COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM: PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
Download entire article: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM:
PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
© 2006 by Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 1
Seattle, Washington
A. Introduction
This article describes the practical realities of child custody recommendations by court-appointed parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem. It argues that given these realities, the role of such persons should be abolished from child custody practice. Only with this course will the problems with their use be eliminated. Children will be better protected by the courts.
B. The Evaluation Process
Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem
investigate custody arrangements and report back to
the court with their recommendations.2 In some
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Third Party Custody and Visitation: Illinois Comes to Terms with Troxel v. Granville
by David M. Cotter . . . .. Page 61
states, the guardian ad litem does not make a
"recommendation," but instead provides his position via a brief.3
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are also known as custody investigators, forensic experts and law guardians.4 Evaluators are usually psychologists or social workers; guardians ad litem are often lawyers. Sometimes guardians ad litem are lay persons, for example, with the CASA program.5 Many, if not most of these persons are hardworking and conscientious.
1. Appointment
It is not uncommon for an evaluator/guardian ad
litem to be appointed via nomination or suggestion.6
With this situation, attorneys can and do advocate
for the appointment of evaluators/guardians ad litem
whose views are compatible to their cases. For
example, if a father claims that the mother is
alienating him from the child, the father's attorney
might suggest evaluators known to find alienation
determinative.
©COPYRIGHT 2006 BY THE NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., A RESEARCH GROUP COMPANY
DIVORCE LITIGATION
with the parents and the children.
In some courts, it is permissible for attorneys to
contact evaluators/guardians ad litem prior to appointment. Such contact can be ostensibly to verify availability. Its real purpose may be to "test the waters" regarding one's case. If the reaction is favorable, the attorney will move forward to
advocate appointment. If the reaction is
unfavorable, the attorney may look elsewhere.
Certain attorneys also tend to work with certain
evaluators/guardians ad litem. In other words, they
develop business relationships. With these
circumstances, the person appointed can be pre-
aligned to one side.
2. Investigation
Once appointment is made, the lobbying campaign continues. Each side provides the evaluator/guardian ad litem with information including multiple level hearsay.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem also typically meet
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may contact third
parties. They may also conduct or commission psychological (profile) testing for the parents or the children.7
3. Report
The results of the investigation, any
psychological testing and recommendations of the
evaluator/guardian ad litem are typically
summarized in a report filed with the court.8 In
these reports, the evaluator/guardian ad litem may
or may not rely on applicable law. This
phenomenon has been documented in at least one
reported decision. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d
239, 242 at fn. 2 (Vt. 1995) (describing survey
results).9
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may also rely on their own personal, social or cultural values. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. states:
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Editor in Chief . Brett R. Turner, Esq.
Executive Editor . . . . Laura W. Morgan, Esq.
Assistant Editor .. David M. Cotter, Esq.
Circulation . Anne de Angelis
DIVORCE LITIGATION (ISSN 1050-141X) is published
monthly by National Legal Research Group, Inc., a Research
Group Company, 2421 Ivy Road, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906; (800) 727-6574. Send address
changes to DIVORCE LITIGATION, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. Our e-mail address is
DivLit@nlrg.com; our website is http://www.nlrg.com.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative
information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent
person should be sought. From a Declaration of Principles jointly
adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a
Committee of Publishers.
Editorial Board
Paul J. Buser, Esq. ... Scottsdale, AZ
Albert L. Cohn, Esq. . . . Saddle Brook, NJ
Robert T. Hinds Jr., Esq. .. Littleton, CO
Albert M. Bonin, Esq. .. Denver, CO
Dr. Cheryl Karp . . . . Tucson, AZ
Leonard Karp, Esq. . . ... Tucson, AZ
Richard Orsinger, Esq. . . .. San Antonio, TX
James J. Podell, Esq. ... Milwaukee, WI
Peggy L. Podell, Esq. . . . Milwaukee, WI
Bernard Rinella, Esq. . . . Chicago, IL
Robert G. Spector, Esq. ... Norman, OK
Carolyn S. Thompson, Esq. . . ..Oklahoma City, OK
John A. Turcotte Jr., Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
Michael C. Walther, Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
54
DIVORCE LITIGATION
When an evaluator recommends [a child's
placement] we are learning not about the
relative capacities of the parties but, instead,
about the relative values of the evaluators.10
4. Trial
By the time of trial, the evaluator/guardian ad
litem is in the position of defending his report and
recommendations. In states where the guardian ad
litem files a brief, he is in the position of defending
the brief.
Factors encouraging this phenomenon include the need of the evaluator/guardian ad litem to maintain his reputation, to thereby gain more appointments.11 He may also be concerned that the judge will reduce his fees if his recommendation or brief does not prevail.12
At this point, the evaluator/guardian ad litem's recommendations can become more strongly stated, i.e., more "black and white". The recommended parent may thus be portrayed as more clearly "good" and the other as more clearly "bad." But the reality may be in the middle, i.e., that like all of us, neither parent is perfect.
At trial, the evaluator/guardian ad litem typically testifies about his report and recommendations. This testimony typically includes hearsay previously provided by the parties.13 Repeated yet again, its substance can become grossly distorted—like a story repeated multiple times as part of a children's "telephone game."14
Evaluator/guardian ad litem testimony can also
include opinions on credibility.15 The author has
seen as a basis for such opinions, a parent's
psychological profile, for example, that a parent has
an "elevated lie scale." The author has observed
such testimony to be extremely prejudicial.16
The above situation is quite different from the
admission of an investigator's testimony in other
contexts. For example, an investigator in a criminal
trial would not be allowed to testify as to his or her
recommendations regarding conviction, as to
hearsay, or as to his or her opinion on witness
credibility.17
C. Judicial Reliance on Evaluators/Guardians
Ad litem
Most judges perceive evaluators/guardians ad litem as neutral investigators or advisors.18 Evaluator-psychologists can be held in especially high esteem.
With this status, the reports and
recommendations of an evaluator/guardian ad litem
can become the factual and legal standard for trial.
The burden of the non-recommended party is thus
to disprove a factual and legal standard. The burden
of the recommended party is merely to provide
corroboration for the standard. In Gilbert, 664 A.2d
at 242, the Supreme Court of Vermont found such
burden-shifting so unfair as to require reversal.
A related problem is the legitimization of
improper evidence through the evaluator/guardian
ad litem. In one record reviewed by this author, the
evaluator testified that the mother's family was
"manipulative" and dishonest. On cross-
examination, the evaluator conceded that as a basis
for her opinion, she was relying on unsigned written
statements provided by the father. Had the father
sought to admit these statements through himself,
they would have been viewed as hearsay, lacking
authenticity and self-serving. But admitted as they
were through the evaluator, their thrust
(manipulative/dishonest) was instead perceived as
fact. Such "fact" was then incorporated into the
court's decision; the child was removed from the
mother's primary care.
55
DIVORCE LITIGATION
With the perceived neutrality of
evaluators/guardians ad litem, their positions are often determinative.19 But as described above, evaluators/guardians ad litem are not neutral. Once they make their recommendations, they are in the position of defending them; they have conflicts of interest including concerns about their future appointments and fees.
D. Reforms
The poor quality of custody evaluations has been reported in the literature.20 Proposed reforms have ranged from making changes designed to improve their quality, to their complete elimination.21
Perhaps the most common approach has been to establish evaluation standards. In Washington State, for example, there are now court rules that require guardians ad litem to maintain documentation that substantiates their
recommendations.22 Minimum standards have also been imposed through case law. See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, 555 S.E.2d 386, 390 (S.C. 2001).23
Another approach has been to redefine the role of
the guardian ad litem as a lawyer for the child.
With this approach, the guardian ad litem does not
make a recommendation, but instead provides his
position via a brief. As noted above, this approach
is already used in some states. It is also promoted
by the ABA's "Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases," which
call for the appointment of a "Best Interests
Attorney."24 The Best Interests Attorney does not
act as a witness or make reports and
recommendations.25 He files briefs and makes
arguments.26
In Wisconsin, guardians ad litem have this role.27
Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth
report that these persons nonetheless function like
traditional guardians ad litem, i.e., they in effect
56
give reports and recommendations.28 A similar
phenomenon has been noted in New York. There is
a "recurring problem" that courts expect the
attorney for the child to give a recommendation.29
The concept of the Best Interests Attorney is, regardless, flawed. He represents the child's best interests, which is the ultimate issue before the court. There is the potential for the court to be usurped, or to at least not consider the evidence as carefully because he has already made the best interests determination.30
The conflicts of interest described above also continue to exist. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney has concerns about his future appointments and fees. Once he submits his brief, he is in the position of defending it. There are also problems with the evidence. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney relies on hearsay.31
E. Evaluators/Guardians ad Litem Should
be Eliminated from Child Custody
Proceedings
Another way to look at the use of
evaluators/guardians ad litem is that they act as a filter or prism between the court and the evidence.32 They are like "spin doctors." They tell the court what it sees, which can make a difference as to the court's perception.33 The court's normal decision-
making function is distorted so that children are harmed. Attorney Richard Ducote states:
[I]n domestic violence and abuse cases,
where courts are even more eager to
appoint GALS, children are frequently
ending up in the custody of the abusers
and separated from their protecting
parents. This tragedy does not happen
in spite of the GALS, but rather because
of the GALS.34
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
makes a similar point regarding the CASA program:
[W]e conclude that the only real
accomplishment of CASA is to
encourage the needless removal of
children from their homes.35
The distortion of the court's decision-making
ability cannot be rectified by reforms that leave the
filter of the evaluator/guardian ad litem in place.
