaking incident. Cerrito reported
4 this back to Hogg, who concluded that not only Kenny but also
5 Kevin, the couple’s other, eighteen-month-old son, would have to
6 be removed from the home pending further proceedings.
7 Cornejo was then informed that both her children would be
8 removed from her custody until the ACS investigation was
9 completed. Cerrito arranged for Kevin to be brought to the
10 Hospital, where he was examined and then placed in temporary
11 kinship foster care on an ex parte emergency basis. The medical
12 examination of Kevin showed him to be healthy, with no signs of
13 abuse. Kenny remained at the Hospital, where he died on November
14 7.
15 Meanwhile, on November 1, ACS instructed its attorneys to
16 file petitions in Family Court accusing both parents of child
17 abuse of both children. Kaplan filed the petitions, which were
18 signed by Cerrito, that day. The petitions notably failed to
19 differentiate between the two parents, Cornejo and Salas, stating
20 that both parents had either “inflict[ed] or allow[ed] to be
21 inflicted . . . physical injury” or “create[d] or allow[ed] to be
22 created a substantial risk of physical injury” to the children.
23 The petitions included the Hospital diagnosis of Shaken Baby
24 Syndrome as the cause of Kenny’s heart and brain injuries; as to"
"the fractured rib, the petition alleged that the parents “failed
2 to provide an explanation consistent with a non-abusive or non-
3 intentional trauma.” The Family Court remanded the children to
4 ACS, and, as noted, Kenny died on November 7.
5 Despite an intervening attempt by Cornejo to regain custody
6 of Kevin, this was where matters stood until, on November 14, a
7 city medical examiner informed ACS attorney Schwartz of her
8 preliminary findings: that she “could not say” that Kenny was a
9 victim of Shaken Baby Syndrome and that the “fractured rib” was
10 actually a congenital rib malformation. As a result, the very
11 next day, ACS itself sought, by Order To Show Cause, to parole
12 Kevin to his mother. Nevertheless, the Family Court judge, after
13 hearing testimony from Dr. Esernio-Jenssen in which she
14 maintained her conclusion that Kenny had been shaken, declined to
15 return Kevin to his mother’s care. The judge also denied
16 subsequent applications for parole or withdrawal of the petition
17 against Cornejo, citing ongoing disparities in the medical
18 evidence as to the cause of Kenny’s death.
19 In January 2003, the medical examiner issued a final autopsy
20 report that concluded that the actual cause of Kenny’s death was
21 a “rare and natural heart defect” and that reaffirmed the medical
22 examiner’s previous finding that there was no rib fracture but"
"only a congenital abnormality. The Hospital staff, however,
2 maintained its view that Kenny had been shaken.1
3 On February 4, ACS sought withdrawal of the petition against
4 Cornejo, but the Family Court judge denied the request, making
5 clear that she would not allow withdrawal of that petition unless
6 ACS was also willing to withdraw the petition against Salas.
7 Nevertheless, the judge did this time allow Kevin to be paroled
8 to Cornejo’s custody. On May 20, Cornejo moved for summary
9 judgment and dismissal of the petition against her. At a court
10 appearance on June 10, Schwartz stated that “ACS has no basis to
11 dispute the [medical examiner’s] findings,” and the Family Court
12 judge allowed both petitions to be withdrawn.
13 Thereafter, on January 28, 2004, Cornejo commenced, on
14 behalf of herself and her son Kevin, the first of the two civil
15 rights proceedings now consolidated in this case, which, as now
16 consolidated, allege due process and search and seizure
17 violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state and federal
18 claims for malicious prosecution (the latter again under § 1983)
19 and a state law claim for breach of the duty of reasonable care."**
What we essentially have here is a mother and father who were falsely accused of abuse, and a lower court that would not initially allow the Administration for Children's Services to withdraw their petition against the parents, even when the evidence showed there was no abuse. The Family Court judge eventually allowed the petitions to be withdrawn. The mother then sued, but a higher state court ruled against her.
