Foster Parent Speaks Out About Abuses of CPS/DCYF in the Removal of Children

A foster-adoptive parent speaks out on challenges
January 10, 2010

The allegations have not discouraged me from continuing my mission as a foster parent. Actually, the circumstances educated and enlightened me. I will speak out for every family torn apart by the child welfare system, reaching out to educate them on how to protect their family. Will these people who responded go public with me? No. They do not want to become DSS’ next victims.


But the concerns are the same, and they are things I have seen myself. Lying. Divide-and-conquer practices. Disrespect. Child removal on a whim. In the center of any of these situations is a power struggle.


Parents, whether biological or foster, think they have a certain amount of control surrounding the children. However, some social workers are determined to show them they are wrong.


What I have experienced is a system that has turned into power, control and hate. Where has the love for the children gone?


No one moves more than a foster child, and these moves are made alone. Imagine moving from place to place wondering what you did wrong, and waiting for someone to tell you why your parents are not coming to get you. This current system is lacking in the distinction between child abuse/neglect and parenting some social workers don’t agree with.

Betsy Ross, Elkton, Md.


http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100110/OPINION10/100109017/1004/OPINION/A-foster-adoptive-parent-speaks-out-on-challenges

More Grandparents Screwed Over By CPS/DCYF and The Court's

Grandparents saddened by custody battle
By HAYLEY COX
Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:12 PM CST

Ninfa and Ubaldo Ochoa are devastated by the thought they may never see their grandson again.

Their grandson, Sean, who recently turned 3, lives with foster parents who want to adopt him. But the Ochoas believe he would be better off with family.

"It’s been so hard without him," Ninfa said. "Maybe there’ll be a miracle and we can get Sean home."

Child Protective Services removed Sean from his mother’s care after domestic violence within the family. Sean lived in a foster home for several months. After a home study returned with positive results, Sean came to live with his grandparents in Lockney in September 2007.

"When we remove a child, the first thing we look for is family members (for the child’s placement)," said CPS spokesperson Greg Cunningham. "If we can find an appropriate place (with family), that’s more likely to be a successful placement."

The parents voluntarily relinquished their rights to Sean in January 2008. Ninfa met with an attorney, Barbara Adams, who reportedly told her it would be fine for the mother to visit with Sean as long as Ninfa was there to supervise. In reality, though, the court had ordered that the parents were not to have any contact with Sean unless CPS was notified and present.

In February 2008, Ninfa and her grandson went to Wal-Mart in Canyon to shop for a wedding present. While there, she bumped into her daughter, Sean’s mother, who stopped to talk. A CPS caseworker must have seen them together, Ninfa said.

Later that day, Ninfa received a call from CPS asking her to come to the CPS office. When she did, they removed Sean from her care, placed him in foster care and approved him for adoption.

"He was looking very scared (when CPS took him)," Ninfa said. "This doesn’t seem to be in his best interest."

The Ochoas filed a petition within Floyd County requesting guardianship of Sean in March 2008. In August of that year, an associate judge denied the Ochoas’ request. The Ochoas appealed the decision, expecting to get a hearing within 30 days. But because of scheduling conflicts, the trial was delayed until December 2008.

"The law says on any type of termination case the court should hear those cases as soon as possible," said Lubbock attorney Jaime Lopez, who represents the Ochoas. "You don’t want the child stuck in foster care or leave them in limbo."

By the time the appeal was heard in court, Sean had been with the foster parents for almost a year. The foster parents sought adoption of Sean, arguing that it would be detrimental to remove him from their care after so long. A CPS caseworker also testified that Sean had bonded with his foster parents

"That delay (in hearings) is what gave them the benefit," Lopez said.

According to Lopez, the judge also didn’t want to put the Ochoas in the position of choosing between Sean and their daughter, since he can have no contact with his birth mother. The appellate judge issued a ruling in January 2009, agreeing that Sean should remain with the foster parents.
(Dot-We were told by the Director of DCYF in NH that we chose our dying daughter over our grandson. After receiving much warranted medical care she survived. We were then asked by the crude Director why she isn't dead."


"What did I do so wrong?" Ninfa said. "I don’t see how they can claim we’re dangerous. They (CPS and the courts) all make up their mind what they already have planned. They probably had the adoptive parents lined up."

Cunningham, the CPS spokesperson, said the agency does not make adoption decisions.

"It’s important to note that CPS does not make final decisions," Cunningham said. "We make investigations and recommendations, but in the end it’s the court’s responsibility to make that decision."

The Ochoas filed another appeal with the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo, which issued its consenting opinion in October:

"Given the instances of Appellants’ failure to follow the safety plans adopted for the child, their inability to recognize the danger presented to the child by parental contact, as well as the prospective plans for the child, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to not appoint Appellants as managing conservators or to order possession or access was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles."

The next step for the Ochoas would be to take the case to the Texas Supreme Court. Their attorney discouraged that, however, saying the supreme court would most likely not reverse the decision.

As a result, Ninfa and Ubaldo may never see their grandchild again.

"If (the foster parents) do adopt him, they’re calling him Jack and taking him to Florida," Ninfa said. "He has a brother that he’ll never meet."