The only reform that will eliminate the problem of
the filter is the elimination of the filter itself.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem must be eliminated
from child custody practice.
F. Conclusion
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are often hard working and conscientious. There are, however, fundamental problems with their role. They cause the court's normal decision-making function to be distorted. Wrong decisions are made.
Court-appointed evaluator and guardians ad litem must be eliminated from child custody practice—for the sake of the children.
Endnotes
1. Margaret Dore is an attorney in private practice
in Seattle, Washington. Her published decisions
include: In re Guardianship of Stamm, 91 P.3d 126,
133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing due to the
improper admission of guardian ad litem
testimony), and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 20 P.3d
972, 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (use of the
"friendly parent" concept in a child custody case
"would be an abuse of discretion"). Lawrence was
nationally recognized. See, e.g., Wendy N. Davis,
Family Values in Flux, 87 ABA Journal 26
(October 2001). Ms. Dore is a former law clerk to
the Washington State Supreme Court and the
Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked
for the United States Department of Justice. She is
Vice Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA
Family Law Section. She was nominated for the
2005 Butch Blum/Law & Politics "Award of
Excellence." She is a graduate of the University of
Washington School of Law. She has an M.B.A. in
Finance and a B.A. in Accounting. She passed the
C.P.A. examination in 1982. Further information
about Ms. Dore and her practice can be viewed at
www.margaretdore.com.
This article is based on: Margaret K. Dore,
Parenting Evaluators and GALs: Practical Realities, King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, December 1999.
2. See, e.g., Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 ("In both
guardianship and custody cases, the role of the GAL is the same: to investigate and supply information and recommendations to the court . . .").
3. See Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R.
Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child
Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial
System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 255, 271, and 277, fn. 106 (1998)
(describing the guardian ad litem's role in
Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot testify
themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
57
DIVORCE LITIGATION
4. See, e.g., Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at
255, fn. 2.
5. The Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) was founded by a Seattle judge. See www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm. There are more than 900 CASA programs in operation
throughout the country, which are also known as Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Programs. Id.
6. See, for example, Wash. Rev. Code 26.12.177(2)(a) (2005) ("The parties may make a joint recommendation for the appointment of a "guardian ad litem . . .").
7. Cf. Margaret A. Hagen, PhD, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Regan Books, Chapter 8 (1997); and Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 857 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (fourteen psychological tests performed on parents, seven psychological tests performed on children).
8. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 278, ¶ 3.
9. A similar issue is reported in the Comments to the Washington State Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules, as follows:
Apparently GALs are not following statutory requirements, nor are the courts consistent in enforcing them.
GALR 2, Washington State Bar Association Comment, § (p).
10. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., "The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making", The Elder L. Rep., Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.
11. Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case of Abolition," 3 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 106, 146 (2002):
58
One of the particularly stealthy problems of
GALs is the conflict of interest issue. This
most commonly occurs when a GAL fights to
keep a child in the custody of a parent
previously endorsed and exonerated by the
GAL, despite mounting proof that the parent
is indeed abusive and the GAL erred. . . . In
such instances, GALs have forcefully opposed
the introduction of new abuse evidence and
instead have increased the blame on the non-
abusive parent. . . [T]he GAL hopes to avoid
any judicial finding that suggests his or her incompetence and jeopardizes future lucrative GAL appointments.
12. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy
Hollingsworth make a similar point. Lidman and
Hollingsworth, supra at 302, ¶ 2. See also,
Margaret A. Hagen, supra at 207-08.
13. Cf. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
14. Cf. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d 239, 243 (Vt. 1995) (describing the guardian ad litem's facts as "double or triple hearsay when reported").
15. Id.
16. Cf. Marriage of Luckey, 868 P.2d 189, 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) ("the use of profile
testimony is unfairly prejudicial"). See also, State
v. Carlson, 906 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Wash. Ct. App.
1995):
[No] witness may give an opinion on another witness' credibility. . . . An expert opinion [on
credibility] will not "assist the trier of fact" .
. . because there is no scientific basis for such
an opinion, save the polygraph, and the
polygraph is not generally accepted as a scientifically reliable technique. (footnotes
omitted).
17. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
DIVORCE LITIGATION
18. Cf. Stamm, 91 P.3d at 129, quoting Fernando
v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (the guardian ad litem acts as a "neutral advisor to the court").
19. See Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 297, 2d ¶ ("[m]ore often, . . . [t]he judge merely confirms the guardian ad litem's decision").
20. See, e.g., Dana Royce Baerger, et al. A
Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and
Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. Am.
Acad. Matrim. Law., 35, p. 36 ("Concern regarding
the generally poor qualify of [child custody
evaluations] has prompted some commentators to
suggest an end to the use of [evaluations] in divorce
proceedings"); Timothy M. Tippins, Custody
Evaluations-Part I: Expertise by Default?, N.Y. L.
J., 7/15/03, p. 3, col. 1, Conclusion ("If the custody
recommendation is little more than a personal value,
judgment, intuition, or an educated guess, rather
than a conclusion compelled by reliable and valid
scientific research, it should not be received"); and
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 301 ("Soon
thereafter . . . [the parents] learn that this guardian
ad litem is a mere mortal getting information from
here and there, frequently not verifying anything .
. .").
21. See, e.g., Matrimonial Commission Report to
the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon.
Sondra Miller, Chairperson, February 2006,
(www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/matrimonialcom missionreport.pdf), p 46 ("Proposed reforms from many different sources have ranged from eliminating the use of forensics altogether to instituting changes that will insure the quality and proper use of the reports . . ."); and Ducote, supra at 115 ("Guardians ad litem must be abolished in private custody cases . . .").
22. The Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules
(GALR) were adopted by the Washington State
Supreme Court in 2001. See GALR § 2(p) and
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_
rules.list&group=sup&set=GALR.
23. See also, Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 (limiting the admissibility of guardian ad litem testimony to that which is helpful under ER 702); and Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 531, 311-12 (Neb. 2004) (reversing because the guardian ad litem had been allowed to testify as an expert).
24. The Best Interests Attorney" is defined as a
"lawyer who provides independent legal services
for the purpose of protecting a child's best interests,
without being bound by the child's directives or
objectives." American Bar Association Section of
Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases, p. 2, §
II.B. (Approved by the American Bar Association
House of Delegates, August 2003)
(http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/aba.standards.pdf#s
earch='ABA%20Standards%20of%20Practice%2
0for%20Lawyers%20Representing%20Children').
25. Id., p. 3, § III.B.
26. Id., p. 6, § III.G.
27. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271, and
277, fn. 106 (describing the guardian ad litem's role
in Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can
make arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
28. Lidman and Hollingsworth state:
The Wisconsin courts' opinions have an
exasperated tone as they repeatedly reiterate
that these guardians ad litem must perform
lawyer-like functions: they can examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual
material in reports. Trial courts, parents'
59
DIVORCE LITIGATION
attorneys, and guardian ad litem-lawyers have
been chastised for "lapses" such as:
permitting the guardian ad litem to file a
"report" twenty days after the close of trial; or
allowing the guardian ad litem to file a
preliminary report and make an oral report to
the court after closing arguments. But
Wisconsin appellate courts do not reverse for
these lapses. Instead the reviewing courts characterize preliminary reports as briefs and
oral reports as arguments. (Footnotes
omitted).
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271.
29. Matrimonial Commission Report, supra at 43.
30. Cf. C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745, 749 (Pa.
2001) (the trial court's reliance on the guardian ad
litem constituted "egregious examples of the trial
court delegating its judicial power to a non-judicial
officer"); and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772,
777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("The overarching
problem in this case is that the trial court effectively
60
delegated its judicial authority to the parenting
coordinator").
31. See e.g., ABA Standards of Practice, supra at § V.E.
32. Cf. Small Justice: Little Justice in America's
Family Courts, Education Supplement, p. 6,
Intermedia Inc., Seattle WA 2001 (describing
evaluators and guardians ad litem as a filter). See also http://www.intermedia-inc.com/title.asp?sku= SM03&subcatID=29.
33. Id.
34. Ducote, supra at 135-36 (footnote omitted).
35. National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, press release, p. 1
(http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/news_cases/ documents/NATIONAL_COALITION_response. pdf#search='Caliber%20%26%20Wexler%20%26 %20CASA%20%26%202122006'); see also
http://www.nccpr.org/.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, January 11, 2010
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag (The Supreme Court Dislikes Second Guessing the Decisions of the Lower Court's)
Portsmouth
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag
No automatic appeal in fight
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2010 - 12:00 am
Janet Todd and James Miller met online in 1999 and by 2003 had two girls and the start of what would be among the most "tortured" custody fights in the Portsmouth family court.
For five years, they have exchanged allegations of sexual abuse and mental delusions, according to court records. This fall, after finding the two incapable of co-parenting, a marital master awarded Todd, of Hampton, primary custody and Miller "liberal" visitation.