She then proceded to sue in federal court, and the above ruling is the result of that suit. While the ruling that employees, other than lawyers acting in the role of prosecutor, have only limited immunity is a victory for all parents, unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the investigators' actions in this case were proper. Therefore the court ruled that even though these employees only have qualified immunity, that immunity was enough to absolve them of any liability in this case, leaving the parents nothing in return for the ordeal they went through, which not only included false allegations of abuse but the death of a child.
*In upstate counties these duties are generally performed by the legal staff of the county's social services department.
**In a footnote the court also said, "Kenny’s heart was subsequently sent to two pediatric cardiologists for further evaluation. Neither specialist ultimately found a definitive cause for the heart attack, but
they concluded that it was more likely that Kenny’s death resulted from a congenital defect than from shaking."
For more info: Read the entire ruling.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2010m1d7-Fed-court-rules-lawyers-acting-as-prosecutors-in-abuse-cases-have-full-immunity-but-not-caseworkers?cid=exrss-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner
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
Friday, January 8, 2010
Just curious if anyone could answer this for me:
Hi Everyone,
Just curious if anyone could answer this for me:
Why is it that it's considered "pirating" when people "steal" cable,
and it's considered "vandalism" when someone breaks into and destroys property,
and it's considered "theft" when someone steals another's property such as a vehicle,
but it's not considered KIDNAPPING and instead is called "protective services" when our kids are stolen from us by NH DCYF? And why is "NH protective services" not considered as robbery, as our parental and family rights are stolen from us?--H
sent to me from a friend
VIEWPOINT: Child abuse editorial misguided, misinformed
VIEWPOINT: Child abuse editorial misguided, misinformed
DOUG SCHAFER
Published: 01/07/10 12:05 am | Updated: 01/07/10 12:23 pm
Recommend (0)Your editorial criticizing a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals (“Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit,” 12-30) is misguided and misleading, as is our county prosecutor’s assessment of it (1-3).
That ruling was by a unanimous three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush. They ruled that an Oregon child protection agency worker and deputy sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures when they detained and interrogated a child for two hours at her school about suspected sexual abuse by her father without first obtaining a warrant or other court order or a parent’s consent.
Your editorial claims that this application of the Fourth Amendment is a “brand-new and rather astonishing requirement.” But a reading of the court’s opinion demonstrates otherwise.
More than 10 years ago, the court held that a warrantless, non-emergency seizure and interrogation of an alleged victim of child sexual abuse victim at her home violates the Fourth Amendment.
That ruling has been widely praised by both conservative and liberal advocates of familial rights and other civil rights. And now the court simply rejected, as other federal courts have, the prosecution argument that law enforcement officials’ seizure and interrogation of a child at her public school renders inapplicable the traditional Fourth Amendment protections.
That argument was based on a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that lowered the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standards for searches and seizures in public schools initiated solely by school officials to enforce school rules and maintain discipline. So teachers and principals may search student lockers and other containers, and may detain and question children, without needing court-issued warrants.
But that 1985 precedent was limited to school officials addressing student conduct at school. It does not apply to law enforcement officials investigating crimes (or enlisting school officials or social workers to do so for them).
The Ninth Circuit also rejected, just as it had in the 1999 case, prosecution arguments that government’s special need to protect children from sexual abuse justifies a departure from the warrant and probable-cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The court noted a federal government report that of the 3.6 million investigations in 2006 by child protection agencies, only about a quarter concluded that the children were indeed victims of abuse.
Your editorial mistakenly suggests that the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is designed only to protect criminal suspects and defendants, particularly from arbitrary searches of their homes and other spheres of privacy.
But a person – whether a suspect, witness, or victim – is seized whenever he or she is detained by a government official under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
The Fourth Amendment protects an unwilling witness or crime victim from being seized and interrogated by the police without a warrant. A seizure impacts one’s liberty, not one’s privacy. And the government’s unwarranted and unreasonable seizure of a child impacts his or her parent’s familial rights without the due process required by the Constitution.
The recent Ninth Circuit ruling is consistent with rulings by five other federal circuits, and after searching I cannot find any published criticism of it except in your editorial pages. The ruling does not, as your editorial claims, “tip the balance of power in favor of suspected abusers” but simply requires government officials to respect the U.S. Constitution when investigating child abuse as they must when investigating other crimes.