(Contact Hayley Cox at hcox@plainviewdailyherald.com or 806-296-1352.)

http://www.myplainview.com/articles/2010/01/09/breaking_news/doc4b49429bac9c5683062075.txt

Another NH father's rights Illegally terminated by Nashua, NH Probate Court

It has just come to my attention that another father in Nashua, has had his rights to his daughter illegally terminated. That makes three father's just in Nashua alone that I am aware of. I'm sure there's many more. It really makes me wonder how many more there are in NH, not to mention the rest of the country. These father's as well as the rest of us are having our rights trampled on big time. To have their rights terminated and never even know it's happening. This is a HUGE miscarriage of justice.
An aquaintance of a family member asked me what she can do. She gave birth to a little girl a few years back. The little girl was taken by Nashua DCYF, thanks to a report by the health center and cohort hospital in Nashua. The two places I've spoken about before, who work with DCYF in the kidnapping of our Nashua children. Her other children were stolen from her a short time later. All of whom have the same father. The new baby has a differnt father. DCYF was given his name, even though he never signed the birth certificate. Well DCYF did it again. They gave the court the name of the man who fathered the other children and terminated his rights to a child that wasn't his. So in all actuality, his rights are NOT terminated.
I don't understand how Nashua DCYF and the Probate Court can keep getting away with this scam against father's and their families. This man was never notified, just as my grandchildren Austin and Isabella's father's were never notified. Is DCYF just trying to make their jobs easier, seeing as they KNOW they can get away with all the fraud they practice?
Another little factual tidbit. This little girl and one of her sisters were placed in the same foster stranger's home as my granddaughter Isabella. The smae foster's home, who asked the question of the former DCYF worker,"When will we be financially supplemented?" The same foster home where all three girls were sent to day care, while the foster babysat other peoples kids in her home,(which the state paid for of course) where foster residence requirements were swept under the rug in the placement of Isabella, as the foster book states a child can NOT be placed in a home unless the fosters have lived in the same home with the same household members, for a minimum of two years. The foster stranger's had moved here from Massachusetts just fifteen months earlier. When I told the NH Ombudsman that this law was not followed in Isabella's case, his response,"Oh, DCYF must have gotten a waiver." Is that all it takes for DCYF to disregard the law? A waiver? Why aren't laws or administrative rules followed by the almighty DCYF?
Another little tidbit in the kidnapping of this woman's children. Medical files were never received by the court or her Lawyer. To this day, they still don't have them. Did the Judge screw up again, like in Isabella's case and not bother to court order the records? Why didn't anyone follow the law in her case either?
Even though this woman did everything she was ordered to do, her rights were also terminated. And of course her Supreme Court appeal was denied. Just as the DCYF worker told my husband and I, everyones rights in Probate Court are terminated in NH and the decision is never reversed by the Supreme Court.
So DCYF chose an older couple from Mass. who couldn't have any kids of their own, who didn't pass the residence requirements in the state of NH and awarded them the most pretigious award of all time. Our children, while we were left with the booby prize. A lifetime of fighting for our due process rights in a state filled with corruption. Do you ever stop and wonder why couples such as this barren couple are not able to have their own children? Could it be God's way of saying they shouldn't have kids? But then on the other hand, DCYF feel's "they are above the law" and have "the Power of God", an honor which they could never live up to, so they pick and choose who they think should be parents and shouldn't be. What is it, if you kiss their ass and bow down to them, your rewarded with someone elses child?
This foster couple is REALLY being financially supplemented now aren't they? Our Tax dollars at work! And the money will just keep rolling in until the three girls turn eighteen or maybe even until their twenty-one. That is unless someone puts a stop to the injustices used on NH families and gives these children back to their falsey accused families. That would be a miracle wouldn't it?

How do we "avoid" doing "business" with NH DHHS of which NH DCYF is a part?

How do we "avoid" doing "business" with NH DHHS of which NH DCYF is a part, as they often come completely uninvited and force doing their $$$$ money making "business" of taking our children from us, via abusing their power within the judicial system, who "A" doesn't care about the NH Citizens or "B" hasn't gotten smart enough to figure out that NH DHHS abuses power by an enormous misuse of the courts and of the taxpayers' monies.

Speaking of monies....a percentage of our monies from permits/licenses, from shopping at stores, etc directly fund DHHS "programs" who claim to be healthy to family development. And since NH DHHS clearly acts in contrary of their mission statement and are devastatingly toxic to the families that they claim to "serve," then NH DHHS needs to be held legally, financially, morally and socially accountable for such. I nearly fell off the couch laughing upon reading how NH DHHS describes itself as "helpful" to children and families and as promoting healthly growth and development and claim to improve society..... After all of the pain and suffering and irrepairable damage they've caused my family and several others, I was able to at least find a speck of laughter about NH DHHS upon reading their self perspective, which is SO COMPLETELY OFF-KILTER that it's down right funny! (see below) ---

Parentassist@yahoo.com

"Success Stories"
"Childcare Provider Billing System (CPBS), New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)"
"The mission of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is to join communities and families in providing for citizens to achieve health and independence. The mission of the Child Development Bureau (CDB) is to reach the lives of children and their families by enhancing the quality, affordability, and accessibility of developmentally appropriate early care and education services, by promoting community based programs, which encourage healthy growth and development, and by coordinating childcare business operations, education and communication to support responsive customer service for childcare providers, parents, and department staff."
"WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW"
"The NH DHHS is an agency that helps people in partnership with families, community groups, private providers, other governmental agencies and many thousands of foster parents, neighbors, and citizens. The majorities of the people who use their programs and services have multiple needs and require services from more than one program. Its main purpose is to improve society by keeping NH healthy & helping those in need realize their full potential."

Fed court rules lawyers acting as prosecutors in abuse cases have full immunity but not caseworkers

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

Just curious if anyone could answer this for me:

wrote:


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