Surprising no one, Miller, who lives in New York and wants the girls, ages 6 and 7, there, appealed to the state Supreme Court.
And there, Miller was surprised.
Because Miller, 51, and Todd, 43, never married, neither has the automatic right to an appeal. Miller is entitled only to a "discretionary appeal," meaning that he and his lawyer, Joshua Gordon of Concord, must persuade the court to hear their case.
The court declined to do that late last month.
Now, Gordon is asking the court to reconsider, partly on the grounds of discrimination.
"Treating the relationship between children and unmarried parents differently than the relationship between children of married parents is unlawful and unconstitutional," Gordon wrote the court.
Gordon cited a 2007 federal report that showed Miller and his girls are not alone: More than 31 percent of New Hampshire children were born to unmarried parents, the report said.
Todd's two lawyers, Elizabeth Olcott of Concord and John Carr of Boston, have until Thursday to object. Carr said they will.
"This has nothing to do with discrimination," Carr said. "It has to do with the attorney for the father looking for a second bite of the apple."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court greatly expanded the opportunity for appellate review in January 2004, when it announced it would take all direct appeals from the state courts.
For the 25 years prior, the justices had been screening each case and deciding whether it merited the high court's review. In 2002, for example, the court received 813 appeals but agreed to hear only 316, or 39 percent, of them, according to the court's media office.
Two years ago, the state Supreme Court amended the appeal process again, this time by reducing the number of domestic cases it would promise to consider. The court cited limited resources and a burgeoning family law caseload - too many cases involved ongoing disputes in divorces that justices had already decided.
Doreen Connor, a lawyer with Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester who's studied this issue, said the justices also disliked second-guessing lower courts on fact-based decisions such as visitation schedules and child support payments.
Under the new rule, the court will guarantee an appeal only on matters decided in the original divorce decree or legal separation. The court no longer will automatically hear repeat issues from a single divorce.
Now, it's the court's discretion whether to hear family issues that come up after the divorce or outside a divorce.
That includes the request of a divorced father who loses his job and can't get his child support adjusted. And the appeal from divorced parents who seek an amendment to their visitation schedule.
And unmarried parents like Miller, dissatisfied with the court's custody decision.
As hoped, the new rule greatly reduced the number of family law appeals taken up by the court.
Connor found that in 2007, the year before the rule took effect, 47 percent of the court's 103 family court appeals would have fallen into the discretionary category. In 2008, the new rule's first year, the court received 112 family law appeals, 54 of which were discretionary.
Of those 54 discretionary appeals, Connor reported, the court declined to take 27.
Connor agrees with Gordon's interpretation of the Miller situation. Had Miller and Todd been married, Miller's appeal of the custody plan would have been guaranteed consideration by the justices.
The court ultimately may not have made Miller any happier with its decision, she said, but he would have been heard.
"I think it's too restrictive," she said of the new rule. "If you are in a multiple-car accident, every time you have a trial you have the right of automatic appeal. Family law involves rights that are dearer and nearer the heart than what you were compensated for the car accident."
Gordon doesn't disagree wholly with the notion of discretionary appeals for some family law matters.
"These cases can go on forever," he said. "Every time one (of the parents) loses, they appeal. And there are parties that file appeals every year. It's understandable that the Supreme Court does not want to take it up again and again."
Gordon would like the court to give exception to parties like Miller, who had not appealed his case previously. That would allow the court discretion while giving unmarried parents the same appeal rights married parents have.
Miller, reached in New York last week, called the court's policy "outrageous."
In family court, he said, "it's all about what's right for the children," he said. "But the Supreme Court has made it all about the marital status. It's just not right."
Should Gordon persuade the court to take up Miller's appeal, he will argue that the girls' mother abused Miller by repeatedly accusing him of sexually assaulting at least one of the girls. The police in three states and state officials have cleared Miller of these allegations, according to court papers.
Gordon believes the allegations at times alienated Millers' children against him and that the lower court unfairly considered the allegations and alienation when deciding custody.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/FRONTPAGE/1100390
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag
No automatic appeal in fight
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2010 - 12:00 am
Janet Todd and James Miller met online in 1999 and by 2003 had two girls and the start of what would be among the most "tortured" custody fights in the Portsmouth family court.
For five years, they have exchanged allegations of sexual abuse and mental delusions, according to court records. This fall, after finding the two incapable of co-parenting, a marital master awarded Todd, of Hampton, primary custody and Miller "liberal" visitation.
Surprising no one, Miller, who lives in New York and wants the girls, ages 6 and 7, there, appealed to the state Supreme Court.
And there, Miller was surprised.
Because Miller, 51, and Todd, 43, never married, neither has the automatic right to an appeal. Miller is entitled only to a "discretionary appeal," meaning that he and his lawyer, Joshua Gordon of Concord, must persuade the court to hear their case.
The court declined to do that late last month.
Now, Gordon is asking the court to reconsider, partly on the grounds of discrimination.
"Treating the relationship between children and unmarried parents differently than the relationship between children of married parents is unlawful and unconstitutional," Gordon wrote the court.
Gordon cited a 2007 federal report that showed Miller and his girls are not alone: More than 31 percent of New Hampshire children were born to unmarried parents, the report said.
Todd's two lawyers, Elizabeth Olcott of Concord and John Carr of Boston, have until Thursday to object. Carr said they will.
"This has nothing to do with discrimination," Carr said. "It has to do with the attorney for the father looking for a second bite of the apple."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court greatly expanded the opportunity for appellate review in January 2004, when it announced it would take all direct appeals from the state courts.
For the 25 years prior, the justices had been screening each case and deciding whether it merited the high court's review. In 2002, for example, the court received 813 appeals but agreed to hear only 316, or 39 percent, of them, according to the court's media office.
Two years ago, the state Supreme Court amended the appeal process again, this time by reducing the number of domestic cases it would promise to consider. The court cited limited resources and a burgeoning family law caseload - too many cases involved ongoing disputes in divorces that justices had already decided.
Doreen Connor, a lawyer with Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester who's studied this issue, said the justices also disliked second-guessing lower courts on fact-based decisions such as visitation schedules and child support payments.
Under the new rule, the court will guarantee an appeal only on matters decided in the original divorce decree or legal separation. The court no longer will automatically hear repeat issues from a single divorce.
Now, it's the court's discretion whether to hear family issues that come up after the divorce or outside a divorce.
That includes the request of a divorced father who loses his job and can't get his child support adjusted. And the appeal from divorced parents who seek an amendment to their visitation schedule.
And unmarried parents like Miller, dissatisfied with the court's custody decision.
As hoped, the new rule greatly reduced the number of family law appeals taken up by the court.
Connor found that in 2007, the year before the rule took effect, 47 percent of the court's 103 family court appeals would have fallen into the discretionary category. In 2008, the new rule's first year, the court received 112 family law appeals, 54 of which were discretionary.
Of those 54 discretionary appeals, Connor reported, the court declined to take 27.
Connor agrees with Gordon's interpretation of the Miller situation. Had Miller and Todd been married, Miller's appeal of the custody plan would have been guaranteed consideration by the justices.
The court ultimately may not have made Miller any happier with its decision, she said, but he would have been heard.
"I think it's too restrictive," she said of the new rule. "If you are in a multiple-car accident, every time you have a trial you have the right of automatic appeal. Family law involves rights that are dearer and nearer the heart than what you were compensated for the car accident."
Gordon doesn't disagree wholly with the notion of discretionary appeals for some family law matters.
"These cases can go on forever," he said. "Every time one (of the parents) loses, they appeal. And there are parties that file appeals every year. It's understandable that the Supreme Court does not want to take it up again and again."
Gordon would like the court to give exception to parties like Miller, who had not appealed his case previously. That would allow the court discretion while giving unmarried parents the same appeal rights married parents have.
Miller, reached in New York last week, called the court's policy "outrageous."
In family court, he said, "it's all about what's right for the children," he said. "But the Supreme Court has made it all about the marital status. It's just not right."
Should Gordon persuade the court to take up Miller's appeal, he will argue that the girls' mother abused Miller by repeatedly accusing him of sexually assaulting at least one of the girls. The police in three states and state officials have cleared Miller of these allegations, according to court papers.
Gordon believes the allegations at times alienated Millers' children against him and that the lower court unfairly considered the allegations and alienation when deciding custody.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/FRONTPAGE/1100390
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our ChildrenA Site To Teach Parents how to Protect themselves and their Children from being abused by Child Protection Services
Home About This SiteTitle IV Funding Senate Set To Renew 1997 Law That Pays CPS to Kidnap Children Summary of Adoption and Safe Families Act Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw Our Nation consistently Maintained that parents posses a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit- not the state Drugging Foster Children Profane Justice by Suzanne Shell Letter to a Judge by Hope Crabtree Important Information by a Lawyer Your Constitutional Rights Under Miranda This is What Happens When States Take Your Children How to Protect Yourself From CPS Author Brenda Alexander who lost her children to CPS Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Human Services CPS Victories for Parent’s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings This is the Going Rate for the Buying of Our Children in Georgia How Safe is the System? It Isn’t Fourth Amendment Rights A Report Which was Written by An Intern – Be Sure and Read the Part Highlighted in Bold On Psychiarty and Child Protective Services in the United States By Dr. Fred Baughman The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken By the State Are Adopted Out Author Yvonne Mason Home > Abuse by CPS >
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
The New York Times published an article today, Bleak Stories Follow a Lawsuit on Oklahoma Foster Care, in which it was reported that Oklahoma boasts one of the worst records for children enduring abuse within foster and group homes. The Federal data also shows that Oklahoma children experience frequent moves, extended stays in shelters and lack getting much needed therapy. The state is also needing more social workers, foster homes, and various therapies to offer the children in its care.