Neither the Constitution nor the recent ruling prevents a child’s teachers, neighbors or relatives from asking the child about possible abuse. The Ninth Circuit judges wrote in a footnote, “Nothing in our opinion today would prevent a teacher, for example, from discussing suspected abuse with a student or from passing along any such information to social service workers.” The social worker can then use that information to seek a court warrant, if appropriate.
If, as our county prosecutor claims, this ruling “seriously handicaps” child abuse investigations, then our local investigators must be accustomed to defying the Constitution. This ruling confirms that rogue investigators will be held liable (with taxpayers presumably paying the bill) when they defy the constitutional rights of children and their parents. Retraining seems to be in order.
Doug Schafer is an attorney who’s been practicing law in Tacoma for 31 years.
Comments
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service.
Comments are displayed newest first. If you would like to read a thread from beginning to end, select "Oldest first" from the drop down menu.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/1019243.html#ixzz0c3wrEHCo
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/1019243.html#ixzz0bz2PkPY4
DOUG SCHAFER
Published: 01/07/10 12:05 am | Updated: 01/07/10 12:23 pm
Recommend (0)Your editorial criticizing a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals (“Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit,” 12-30) is misguided and misleading, as is our county prosecutor’s assessment of it (1-3).
That ruling was by a unanimous three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush. They ruled that an Oregon child protection agency worker and deputy sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures when they detained and interrogated a child for two hours at her school about suspected sexual abuse by her father without first obtaining a warrant or other court order or a parent’s consent.
Your editorial claims that this application of the Fourth Amendment is a “brand-new and rather astonishing requirement.” But a reading of the court’s opinion demonstrates otherwise.
More than 10 years ago, the court held that a warrantless, non-emergency seizure and interrogation of an alleged victim of child sexual abuse victim at her home violates the Fourth Amendment.
That ruling has been widely praised by both conservative and liberal advocates of familial rights and other civil rights. And now the court simply rejected, as other federal courts have, the prosecution argument that law enforcement officials’ seizure and interrogation of a child at her public school renders inapplicable the traditional Fourth Amendment protections.
That argument was based on a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that lowered the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standards for searches and seizures in public schools initiated solely by school officials to enforce school rules and maintain discipline. So teachers and principals may search student lockers and other containers, and may detain and question children, without needing court-issued warrants.
But that 1985 precedent was limited to school officials addressing student conduct at school. It does not apply to law enforcement officials investigating crimes (or enlisting school officials or social workers to do so for them).
The Ninth Circuit also rejected, just as it had in the 1999 case, prosecution arguments that government’s special need to protect children from sexual abuse justifies a departure from the warrant and probable-cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The court noted a federal government report that of the 3.6 million investigations in 2006 by child protection agencies, only about a quarter concluded that the children were indeed victims of abuse.
Your editorial mistakenly suggests that the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is designed only to protect criminal suspects and defendants, particularly from arbitrary searches of their homes and other spheres of privacy.
But a person – whether a suspect, witness, or victim – is seized whenever he or she is detained by a government official under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
The Fourth Amendment protects an unwilling witness or crime victim from being seized and interrogated by the police without a warrant. A seizure impacts one’s liberty, not one’s privacy. And the government’s unwarranted and unreasonable seizure of a child impacts his or her parent’s familial rights without the due process required by the Constitution.
The recent Ninth Circuit ruling is consistent with rulings by five other federal circuits, and after searching I cannot find any published criticism of it except in your editorial pages. The ruling does not, as your editorial claims, “tip the balance of power in favor of suspected abusers” but simply requires government officials to respect the U.S. Constitution when investigating child abuse as they must when investigating other crimes.
Neither the Constitution nor the recent ruling prevents a child’s teachers, neighbors or relatives from asking the child about possible abuse. The Ninth Circuit judges wrote in a footnote, “Nothing in our opinion today would prevent a teacher, for example, from discussing suspected abuse with a student or from passing along any such information to social service workers.” The social worker can then use that information to seek a court warrant, if appropriate.
If, as our county prosecutor claims, this ruling “seriously handicaps” child abuse investigations, then our local investigators must be accustomed to defying the Constitution. This ruling confirms that rogue investigators will be held liable (with taxpayers presumably paying the bill) when they defy the constitutional rights of children and their parents. Retraining seems to be in order.
Doug Schafer is an attorney who’s been practicing law in Tacoma for 31 years.
Comments
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service.
Comments are displayed newest first. If you would like to read a thread from beginning to end, select "Oldest first" from the drop down menu.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/1019243.html#ixzz0c3wrEHCo
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/1019243.html#ixzz0bz2PkPY4
Another Screwup By NH DCYF! Woman gets six to 20 years for assaulting stepchild
Woman gets six to 20 years for assaulting stepchild
Thursday, Jan. 7, 2010
CONCORD – A Webster woman will serve six to 20 years in prison for repeatedly beating her stepchild in 2008.
Cara LeBlanc, 30, was sentenced at a hearing Thursday morning in Merrimack Superior Court .
The negotiated plea worked out between LeBlanc's attorney Mark Sisti and Rachel Harrington of the Merrimack County Attorney's office had the woman pleading guilty to seven of the 16 charges.
LeBLANC
The child, 8, was allegedly tortured for more than nine hours by repeatedly being thrown down a set of stairs and each time being dragged up by her hair.
The child had fractured ribs and vertebrae and suffered injuries to her kidney and liver. She told the court she thought she was going to be killed in the prolonged attack.
The child's father, Daniel LeBlanc, who is in the process of divorcing Cara LeBlanc, is also charged with two misdemeanors of assault and endangering the welfare of the child for an incident that occurred several days prior to the July 10, 2008, attack. He is due to stand trial in March.
Cara LeBlanc fled the state after the incident and was found in Florida.
►Woman sought in assault on stepdaughter
►Woman charged in abuse returning to NH (11)
►Stepmother's lawyer points finger at father (18)
►Friend says she told of abuse concerns (9) (Check out this link. This friend reported the abuse much earlier and DCYF did NOTHING! Their too busy going after UNABUSIVE, Falsely Accused parents!)
►Suspect captured; abuse detailed (31)
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Woman+gets+six+to+20+years+for+assaulting+stepchild&articleId=7997a144-b230-4ed9-8523-cb707ed477c2
Thursday, Jan. 7, 2010
CONCORD – A Webster woman will serve six to 20 years in prison for repeatedly beating her stepchild in 2008.
Cara LeBlanc, 30, was sentenced at a hearing Thursday morning in Merrimack Superior Court .
The negotiated plea worked out between LeBlanc's attorney Mark Sisti and Rachel Harrington of the Merrimack County Attorney's office had the woman pleading guilty to seven of the 16 charges.
LeBLANC
The child, 8, was allegedly tortured for more than nine hours by repeatedly being thrown down a set of stairs and each time being dragged up by her hair.
The child had fractured ribs and vertebrae and suffered injuries to her kidney and liver. She told the court she thought she was going to be killed in the prolonged attack.
The child's father, Daniel LeBlanc, who is in the process of divorcing Cara LeBlanc, is also charged with two misdemeanors of assault and endangering the welfare of the child for an incident that occurred several days prior to the July 10, 2008, attack. He is due to stand trial in March.
Cara LeBlanc fled the state after the incident and was found in Florida.
►Woman sought in assault on stepdaughter
►Woman charged in abuse returning to NH (11)
►Stepmother's lawyer points finger at father (18)
►Friend says she told of abuse concerns (9) (Check out this link. This friend reported the abuse much earlier and DCYF did NOTHING! Their too busy going after UNABUSIVE, Falsely Accused parents!)
►Suspect captured; abuse detailed (31)
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Woman+gets+six+to+20+years+for+assaulting+stepchild&articleId=7997a144-b230-4ed9-8523-cb707ed477c2
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Subject: A Must to Read..Please pass this on
Subject: A Must to Read..Please pass this on
Common
People ...... something is wrong
here!