A new lawsuit, filed in February by advocacy group, Children’s Rights, as well as local lawyers, details not only the above stated issues within the Oklahoma foster care system, but also the psychological damage that the children suffer after placement in the system. The hope is that this lawsuit will force change, as this course of action has helped other states overhaul broken systems.
Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services is fighting the suit. Their defense? A good record for monthly checks, which are performed by social workers, on the foster families. Allegedly, they are so diligent with the monthly checks, more issues are found. Therefore, their record appears to be worse than other states where they are not as diligent in making their monthly rounds. Foster parents and children in Oklahoma are not buying this story as they report that the workers are not showing up for the checks, but falsifying documents stating that the visits occurred.
For now, the hope is that the lawsuit will proceed and the court will force Oklahoma to step up and take care of the children in foster care.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/oklahoma-has-worst-record-for-child-abuse-within-foster-or-group-homes/
Home About This SiteTitle IV Funding Senate Set To Renew 1997 Law That Pays CPS to Kidnap Children Summary of Adoption and Safe Families Act Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw Our Nation consistently Maintained that parents posses a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit- not the state Drugging Foster Children Profane Justice by Suzanne Shell Letter to a Judge by Hope Crabtree Important Information by a Lawyer Your Constitutional Rights Under Miranda This is What Happens When States Take Your Children How to Protect Yourself From CPS Author Brenda Alexander who lost her children to CPS Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Human Services CPS Victories for Parent’s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings This is the Going Rate for the Buying of Our Children in Georgia How Safe is the System? It Isn’t Fourth Amendment Rights A Report Which was Written by An Intern – Be Sure and Read the Part Highlighted in Bold On Psychiarty and Child Protective Services in the United States By Dr. Fred Baughman The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken By the State Are Adopted Out Author Yvonne Mason Home > Abuse by CPS >
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
The New York Times published an article today, Bleak Stories Follow a Lawsuit on Oklahoma Foster Care, in which it was reported that Oklahoma boasts one of the worst records for children enduring abuse within foster and group homes. The Federal data also shows that Oklahoma children experience frequent moves, extended stays in shelters and lack getting much needed therapy. The state is also needing more social workers, foster homes, and various therapies to offer the children in its care.
A new lawsuit, filed in February by advocacy group, Children’s Rights, as well as local lawyers, details not only the above stated issues within the Oklahoma foster care system, but also the psychological damage that the children suffer after placement in the system. The hope is that this lawsuit will force change, as this course of action has helped other states overhaul broken systems.
Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services is fighting the suit. Their defense? A good record for monthly checks, which are performed by social workers, on the foster families. Allegedly, they are so diligent with the monthly checks, more issues are found. Therefore, their record appears to be worse than other states where they are not as diligent in making their monthly rounds. Foster parents and children in Oklahoma are not buying this story as they report that the workers are not showing up for the checks, but falsifying documents stating that the visits occurred.
For now, the hope is that the lawsuit will proceed and the court will force Oklahoma to step up and take care of the children in foster care.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/oklahoma-has-worst-record-for-child-abuse-within-foster-or-group-homes/
'Government child abuse' accusations
'Government child abuse' accusations (Daily Telegraph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most widespread child abuse in Britain is perpetrated by the Government
The drive to abolish childhood continues apace. The government is ordering “sex education” to be imposed on primary school children from as young as five. The premature sexualisation of children and the encouragement of prurient interest in sexual matters at a tender age has already provoked increasing numbers of underage pregnancies (which the hypocrites enforcing this degenerate agenda claim it is designed to reduce), but still the fanatics persist in destroying what little remains of childhood innocence in this decadent age.
While anti-paedophile hysteria prevents a mother from pushing her own child on a swing in a playground without undergoing criminal record checks, the most widespread child abuse in this country is being perpetrated by the government. No thought is given to the psychologically disturbing effect on young children of their perception of their parents as a result of unnecessary information about reproduction being imposed on them.
Why are seven-year-olds to be taught about reproduction? To avoid underage pregnancies, is the stock reply from the nomenklatura. Really? How many seven-year-olds fell pregnant last year? The soaring underage pregnancy rates tell their own story about the counterproductive effects of this deluded doctrine. To enforce it further, the government is reducing parental rights to withdraw children from sex education classes. Will Dave Cameron, defender of the family and supposed zealot for devolving power to parents, reverse that? Wait and see – but don’t hold your breath.
A further aggression against conscience is the imposition on faith schools of a duty to teach this rebarbative curriculum. The cosmetic concession is that they may do so within the “tenets of their faith”; but they must impart the factual information on contraception, homosexuality, etc. So, are Catholic schools supposed to say to pupils: “Contraception is a mortal sin. Now, here are the methods and how to employ them…” or “The Church condemns sodomy as one of the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, but in case you are interested, here’s the deal…”?
If that seems insane, it is in fact simply a cynical method of enforcing anti-Christian values on faith schools. It will be interesting, however, to see how the government sets about the enforcement of such teaching in the more robust environment of Muslim schools. Suddenly, it’s fatwah time for New Labour…
This New Labour government has been the most virulently anti-family, anti-Judaeo-Christian ethic administration in British history. It has unravelled the whole fabric of society with its anti-family crusade. In this it betrays its Frankfurt School of Marxism agenda, which it shares with the EU. Compulsory sex education was always a major plank in the Frankfurt School’s programme.
When Georg Lukács became Commissar of Public Education in the short-lived Communist dictatorship of Béla Kun in Hungary in 1919, he enforced on schools a curriculum of pornographic sex education, encouraging promiscuity and trashing Christian values. The aim was to divorce children from their parents and traditional morality, to break down the hated institution of the family as part of his agenda of “cultural terrorism”. The legacy was a generation of sociopaths in Hungary. Four years later he helped found the Frankfurt School, the most influential cultural and sociological trend in the degenerate West today. We are living under its malevolent influence.
Gerald Warner, Daily Telegraph, Nov 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interested in your views on Warner's article - btw, the title of the original article is exactly as I've written it in bold.
http://www.ub40.co.uk/forum/general-anarchy/596119-government-child-abuse-accusations-daily-telegraph.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most widespread child abuse in Britain is perpetrated by the Government
The drive to abolish childhood continues apace. The government is ordering “sex education” to be imposed on primary school children from as young as five. The premature sexualisation of children and the encouragement of prurient interest in sexual matters at a tender age has already provoked increasing numbers of underage pregnancies (which the hypocrites enforcing this degenerate agenda claim it is designed to reduce), but still the fanatics persist in destroying what little remains of childhood innocence in this decadent age.
While anti-paedophile hysteria prevents a mother from pushing her own child on a swing in a playground without undergoing criminal record checks, the most widespread child abuse in this country is being perpetrated by the government. No thought is given to the psychologically disturbing effect on young children of their perception of their parents as a result of unnecessary information about reproduction being imposed on them.
Why are seven-year-olds to be taught about reproduction? To avoid underage pregnancies, is the stock reply from the nomenklatura. Really? How many seven-year-olds fell pregnant last year? The soaring underage pregnancy rates tell their own story about the counterproductive effects of this deluded doctrine. To enforce it further, the government is reducing parental rights to withdraw children from sex education classes. Will Dave Cameron, defender of the family and supposed zealot for devolving power to parents, reverse that? Wait and see – but don’t hold your breath.
A further aggression against conscience is the imposition on faith schools of a duty to teach this rebarbative curriculum. The cosmetic concession is that they may do so within the “tenets of their faith”; but they must impart the factual information on contraception, homosexuality, etc. So, are Catholic schools supposed to say to pupils: “Contraception is a mortal sin. Now, here are the methods and how to employ them…” or “The Church condemns sodomy as one of the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, but in case you are interested, here’s the deal…”?
If that seems insane, it is in fact simply a cynical method of enforcing anti-Christian values on faith schools. It will be interesting, however, to see how the government sets about the enforcement of such teaching in the more robust environment of Muslim schools. Suddenly, it’s fatwah time for New Labour…
This New Labour government has been the most virulently anti-family, anti-Judaeo-Christian ethic administration in British history. It has unravelled the whole fabric of society with its anti-family crusade. In this it betrays its Frankfurt School of Marxism agenda, which it shares with the EU. Compulsory sex education was always a major plank in the Frankfurt School’s programme.
When Georg Lukács became Commissar of Public Education in the short-lived Communist dictatorship of Béla Kun in Hungary in 1919, he enforced on schools a curriculum of pornographic sex education, encouraging promiscuity and trashing Christian values. The aim was to divorce children from their parents and traditional morality, to break down the hated institution of the family as part of his agenda of “cultural terrorism”. The legacy was a generation of sociopaths in Hungary. Four years later he helped found the Frankfurt School, the most influential cultural and sociological trend in the degenerate West today. We are living under its malevolent influence.
Gerald Warner, Daily Telegraph, Nov 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interested in your views on Warner's article - btw, the title of the original article is exactly as I've written it in bold.
http://www.ub40.co.uk/forum/general-anarchy/596119-government-child-abuse-accusations-daily-telegraph.html
Child's suicide raises medication questions
January 10, 2010
Child's suicide raises medication questions
By DEBORAH CIRCELLI
Staff writer
DAYTONA BEACH -- Little bodies sink into adult-sized conference chairs.
With crayons between their fingers, they color on a sheet of paper after writing promises to their parents -- "to control my anger," "to make good grades" and "to go to the good side" when deciding what path to take in life.
In a room at Halifax Health Behavioral Services on Jimmy Ann Drive, 10- and 11-year-olds are dealing with adult issues -- depression and mood swings.
For Walter Grimes, 11, his quiet demeanor is a sharp contrast from court documents describing a child in a school summer program who bit a teacher on both of her arms and punched and kicked her in the face. Walter, who was 10 at the time, was taken to Halifax Health Behavioral Services under the state's Baker Act as a threat to himself and others and charged with battery on a school official, records show.
Therapy and psychotropic medication -- medicine used for psychiatric reasons such as mood stabilizers, stimulants and drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder -- are helping him stay calm and concentrate, his therapist and great aunt said.
The question of how much is too much and how young is too young when it comes to prescribing psychotropic medications -- some that are not approved for children by the Food and Drug Administration -- is a statewide and national debate.
In Florida, 81,961 children covered by Medicaid were on psychotropic medications from January to June 2009, compared to 76,358 from January to June 2008, according to the state Agency for Healthcare Administration. Numbers for private health insurance companies are not public.
Local agencies are seeing a rise in the number of children with psychiatric problems, from severe anxiety to depression. They're also seeing more young children who are 5 or 6 years old. The concern is especially high in foster care, where a higher percentage of children are given psychotropic drugs than in the general population.
The April 2009 death of a South Florida 7-year-old foster child, Gabriel Myers -- who was prescribed several mind-altering drugs and hanged himself in his foster home -- sparked a statewide review and recommendations in November that will result in new rules and legislation in the coming months for children under foster care.
"We must do better for our children," said Alan Abramowitz, former local DCF administrator and state director of the DCF Family Safety Program Office. "Medication is not the cure-all."
Adderall is the psychotropic medication prescribed statewide in foster care to the largest number of children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, DCF records show. Locally in foster care, the main psychotropic drug being prescribed is Seroquel for mental/mood conditions.
Some child advocates question whether medications -- some of which have serious side effects such as suicidal thoughts -- are being used as a quick fix to behavioral problems that children will grow out of because their brains are still growing.
"It shouldn't take mind-altering medications to help children grow up," said Karen A. Gievers, a child advocate and an attorney in Tallahassee. "It takes good parents to help children grow up."
Others say some children need medications to help them concentrate and succeed in life. Some are being exposed to more violence at home and dealing with issues not seen a decade ago.
"We get children who haven't giggled or laughed or smiled in years," said Shirley Holland, department manager at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, the local community mental health provider for children. "Once we add medication, it's like the light goes on. They experience life in a completely different way. It doesn't mean the burdens go away, but life is not so heavy."
MORE CHILDREN BAKER-ACTED
Halifax Health Behavioral Services has seen the number of children admitted under the Baker Act as a danger to themselves or others almost triple in Volusia and Flagler in a three-year period. The agency treats about 3,000 children in all its programs -- more than half are on psychotropic medications.
The reasons behind the rise are unclear, but some point to children being subjected to more stress at home.
Holland said it would be unusual about 20 years ago to see a 12-year-old who was psychotic, hearing voices and hallucinating, but "they are younger than that now."
She recalled a 5-year-old in 2009 who broke glass and swallowed it after stating he wanted to kill himself.
With a child or adolescent attempting suicide every 90 seconds in this country, Holland asked how can her staff not treat and help children have a better quality of life.
For Walter Grimes, he and his four siblings were adopted by their great aunt in 2008 after being removed from their parents by DCF. Carrie Hill, his great aunt, said the children dealt with issues of abuse and neglect, including sometimes sleeping on the floor when their cots broke. When he first came to live with her three years ago before he was adopted, Hill was often called to the school by police and administrators.
There were times he would "curse at me, hit me and spit on me," she said.
Now, after being on medication for mood swings, Walter is making good grades and has certificates for scoring high on the FCAT in reading, but Hill said he still has more work to do.
"I was worried to put him on medicine, but I asked a lot of questions and talked to doctors and they helped me," Hill said. "He has come a long way. He's a sweet child and he's very lovable and he has a beautiful smile. It's just these issues he's dealing with."
At his Daytona Beach house recently, Walter was quiet and shy as he read his favorite book, "The Lion King," to Hill, whom he calls "Auntie." He said he loves to read because "it's fun."
The fourth-grader said he's learned in therapy how to control his behavior by taking time to think about the situation, breathe or walk away if he is angry. He said the medicine "helps me stay calm. I don't mind (taking it)."
Vanessa Harvey-Lents, program therapist at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, told children in the group recently they always have a choice to do the right thing. She told them that while the medicine they take calms them to think and make the right decision, they have to control their behavior.
"There is no cure to bad behavior," she said.
UNKNOWN DRUG SIDE EFFECTS
Others worry children are being overmedicated and, in some cases, put on medications not approved for children, with unknown long-term side effects.
Dr. Christopher Bellonci, , a psychiatrist in Massachusetts and national expert who has testified before Congress and Florida child-welfare officials, said some psychotropic medications used for aggression in children can have serious side effects, from weight gain to diabetes and heart disease. He thinks there is "over-prescribing."
He points to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder increasing 40-fold in the last decade. Part of the problem, he said, is the "societal viewpoint" that medications are the answer and will be easier than doing therapy and behavioral work.
"I don't know that kids are any more ill than they were a decade ago," Bellonci said. "But if you look at the diagnostic percentages, you are seeing huge increases in the way people are diagnosing these kids."
Maryann Barry, CEO of the Children's Advocacy Center in Daytona Beach, which provides therapy services to abused children, is concerned some children are being treated for mental illness when in truth "the problems are environmental or behavioral." If there is a child in a violent, disruptive home, she said, the child will have violent or withdrawn behavior.
"Their body and mind is responding to that environment," Barry said.
But Dr. Hilda Vega, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, said she looks at a variety of factors before deciding whether to place a child on medication, including the child's pathology and his environment at home and school.
The youngest child she put on medication was 3 1/2 and was aggressive at home and in day care. But the family also saw a behavioral analyst.
In "an ideal world," where there are no problems or illnesses, she said, she would not put any child on medicine. But she said, "we do not live in an ideal world."
The brain is an organ, Vega said, and it also gets sick, which affects behavior and mood. Medicine, Vega said, helps regulate and stabilize. Many times children don't have to stay on the medication into adulthood because, she said, they learn coping and organizational skills.
VIOLENCE AT HOME
"Our" Children First in Daytona Beach, which provides counseling and services to children and families, is seeing an increase in children who are depressed and making suicidal statements or threatening violent acts. In some cases, agency officials said, those children also have ADHD and their academics are impeded. Young children are being put on sleeping medication because of severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress, said Fran Moccia, the agency's CEO.
"Children are seeing their mother shot and killed on the front lawn," Moccia said, referring to a local Daytona Beach case and similar cases in West Volusia and Palm Coast where children were present when their mothers were shot. "There is so much violence every time you turn around.."
Crystal Knight, the agency's clinical director, said while coping skills are taught in therapy, some children are not developmentally able to learn those skills and need medicine in conjunction with therapy.
"Sometimes counseling is just not enough," Knight said.
Dr. Michael Bell, a DeLand pediatrician, said he's shied away from prescribing psychotropic medication since the federal government issued warnings that some medications could cause suicidal thoughts in children. Instead, he refers children to a psychiatrist.
But Bell, who is also medical director of the child protection team at the Children's Advocacy Center, also worries regulations and paperwork requirements are too strict for doctors and there is a risk more children will commit suicide if they are not treated with medication.
Still another concern is the use of off-label medications, which haven't been properly tested for children, said Howard Talenfeld, president of Florida's Children First, a statewide nonprofit children's advocacy group, and chairman of a Florida Bar committee looking at children's legal needs.
Ken Kramer, researcher for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Florida in Clearwater, which is associated with the Church of Scientology, agrees. He wants to see parents of all children fully informed about alternatives and risk and legislation requiring annual disclosures of gifts/payments by drug companies to physicians.
Walter Grimes' aunt did her homework, and even though psychotropic medication is helping Walter and one of his brothers, she hopes they won't have to take the medicine for very long.
"That is my prayer," she said. "They said they can wean them away from it if they get better. I look forward to the day they can be off the medicine."
State revamping children's medication rules
Christina Pooley was used to the morning, noon and night ritual.
She'd open her mouth and move her tongue around so workers could see that the psychotropic medication she picked up in a little cup with her name on it was gone.