Take
a look at this and just remember elections in
Nov. 2010.
U.S. House &
Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and
$5,300 raises.
1.
They
voted not
to give
you a S.S. Cost of living raise
in 2010 and 2011.
2.
Your Medicaid premiums
will go up $285.60 for
the 2-years and
You will not get the 3%
COLA: $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and
cost is
-$1,600 or -$3,200
for husband and wife.
3.
Over
2-yrs they
each get $10,000
4.
Do
you feel SCREWED?
5.
Will they have your
cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes -
food, etc., increase?
NO
WAY . They have a raise and
better benefits. Why care about you? You never
did anything about it in the past. You
obviously are too stupid or don't
care.
6.
Do you really think
that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et
al, care about you? SEND THE MESSAGE--
You're
FIRED.
IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE
A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE SITTING CONGRESS:
Up to 1/3 OF
THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.
MAKE
SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND
REMIND THEIR REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW
UP.
It
is ok to forward this to your sphere of
influence if you are finally tired of the
abuse.
Maybe it's time for
the........
Amendment
28
"Congress
shall make no law that applies to the citizens
of the United
States that does not apply
equally to the Senators or Representatives,
and Congress shall make no law that applies
to the Senators or
Representatives that does
not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
Let's get this passed
around, folks - these people in Washington have
brought this upon themselves!!! It's time
for retribution. Let's take back America
If you don't forward this to all your friends,
you're just part of the problem of national
apathy.
Common
People ...... something is wrong
here!
Take
a look at this and just remember elections in
Nov. 2010.
U.S. House &
Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and
$5,300 raises.
1.
They
voted not
to give
you a S.S. Cost of living raise
in 2010 and 2011.
2.
Your Medicaid premiums
will go up $285.60 for
the 2-years and
You will not get the 3%
COLA: $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and
cost is
-$1,600 or -$3,200
for husband and wife.
3.
Over
2-yrs they
each get $10,000
4.
Do
you feel SCREWED?
5.
Will they have your
cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes -
food, etc., increase?
NO
WAY . They have a raise and
better benefits. Why care about you? You never
did anything about it in the past. You
obviously are too stupid or don't
care.
6.
Do you really think
that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et
al, care about you? SEND THE MESSAGE--
You're
FIRED.
IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE
A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE SITTING CONGRESS:
Up to 1/3 OF
THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.
MAKE
SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND
REMIND THEIR REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW
UP.
It
is ok to forward this to your sphere of
influence if you are finally tired of the
abuse.
Maybe it's time for
the........
Amendment
28
"Congress
shall make no law that applies to the citizens
of the United
States that does not apply
equally to the Senators or Representatives,
and Congress shall make no law that applies
to the Senators or
Representatives that does
not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
Let's get this passed
around, folks - these people in Washington have
brought this upon themselves!!! It's time
for retribution. Let's take back America
If you don't forward this to all your friends,
you're just part of the problem of national
apathy.
Is it child protection or legal kidnapping? (It's ILLEGAL Kidnapping!)
Is it child protection or legal kidnapping?
May 29, 2008 3:00 AM (588 days ago) by Barbara F. Hollingsworth, The Examiner
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY EMAIL STORYPRINT STORY588 days ago: Lawmaker says CPS officials guilty of ‘ruthless behavior’588 days ago: Bureaucrats running down the clock against parents» 588 days ago: Is it child protection or legal kidnapping? «
This story is ranked # 7,487 of 2,412
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
(Map, News) -
Children being taken from their homes, based on tips from anonymous telephone callers alleging abuse or neglect, has been cast in a harsh spotlight in the Texas polygamy case, and there’s growing evidence that more than a few of the 510,000 children placed in foster care annually don’t belong there.
In February, Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer released a blistering assessment of the bureaucrats entrusted to protect children there: “I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.”
Armed with court orders and protected by confidentiality statutes that function as bureaucratic shield laws, CPS workers need just one anonymous phone call to a hot line to swoop in and remove children, regardless of the facts.
Such calls can be legitimate, coming from a legally mandated reporter such as a doctor or teacher. But it could also be a fabrication from a vindictive ex-spouse, a nosy neighbor or a disgruntled relative. Since no laws clearly define child abuse and neglect, parents have been accused of these serious crimes when what they actually did was yell, withhold TV privileges or “repress” their children by supervising them too much.
This story continues below
Advertisement
Steven Krason, professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, is writing a book on CPS wrongdoing based on two decades of research.
Krason says CPS itself now poses “a grave threat” because “it is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from ... a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.”
He’s convinced the number of real child abuse cases has remained fairly steady over the last three decades; what has been growing is an unprecedented government assault on innocent parents.
And if it doesn’t take much to have your children placed in foster care, getting them back can be another story. An anonymous call about a 10-ounce weight loss by their then 3-week-old daughter triggered a legal avalanche that buried Arlington residents Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor.
Their parental rights were terminated last year by Arlington Judge James Almand even though Hey and Slitor had been exonerated of all neglect charges nine months earlier.
In another local case, Georgetown residents Greg and Juliana Caplan had to spend $75,000 on lawyers and wait two weeks before their children were returned, even after five doctors confirmed that an injury sustained by one of their twin daughters was not caused by abuse.
The Caplans are still listed as possible child abusers in D.C., however, because they refused to submit to psychological counseling. Despite the stigma, that might have been a wise decision.
The psychological evaluation trap is one of the least expected obstacles facing parents snared unfairly in the CPS system. Most panicked parents promise to do anything to get their children back, often agreeing to a battery of psychological tests they naively believe will prove their parental competence and end the nightmare. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
Arlington social workers told Hey that she had to undergo psychological testing before she could get her baby back, so the longtime Federal Communications Commission employee readily agreed.
She was diagnosed with two clinical disorders by Giselle Hass at the Multicultural Clinical Center in Springfield. This psychological evaluation was cited in the court ruling terminating Hey’s parental rights. But an independent, expert analysis of the report obtained by The Examiner included scathing critique of the methodology used to evaluate Hey, saying it “reads more like advocacy than a professional psychological assessment ... clear and frequent evidence of error. ... Any graduate student who turned in as poorly scored and interpreted a test as did this evaluator would probably have failed the first semester.”
Besides violations of standard practice and professional rules of ethics, the analysis noted numerous illustrations of bias in the psychological profile and “a consistent failure to include data that would be favorable to Mrs. Hey,” including 17 computer-generated scores on the Parental Stress Index that were all in the normal range.
This was a significant omission, given that Judge Almand cited Hey’s tendency of “freezing ... in times of stress” as one of the main reasons she could not be trusted to raise her own child.
Hey — who has never been convicted of either abuse or neglect — has had no contact with 3-year-old Sabrina since Judge Almand allowed her to be adopted by the same foster family Arlington CPS workers originally selected to care for her baby.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Washington Examiner’s local opinion editor.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1413553~Is_it_child_protection_or_legal_kidnapping_.html
May 29, 2008 3:00 AM (588 days ago) by Barbara F. Hollingsworth, The Examiner
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY EMAIL STORYPRINT STORY588 days ago: Lawmaker says CPS officials guilty of ‘ruthless behavior’588 days ago: Bureaucrats running down the clock against parents» 588 days ago: Is it child protection or legal kidnapping? «
This story is ranked # 7,487 of 2,412
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
(Map, News) -
Children being taken from their homes, based on tips from anonymous telephone callers alleging abuse or neglect, has been cast in a harsh spotlight in the Texas polygamy case, and there’s growing evidence that more than a few of the 510,000 children placed in foster care annually don’t belong there.
In February, Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer released a blistering assessment of the bureaucrats entrusted to protect children there: “I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.”
Armed with court orders and protected by confidentiality statutes that function as bureaucratic shield laws, CPS workers need just one anonymous phone call to a hot line to swoop in and remove children, regardless of the facts.
Such calls can be legitimate, coming from a legally mandated reporter such as a doctor or teacher. But it could also be a fabrication from a vindictive ex-spouse, a nosy neighbor or a disgruntled relative. Since no laws clearly define child abuse and neglect, parents have been accused of these serious crimes when what they actually did was yell, withhold TV privileges or “repress” their children by supervising them too much.