She tried "cheeking" her meds by hiding them in her cheek or partly swallowing them and coughing them up in her room at therapeutic foster homes throughout the state. When staff caught on and she refused to take the medicine, she said they'd give it to her through a shot or crush it up in apple sauce and watch her eat it.
The now 21-year-old Holly Hill woman said throughout almost her entire stay in foster care, from age 13 to 18, she was prescribed several medications at a time for mental health diagnoses, including depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.
Pooley's story of being on psychotropic medications is not uncommon in foster care, state and national child welfare experts say. Nationally about 5 percent of all children are treated with psychotropic medications, but in foster care it ranges from 13 to 53 percent in states nationwide, experts say.
In Florida's foster care system on Jan. 4, for example, about 14.5 percent of children -- or 2,745 children -- received one or more medications. The numbers locally were 13.5 percent or 112 children.
The April 2009 death of a South Florida 7-year-old foster child, Gabriel Myers, who was prescribed several mind-altering drugs and hanged himself in his foster home, sparked a statewide review and new rules, and legislation is being developed.
Pooley admits she hit walls, threw things, cut herself on her inner arms and legs and ran from group and foster homes, spending days on the Boardwalk. But she also thinks she was overmedicated. She now receives individual therapy at Halifax Health Behavioral Services and said she's only on two medications to help her sleep.
Officials with the state Department of Children & Families would not comment on Pooley's time spent in foster care and her records are not public. But a work group has been studying the broader issue after the South Florida child's death last year .
The group made 90 recommendations in November, including hiring a chief medical officer to monitor prescribing such medications and appointing attorneys for children. Some changes have already been made, such as obtaining proper court and parental consent. DCF is continuing to develop new rules.
DCF Secretary George Sheldon said the state needs to ensure it's dealing with children's behavioral needs appropriately and realize just the act of removing children from their home is traumatic.
"I'm not anti-medication, but I think it is a last resort," Sheldon said.
Locally, child-welfare officials have trained caseworkers on new requirements, including ensuring parents understand the forms they sign, consenting to their children being placed on psychotropic medication.
Robin Rosenberg, who serves on a statewide DCF work group and is deputy director of Florida's Children First, a child advocacy agency, said the issue is whether the "right kids are getting the right medications."
"Before you say we are going to cure that problem with medicine, you need to address what is happening in that child's life," Rosenberg said.
Pooley said she was removed from her home and placed in the state's care because of issues at home. She also said each time she moved from one group home to the next, new doctors would put her on different psychotropic medications, which child-welfare officials and Halifax Health Behavioral Services representatives said is not unusual when children move around and see new doctors.
But Pooley said sometimes the amount of medication she was on made her feel "like I wanted to die." She said when she was 16, she tried overdosing on one of the medications -- Seroquel, which DCF officials say is the most common psychotropic drug used on local foster children.
When she ran from foster care and was on the Boardwalk, she said, she felt better being off medication.
She said that at Halifax Health Behavioral Services -- where she was taken by police under the state's Baker Act as being a danger to herself or others -- doctors took her off all her medications, evaluated her and put her on fewer medications. She believes the people there saved her life and are continuing to help her now with therapy since finding out two years ago she's going blind from a brain malformation that also causes headaches and insomnia.
"It's more depressing than being in foster care, but I don't act out or cut myself and I'm able to deal with it," Pooley said.
She's planning to start back this month at Daytona State College after various surgeries. She wants to get a degree in psychology and work with children at Halifax Health Behavioral Services.
"A lot of (other) people gave up and said I wasn't going to amount to anything," Pooley said. "But people at (Halifax Health Behavioral Services) said, 'We know you have it in you. This is what you have to work on and get it done.' They kind of held me to it."
deborah.circelli@news-jrnl.com
BY THE NUMBERS
Here are the number of children prescribed psychotropic medications to deal with the top four diagnoses at Halifax Health Behavioral Services:*
1,350 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Concerta or Adderall, for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder/attention-deficit disorder. Possible side effects are: anxiety, nervousness, chest pain, high blood pressure, headache and mood changes.
471 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Prozac or Lexapro, for major depression/depressive disorder. Possible side effects are: nervousness; loss of appetite; anxiety or trouble sleeping; and feelings of irritability. May increase risk of suicidal thoughts in children, teens and young adults.
241 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Depakote/Depakene, for bipolar disorder. Possible side effects are: dizziness; increased or decreased appetite; trouble sleeping; fast or irregular heartbeat; and hallucinations. Severe and sometimes fatal liver problems have occurred.
159 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Seroquel, for oppositional defiant disorder. Possible side effects are: fast or irregular heartbeat; increased hunger; seizures; and suicidal thoughts or mood changes.
NOTE: *Number of children as of Dec. 11, 2009
SOURCE: Halifax Health Behavioral Services and News-Journal research
BAKER ACT & CHILDREN
The number of children in Volusia and Flagler counties admitted to Halifax Behavioral Services involuntarily under the state's Baker Act as a danger to themselves or others is on the rise:
2005/2006: 289
2006/2007: 662
2007/2008: 784
2008/2009: 845
SOURCE: Halifax Behavioral Services.
Fiscal year starts Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30.
PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION IN FOSTER CARE
The number of children from birth to age 17 in foster care who are on one or more psychotropic medications:
· Florida: 2,745 children or 14.55 percent of all children in foster care.
· Volusia/Flagler/Putnam: 112 children or 13.58 percent of all children in foster care
SOURCE: Florida Department of Children & Families as of Jan. 4, 2010
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Lifestyle/Health/entHEAD03HEAL011010.htm
Child's suicide raises medication questions
By DEBORAH CIRCELLI
Staff writer
DAYTONA BEACH -- Little bodies sink into adult-sized conference chairs.
With crayons between their fingers, they color on a sheet of paper after writing promises to their parents -- "to control my anger," "to make good grades" and "to go to the good side" when deciding what path to take in life.
In a room at Halifax Health Behavioral Services on Jimmy Ann Drive, 10- and 11-year-olds are dealing with adult issues -- depression and mood swings.
For Walter Grimes, 11, his quiet demeanor is a sharp contrast from court documents describing a child in a school summer program who bit a teacher on both of her arms and punched and kicked her in the face. Walter, who was 10 at the time, was taken to Halifax Health Behavioral Services under the state's Baker Act as a threat to himself and others and charged with battery on a school official, records show.
Therapy and psychotropic medication -- medicine used for psychiatric reasons such as mood stabilizers, stimulants and drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder -- are helping him stay calm and concentrate, his therapist and great aunt said.
The question of how much is too much and how young is too young when it comes to prescribing psychotropic medications -- some that are not approved for children by the Food and Drug Administration -- is a statewide and national debate.
In Florida, 81,961 children covered by Medicaid were on psychotropic medications from January to June 2009, compared to 76,358 from January to June 2008, according to the state Agency for Healthcare Administration. Numbers for private health insurance companies are not public.
Local agencies are seeing a rise in the number of children with psychiatric problems, from severe anxiety to depression. They're also seeing more young children who are 5 or 6 years old. The concern is especially high in foster care, where a higher percentage of children are given psychotropic drugs than in the general population.
The April 2009 death of a South Florida 7-year-old foster child, Gabriel Myers -- who was prescribed several mind-altering drugs and hanged himself in his foster home -- sparked a statewide review and recommendations in November that will result in new rules and legislation in the coming months for children under foster care.
"We must do better for our children," said Alan Abramowitz, former local DCF administrator and state director of the DCF Family Safety Program Office. "Medication is not the cure-all."
Adderall is the psychotropic medication prescribed statewide in foster care to the largest number of children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, DCF records show. Locally in foster care, the main psychotropic drug being prescribed is Seroquel for mental/mood conditions.
Some child advocates question whether medications -- some of which have serious side effects such as suicidal thoughts -- are being used as a quick fix to behavioral problems that children will grow out of because their brains are still growing.
"It shouldn't take mind-altering medications to help children grow up," said Karen A. Gievers, a child advocate and an attorney in Tallahassee. "It takes good parents to help children grow up."
Others say some children need medications to help them concentrate and succeed in life. Some are being exposed to more violence at home and dealing with issues not seen a decade ago.
"We get children who haven't giggled or laughed or smiled in years," said Shirley Holland, department manager at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, the local community mental health provider for children. "Once we add medication, it's like the light goes on. They experience life in a completely different way. It doesn't mean the burdens go away, but life is not so heavy."
MORE CHILDREN BAKER-ACTED
Halifax Health Behavioral Services has seen the number of children admitted under the Baker Act as a danger to themselves or others almost triple in Volusia and Flagler in a three-year period. The agency treats about 3,000 children in all its programs -- more than half are on psychotropic medications.
The reasons behind the rise are unclear, but some point to children being subjected to more stress at home.
Holland said it would be unusual about 20 years ago to see a 12-year-old who was psychotic, hearing voices and hallucinating, but "they are younger than that now."
She recalled a 5-year-old in 2009 who broke glass and swallowed it after stating he wanted to kill himself.
With a child or adolescent attempting suicide every 90 seconds in this country, Holland asked how can her staff not treat and help children have a better quality of life.