This story continues below
Advertisement
Steven Krason, professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, is writing a book on CPS wrongdoing based on two decades of research.
Krason says CPS itself now poses “a grave threat” because “it is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from ... a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.”
He’s convinced the number of real child abuse cases has remained fairly steady over the last three decades; what has been growing is an unprecedented government assault on innocent parents.
And if it doesn’t take much to have your children placed in foster care, getting them back can be another story. An anonymous call about a 10-ounce weight loss by their then 3-week-old daughter triggered a legal avalanche that buried Arlington residents Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor.
Their parental rights were terminated last year by Arlington Judge James Almand even though Hey and Slitor had been exonerated of all neglect charges nine months earlier.
In another local case, Georgetown residents Greg and Juliana Caplan had to spend $75,000 on lawyers and wait two weeks before their children were returned, even after five doctors confirmed that an injury sustained by one of their twin daughters was not caused by abuse.
The Caplans are still listed as possible child abusers in D.C., however, because they refused to submit to psychological counseling. Despite the stigma, that might have been a wise decision.
The psychological evaluation trap is one of the least expected obstacles facing parents snared unfairly in the CPS system. Most panicked parents promise to do anything to get their children back, often agreeing to a battery of psychological tests they naively believe will prove their parental competence and end the nightmare. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
Arlington social workers told Hey that she had to undergo psychological testing before she could get her baby back, so the longtime Federal Communications Commission employee readily agreed.
She was diagnosed with two clinical disorders by Giselle Hass at the Multicultural Clinical Center in Springfield. This psychological evaluation was cited in the court ruling terminating Hey’s parental rights. But an independent, expert analysis of the report obtained by The Examiner included scathing critique of the methodology used to evaluate Hey, saying it “reads more like advocacy than a professional psychological assessment ... clear and frequent evidence of error. ... Any graduate student who turned in as poorly scored and interpreted a test as did this evaluator would probably have failed the first semester.”
Besides violations of standard practice and professional rules of ethics, the analysis noted numerous illustrations of bias in the psychological profile and “a consistent failure to include data that would be favorable to Mrs. Hey,” including 17 computer-generated scores on the Parental Stress Index that were all in the normal range.
This was a significant omission, given that Judge Almand cited Hey’s tendency of “freezing ... in times of stress” as one of the main reasons she could not be trusted to raise her own child.
Hey — who has never been convicted of either abuse or neglect — has had no contact with 3-year-old Sabrina since Judge Almand allowed her to be adopted by the same foster family Arlington CPS workers originally selected to care for her baby.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Washington Examiner’s local opinion editor.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1413553~Is_it_child_protection_or_legal_kidnapping_.html
Study: Troubled homes better than foster care
Study: Troubled homes better than foster care
Updated 7/3/2007 6:55 AM
FAMILY INFLUENCE (Older article but well worth the read.)
Children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. Those who:
Were arrested at least once:
• Stayed with family: 14%
• Went to foster care: 44%
Became teen mothers:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 56%
Held a job at least 3 months:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 20%
Source: Study by Joseph Doyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
American parents grapple with siblings torn apart
More on adoptions
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Children whose families are investigated for abuse or neglect are likely to do better in life if they stay with their families than if they go into foster care, according to a pioneering study.
The findings intensify a vigorous debate in child welfare: whether children are better served with their families or away from them.
RELATED: Record numbers of foster kids leave program as adults
Kids who stayed with their families were less likely to become juvenile delinquents or teen mothers and more likely to hold jobs as young adults, says the study by Joseph Doyle, an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management who studies social policy.
"The size of the effects surprised me, because all the children come from tough families," Doyle says. The National Science Foundation funded the study.
Doyle says his research, which tracked at least 15,000 kids from 1990 to 2002, is the largest study to look at the effects of foster care. He studied kids in Illinois because of a database there that links abuse investigations to other government records.
To avoid results attributable to family background, he screened out extreme cases of abuse or neglect and studied kids whose cases could have gone either way.
Studies, including those by Mark Courtney while at the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children, show that the 500,000 children in U.S. foster care are more likely than other kids to drop out of school, commit crimes, abuse drugs and become teen parents.
His research has shown that this holds true even when foster kids are compared with other disadvantaged youth.
MORE: Number of single men adopting foster kids doubles
Doyle's study, however, provides "the first viable, empirical evidence" of the benefits of keeping kids with their families, says Gary Stangler, executive director of the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, a foundation for foster teens. Stangler says it looked at kids over a longer period of time than had other studies.
"It confirms what experience and observation tell us: Kids who can remain in their homes do better than in foster care," says Stangler. He says some kids, for their own safety, need to be removed from their families, but in marginal cases of abuse, more should be done to keep them together.
Smaller studies have found kids from abusive families do better in foster care. "There are high rates of re-abuse" for those reunited with parents, says Heather Taussig, a pediatrics professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Taussig co-authored a study in 2001 that found kids reunited with families after a brief stay in foster care were more likely to abuse drugs, get arrested, drop out of school and have lower grades than those who stayed in foster care. She followed 149 youths in San Diego over a 6-year period.
Taussig says case workers shouldn't assume that keeping kids with relatives is better.
"We need more research," she says.
Doyle says foster care remains a needed safety net for some kids but he agrees that it merits further study.
Posted 7/2/2007 10:47 PM
Updated 7/3/2007 6:55 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm
Updated 7/3/2007 6:55 AM
FAMILY INFLUENCE (Older article but well worth the read.)
Children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. Those who:
Were arrested at least once:
• Stayed with family: 14%
• Went to foster care: 44%
Became teen mothers:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 56%
Held a job at least 3 months:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 20%
Source: Study by Joseph Doyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
American parents grapple with siblings torn apart
More on adoptions
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Children whose families are investigated for abuse or neglect are likely to do better in life if they stay with their families than if they go into foster care, according to a pioneering study.
The findings intensify a vigorous debate in child welfare: whether children are better served with their families or away from them.
RELATED: Record numbers of foster kids leave program as adults
Kids who stayed with their families were less likely to become juvenile delinquents or teen mothers and more likely to hold jobs as young adults, says the study by Joseph Doyle, an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management who studies social policy.
"The size of the effects surprised me, because all the children come from tough families," Doyle says. The National Science Foundation funded the study.
Doyle says his research, which tracked at least 15,000 kids from 1990 to 2002, is the largest study to look at the effects of foster care. He studied kids in Illinois because of a database there that links abuse investigations to other government records.
To avoid results attributable to family background, he screened out extreme cases of abuse or neglect and studied kids whose cases could have gone either way.
Studies, including those by Mark Courtney while at the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children, show that the 500,000 children in U.S. foster care are more likely than other kids to drop out of school, commit crimes, abuse drugs and become teen parents.
His research has shown that this holds true even when foster kids are compared with other disadvantaged youth.
MORE: Number of single men adopting foster kids doubles
Doyle's study, however, provides "the first viable, empirical evidence" of the benefits of keeping kids with their families, says Gary Stangler, executive director of the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, a foundation for foster teens. Stangler says it looked at kids over a longer period of time than had other studies.
"It confirms what experience and observation tell us: Kids who can remain in their homes do better than in foster care," says Stangler. He says some kids, for their own safety, need to be removed from their families, but in marginal cases of abuse, more should be done to keep them together.
Smaller studies have found kids from abusive families do better in foster care. "There are high rates of re-abuse" for those reunited with parents, says Heather Taussig, a pediatrics professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Taussig co-authored a study in 2001 that found kids reunited with families after a brief stay in foster care were more likely to abuse drugs, get arrested, drop out of school and have lower grades than those who stayed in foster care. She followed 149 youths in San Diego over a 6-year period.
Taussig says case workers shouldn't assume that keeping kids with relatives is better.
"We need more research," she says.
Doyle says foster care remains a needed safety net for some kids but he agrees that it merits further study.
Posted 7/2/2007 10:47 PM
Updated 7/3/2007 6:55 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)