For Walter Grimes, he and his four siblings were adopted by their great aunt in 2008 after being removed from their parents by DCF. Carrie Hill, his great aunt, said the children dealt with issues of abuse and neglect, including sometimes sleeping on the floor when their cots broke. When he first came to live with her three years ago before he was adopted, Hill was often called to the school by police and administrators.
There were times he would "curse at me, hit me and spit on me," she said.
Now, after being on medication for mood swings, Walter is making good grades and has certificates for scoring high on the FCAT in reading, but Hill said he still has more work to do.
"I was worried to put him on medicine, but I asked a lot of questions and talked to doctors and they helped me," Hill said. "He has come a long way. He's a sweet child and he's very lovable and he has a beautiful smile. It's just these issues he's dealing with."
At his Daytona Beach house recently, Walter was quiet and shy as he read his favorite book, "The Lion King," to Hill, whom he calls "Auntie." He said he loves to read because "it's fun."
The fourth-grader said he's learned in therapy how to control his behavior by taking time to think about the situation, breathe or walk away if he is angry. He said the medicine "helps me stay calm. I don't mind (taking it)."
Vanessa Harvey-Lents, program therapist at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, told children in the group recently they always have a choice to do the right thing. She told them that while the medicine they take calms them to think and make the right decision, they have to control their behavior.
"There is no cure to bad behavior," she said.
UNKNOWN DRUG SIDE EFFECTS
Others worry children are being overmedicated and, in some cases, put on medications not approved for children, with unknown long-term side effects.
Dr. Christopher Bellonci, , a psychiatrist in Massachusetts and national expert who has testified before Congress and Florida child-welfare officials, said some psychotropic medications used for aggression in children can have serious side effects, from weight gain to diabetes and heart disease. He thinks there is "over-prescribing."
He points to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder increasing 40-fold in the last decade. Part of the problem, he said, is the "societal viewpoint" that medications are the answer and will be easier than doing therapy and behavioral work.
"I don't know that kids are any more ill than they were a decade ago," Bellonci said. "But if you look at the diagnostic percentages, you are seeing huge increases in the way people are diagnosing these kids."
Maryann Barry, CEO of the Children's Advocacy Center in Daytona Beach, which provides therapy services to abused children, is concerned some children are being treated for mental illness when in truth "the problems are environmental or behavioral." If there is a child in a violent, disruptive home, she said, the child will have violent or withdrawn behavior.
"Their body and mind is responding to that environment," Barry said.
But Dr. Hilda Vega, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Halifax Health Behavioral Services, said she looks at a variety of factors before deciding whether to place a child on medication, including the child's pathology and his environment at home and school.
The youngest child she put on medication was 3 1/2 and was aggressive at home and in day care. But the family also saw a behavioral analyst.
In "an ideal world," where there are no problems or illnesses, she said, she would not put any child on medicine. But she said, "we do not live in an ideal world."
The brain is an organ, Vega said, and it also gets sick, which affects behavior and mood. Medicine, Vega said, helps regulate and stabilize. Many times children don't have to stay on the medication into adulthood because, she said, they learn coping and organizational skills.
VIOLENCE AT HOME
"Our" Children First in Daytona Beach, which provides counseling and services to children and families, is seeing an increase in children who are depressed and making suicidal statements or threatening violent acts. In some cases, agency officials said, those children also have ADHD and their academics are impeded. Young children are being put on sleeping medication because of severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress, said Fran Moccia, the agency's CEO.
"Children are seeing their mother shot and killed on the front lawn," Moccia said, referring to a local Daytona Beach case and similar cases in West Volusia and Palm Coast where children were present when their mothers were shot. "There is so much violence every time you turn around.."
Crystal Knight, the agency's clinical director, said while coping skills are taught in therapy, some children are not developmentally able to learn those skills and need medicine in conjunction with therapy.
"Sometimes counseling is just not enough," Knight said.
Dr. Michael Bell, a DeLand pediatrician, said he's shied away from prescribing psychotropic medication since the federal government issued warnings that some medications could cause suicidal thoughts in children. Instead, he refers children to a psychiatrist.
But Bell, who is also medical director of the child protection team at the Children's Advocacy Center, also worries regulations and paperwork requirements are too strict for doctors and there is a risk more children will commit suicide if they are not treated with medication.
Still another concern is the use of off-label medications, which haven't been properly tested for children, said Howard Talenfeld, president of Florida's Children First, a statewide nonprofit children's advocacy group, and chairman of a Florida Bar committee looking at children's legal needs.
Ken Kramer, researcher for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Florida in Clearwater, which is associated with the Church of Scientology, agrees. He wants to see parents of all children fully informed about alternatives and risk and legislation requiring annual disclosures of gifts/payments by drug companies to physicians.
Walter Grimes' aunt did her homework, and even though psychotropic medication is helping Walter and one of his brothers, she hopes they won't have to take the medicine for very long.
"That is my prayer," she said. "They said they can wean them away from it if they get better. I look forward to the day they can be off the medicine."
State revamping children's medication rules
Christina Pooley was used to the morning, noon and night ritual.
She'd open her mouth and move her tongue around so workers could see that the psychotropic medication she picked up in a little cup with her name on it was gone.
She tried "cheeking" her meds by hiding them in her cheek or partly swallowing them and coughing them up in her room at therapeutic foster homes throughout the state. When staff caught on and she refused to take the medicine, she said they'd give it to her through a shot or crush it up in apple sauce and watch her eat it.
The now 21-year-old Holly Hill woman said throughout almost her entire stay in foster care, from age 13 to 18, she was prescribed several medications at a time for mental health diagnoses, including depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.
Pooley's story of being on psychotropic medications is not uncommon in foster care, state and national child welfare experts say. Nationally about 5 percent of all children are treated with psychotropic medications, but in foster care it ranges from 13 to 53 percent in states nationwide, experts say.
In Florida's foster care system on Jan. 4, for example, about 14.5 percent of children -- or 2,745 children -- received one or more medications. The numbers locally were 13.5 percent or 112 children.
The April 2009 death of a South Florida 7-year-old foster child, Gabriel Myers, who was prescribed several mind-altering drugs and hanged himself in his foster home, sparked a statewide review and new rules, and legislation is being developed.
Pooley admits she hit walls, threw things, cut herself on her inner arms and legs and ran from group and foster homes, spending days on the Boardwalk. But she also thinks she was overmedicated. She now receives individual therapy at Halifax Health Behavioral Services and said she's only on two medications to help her sleep.
Officials with the state Department of Children & Families would not comment on Pooley's time spent in foster care and her records are not public. But a work group has been studying the broader issue after the South Florida child's death last year .
The group made 90 recommendations in November, including hiring a chief medical officer to monitor prescribing such medications and appointing attorneys for children. Some changes have already been made, such as obtaining proper court and parental consent. DCF is continuing to develop new rules.
DCF Secretary George Sheldon said the state needs to ensure it's dealing with children's behavioral needs appropriately and realize just the act of removing children from their home is traumatic.
"I'm not anti-medication, but I think it is a last resort," Sheldon said.
Locally, child-welfare officials have trained caseworkers on new requirements, including ensuring parents understand the forms they sign, consenting to their children being placed on psychotropic medication.
Robin Rosenberg, who serves on a statewide DCF work group and is deputy director of Florida's Children First, a child advocacy agency, said the issue is whether the "right kids are getting the right medications."
"Before you say we are going to cure that problem with medicine, you need to address what is happening in that child's life," Rosenberg said.
Pooley said she was removed from her home and placed in the state's care because of issues at home. She also said each time she moved from one group home to the next, new doctors would put her on different psychotropic medications, which child-welfare officials and Halifax Health Behavioral Services representatives said is not unusual when children move around and see new doctors.
But Pooley said sometimes the amount of medication she was on made her feel "like I wanted to die." She said when she was 16, she tried overdosing on one of the medications -- Seroquel, which DCF officials say is the most common psychotropic drug used on local foster children.
When she ran from foster care and was on the Boardwalk, she said, she felt better being off medication.
She said that at Halifax Health Behavioral Services -- where she was taken by police under the state's Baker Act as being a danger to herself or others -- doctors took her off all her medications, evaluated her and put her on fewer medications. She believes the people there saved her life and are continuing to help her now with therapy since finding out two years ago she's going blind from a brain malformation that also causes headaches and insomnia.
"It's more depressing than being in foster care, but I don't act out or cut myself and I'm able to deal with it," Pooley said.
She's planning to start back this month at Daytona State College after various surgeries. She wants to get a degree in psychology and work with children at Halifax Health Behavioral Services.
"A lot of (other) people gave up and said I wasn't going to amount to anything," Pooley said. "But people at (Halifax Health Behavioral Services) said, 'We know you have it in you. This is what you have to work on and get it done.' They kind of held me to it."
deborah.circelli@news-jrnl.com
BY THE NUMBERS
Here are the number of children prescribed psychotropic medications to deal with the top four diagnoses at Halifax Health Behavioral Services:*
1,350 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Concerta or Adderall, for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder/attention-deficit disorder. Possible side effects are: anxiety, nervousness, chest pain, high blood pressure, headache and mood changes.
471 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Prozac or Lexapro, for major depression/depressive disorder. Possible side effects are: nervousness; loss of appetite; anxiety or trouble sleeping; and feelings of irritability. May increase risk of suicidal thoughts in children, teens and young adults.
241 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Depakote/Depakene, for bipolar disorder. Possible side effects are: dizziness; increased or decreased appetite; trouble sleeping; fast or irregular heartbeat; and hallucinations. Severe and sometimes fatal liver problems have occurred.
159 Children who are prescribed drugs, such as Seroquel, for oppositional defiant disorder. Possible side effects are: fast or irregular heartbeat; increased hunger; seizures; and suicidal thoughts or mood changes.
NOTE: *Number of children as of Dec. 11, 2009
SOURCE: Halifax Health Behavioral Services and News-Journal research
BAKER ACT & CHILDREN
The number of children in Volusia and Flagler counties admitted to Halifax Behavioral Services involuntarily under the state's Baker Act as a danger to themselves or others is on the rise:
2005/2006: 289
2006/2007: 662
2007/2008: 784
2008/2009: 845
SOURCE: Halifax Behavioral Services.
Fiscal year starts Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30.
PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION IN FOSTER CARE
The number of children from birth to age 17 in foster care who are on one or more psychotropic medications:
· Florida: 2,745 children or 14.55 percent of all children in foster care.
· Volusia/Flagler/Putnam: 112 children or 13.58 percent of all children in foster care
SOURCE: Florida Department of Children & Families as of Jan. 4, 2010
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Lifestyle/Health/entHEAD03HEAL011010.htm
Save state’s most vulnerable through reform of DSHS
Published: Sunday, January 10, 2010
GUEST COMMENTARY / OVERGROWN BUREAUCRACY
Save state’s most vulnerable through reform of DSHS
By Rep. Mike Armstrong
In 1970, under the direction of Gov. Dan Evans and approval of the Legislature, all of the state’s major social services agencies were consolidated under one giant agency — the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). It seemed a good idea at the time as Gov. Evans sought to “unify the related social and health services of state government” under one umbrella.
Over the following 20 years, however, the Legislature found various services could be more efficient, effective and customer oriented if they were separated from the bureaucracy of DSHS. So lawmakers removed several agencies from DSHS, including veteran’s affairs, prisons, services for the blind, the school for the deaf, and the Department of Health, and established them as separate agencies.
Even with those departments removed, DSHS has expanded to become the state’s largest agency, administering divisions dealing with everything from the treatment of drugs and alcohol, welfare assistance and homelessness, to child protective services and programs for the aging and disabled. With more than 19,000 employees and a staggeringly high budget of more than $20 billion, DSHS has grown so large and unwieldy that it has lost its way; so large that it can no longer be effectively managed; such a behemoth that the one-stop shopping idea envisioned 40 years ago has become enveloped so deep in bureaucracy that it can no longer deliver the quality of services our state’s most vulnerable need and deserve.
But so much worse are the cases involving rampant abuse and neglect of those most helpless who were supposed to be under the protection of DSHS. An extensive Seattle television news investigation found that 121 children have died since 2002 — almost one child per month who was beaten, tortured, starved, molested, raped and even murdered. The common tie is that every one of these innocent victims was dependent upon DSHS for their welfare, protection and safety. But bureaucracy got in the way, the state’s largest agency failed them, and kids died. It’s completely inexcusable.
Many good DSHS workers are frustrated with what they recognize as a broken system and have asked me for help. They tell me they work for an agency within an agency within another agency. Each agency has inconsistent rules managed under different entrenched fiefdoms. Each one of these agencies is beset with another layer of management. The right hand rarely knows what the left hand is doing because of the enormous level of bureaucracy. And that’s why there are repeated breakdowns in the system, costing the lives of our most vulnerable and saddling the state with millions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements.
Well-intentioned but superficial efforts by past and present governors to increase accountability through executive orders, or by changing DSHS secretaries, historically have made little difference. On average, a new secretary is appointed to DSHS about every 22 months. Mismanagement deep within continues to outlast the tenure of DSHS secretaries, demonstrating that the problem cannot be solved by one individual appointed by the governor or a few administrative changes. It’s much larger than that.
This antiquated umbrella agency must be reformed completely and systemically from top to bottom if we are to protect the lives of children and our most vulnerable citizens. I believe the most effective way to accomplish this goal is to entirely eliminate DSHS, abolish its bureaucratic fiefdoms, and divide its responsibilities into smaller, more manageable, functional and effective agencies.
During the 2010 session, I will be pushing hard to advance these changes through House Bill 2197. This is a measure I introduced last year which would eliminate DSHS by July 1, 2011 and transfer its responsibilities to four new smaller agencies, including the Department of Economic Services, Department of Medical Assistance, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Department of Children’s Services. By creating smaller agencies and stripping away the walls of bureaucracy, we can finally get our arms around this beast and work to effectively and efficiently deliver responsive services to the citizens of our state.
Thirty lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, have co-sponsored the bill as a bipartisan effort, and other lawmakers have promised their support because they recognize we can no longer stand idle while children suffer and die.
Good people within DSHS are caught up in a bad system, so I’m not interested in laying blame or pointing fingers. I’m interested in changing the system.
Let us resolve to use this year as the beginning of comprehensive agency reform that is most effective at helping those at risk, providing for our most vulnerable, and saving the lives of innocent children who rely on the state for their protection.
State Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-Wenatchee) serves as ranking Republican on the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. He can be contacted at 360-786-7832 or from his Web site, www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Armstrong.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100110/OPINION03/701109951
GUEST COMMENTARY / OVERGROWN BUREAUCRACY
Save state’s most vulnerable through reform of DSHS
By Rep. Mike Armstrong
In 1970, under the direction of Gov. Dan Evans and approval of the Legislature, all of the state’s major social services agencies were consolidated under one giant agency — the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). It seemed a good idea at the time as Gov. Evans sought to “unify the related social and health services of state government” under one umbrella.
Over the following 20 years, however, the Legislature found various services could be more efficient, effective and customer oriented if they were separated from the bureaucracy of DSHS. So lawmakers removed several agencies from DSHS, including veteran’s affairs, prisons, services for the blind, the school for the deaf, and the Department of Health, and established them as separate agencies.
Even with those departments removed, DSHS has expanded to become the state’s largest agency, administering divisions dealing with everything from the treatment of drugs and alcohol, welfare assistance and homelessness, to child protective services and programs for the aging and disabled. With more than 19,000 employees and a staggeringly high budget of more than $20 billion, DSHS has grown so large and unwieldy that it has lost its way; so large that it can no longer be effectively managed; such a behemoth that the one-stop shopping idea envisioned 40 years ago has become enveloped so deep in bureaucracy that it can no longer deliver the quality of services our state’s most vulnerable need and deserve.
But so much worse are the cases involving rampant abuse and neglect of those most helpless who were supposed to be under the protection of DSHS. An extensive Seattle television news investigation found that 121 children have died since 2002 — almost one child per month who was beaten, tortured, starved, molested, raped and even murdered. The common tie is that every one of these innocent victims was dependent upon DSHS for their welfare, protection and safety. But bureaucracy got in the way, the state’s largest agency failed them, and kids died. It’s completely inexcusable.
Many good DSHS workers are frustrated with what they recognize as a broken system and have asked me for help. They tell me they work for an agency within an agency within another agency. Each agency has inconsistent rules managed under different entrenched fiefdoms. Each one of these agencies is beset with another layer of management. The right hand rarely knows what the left hand is doing because of the enormous level of bureaucracy. And that’s why there are repeated breakdowns in the system, costing the lives of our most vulnerable and saddling the state with millions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements.
Well-intentioned but superficial efforts by past and present governors to increase accountability through executive orders, or by changing DSHS secretaries, historically have made little difference. On average, a new secretary is appointed to DSHS about every 22 months. Mismanagement deep within continues to outlast the tenure of DSHS secretaries, demonstrating that the problem cannot be solved by one individual appointed by the governor or a few administrative changes. It’s much larger than that.
This antiquated umbrella agency must be reformed completely and systemically from top to bottom if we are to protect the lives of children and our most vulnerable citizens. I believe the most effective way to accomplish this goal is to entirely eliminate DSHS, abolish its bureaucratic fiefdoms, and divide its responsibilities into smaller, more manageable, functional and effective agencies.
During the 2010 session, I will be pushing hard to advance these changes through House Bill 2197. This is a measure I introduced last year which would eliminate DSHS by July 1, 2011 and transfer its responsibilities to four new smaller agencies, including the Department of Economic Services, Department of Medical Assistance, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Department of Children’s Services. By creating smaller agencies and stripping away the walls of bureaucracy, we can finally get our arms around this beast and work to effectively and efficiently deliver responsive services to the citizens of our state.
Thirty lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, have co-sponsored the bill as a bipartisan effort, and other lawmakers have promised their support because they recognize we can no longer stand idle while children suffer and die.
Good people within DSHS are caught up in a bad system, so I’m not interested in laying blame or pointing fingers. I’m interested in changing the system.
Let us resolve to use this year as the beginning of comprehensive agency reform that is most effective at helping those at risk, providing for our most vulnerable, and saving the lives of innocent children who rely on the state for their protection.
State Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-Wenatchee) serves as ranking Republican on the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. He can be contacted at 360-786-7832 or from his Web site, www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Armstrong.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100110/OPINION03/701109951
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)