Social Services
To Reunite Families, Agencies Try a Holistic Approach
by Michelle Chen
Jan 2010
With a pert smile, S. kept a tight watch over her baby boy's crib in her modest, brightly painted Bronx apartment. It was a mundane scene, but in light of what she had gone through a few months earlier, S., who asked to remain anonymous, kept her joy closely guarded.
Last year, S. saw her baby taken from her after a heated argument with her son's father ended with police intervening and taking her into detention. Soon, S. recalled in an interview, she found herself isolated at the precinct, while child welfare authorities placed the baby in the father's care. S. couldn't make sense of the decision: The Administration of Children's Services had not only overlooked the father's criminal record, she said, but also ignored an offer from S's mother to take temporary custody.
Families at Risk
This is the third and final article in a series on the connections between the criminal justice and child welfare systems in New York City. Previously:
Going to Jail, Losing a Child -- When a mother goes to prison, she may have to give up her child as well as her freedom, and many families investigated for mistreating a child have had a member in prison. The two major institutions involved with protecting children interact in many families.
The Long Road Out of Foster Care -- Mothers who go to jail risk losing their children to the foster care system. Even if the families finally reunite, it can take years to repair the breach.
One Fanily's Story (video): Brenda Gittens talks about her journey through addiction and the child welfare system at a support group for mothers whose children have been removed. Her son Jacob's story was profiled in “The Long Road Out of Foster Care.” Jacob produced this video as part of an ongoing project of documenting his family's history. You can view it here.
In criminal court, S.'s case was quickly dismissed and the judge released her from detention. But it took weeks for her to wade through the family court process and scrutiny from children's services. Her contact with her baby was limited to supervised visitations; she even had to nurse her baby under the watch of an agency worker, S. recalled. "I was being looked at ... as a monstrous individual," she said.
Still, in a system where children may languish for months or years in foster care, S.'s separation from her son ended relatively quickly. Her rare example speaks to new strategies in the social service community to help distressed families cope.
In contrast to S.'s story, many troubled families get caught up in government systems. As parents and children try to deal with an array of interrelated problems -- such as mental illness, drugs, family violence, poverty and racial discrimination -- they get stuck in the bureaucracies that are supposed to hel them. But some advocates now recognize this web of crises and are trying new ways to enable families to untangle it.
The Whole Picture
S. got her son back, thanks to the Bronx Defenders, a public defender office that helps low-income families navigate the legal , welfare, housing and immigration systems. A lawyer, social worker and parent advocate teamed up to help S. deal with family court and criminal court simultaneously. This enabled her to arrange a visitation schedule and and support services, and regain custody soon after.
Kara Finck, managing attorney of the Bronx Defenders Family Defense Practice, said that in many cases, a child will be placed in care upon a parent's arrest, even if the charges are not related to the child's treatment. And even if the charges are later dismissed, their family court case will drag on, since the Administration for Children's Services will pursue its investigation of the parents' conduct independently. As their work continues, the child may remain with a relative or in foster care indefinitely.
If "a technicality in criminal court means you can't see your child for three months, and your child's three months old -- that's twice their life," Finck said.Over a family's lifetime, interwoven social and economic hardships can drive parents and children apart as they deal with police, courts, child protection agencies or some combination. Still, law enforcement and social service agencies may often operate separately without communicating -- despite research showing that in many cases, parents in the child welfare system have had past involvement with the criminal justice system or get arrested after losing their children. The bureaucratic dissonance, advocates say, can traumatize families, and could be avoided if agencies were more sensitive to the various burdens parents must juggle.
To harmonize those systems, groups like the Bronx Defenders have developed a holistic strategy for legal services. Attorneys know the ins and outs of the child welfare, legal and immigration bureaucracies, as well as how those institutions intersect when, say, a parent gets arrested in an immigration raid and her child winds up in foster care.
"The biggest thing that we're seeing within the system is this awakening that these children are present, and they bring with them a kind of extra burden," said Dee Ann Newell, a coordinator of http://www.sfcipp.org/rights.html national campaign to establish a Bill of Rights for children of incarcerated parents. "The stigma and the shame and the silence are for me the three S's that these children cope with, in addition to the fact that they have all these preceding risk factors."
A Web of Services
Since parents may see child-protection interventions as intrusive and humiliating, some groups use a "wraparound" approach focused on community bonds and group decision-making. Everyone, from siblings to grandparents to teachers, have a stake in planning a child's custody arrangement, for example, or a parent's drug treatment plan.
Carol Shapiro, a research scholar with Columbia University's < ahref="http://iserp.columbia.edu/"> Institute for Economic and Social Research and Policy, said that agencies could improve outcomes if they just stopped treating clients as "people that need to be fixed, and instead, building on their assets. ... We respond much better to things we feel good about."
When she led the New York-based nonprofit Family Justice (which has since been incorporated into the Vera Institute of Justice), Shapiro put this concept to the test in San Francisco with Communities of Opportunity. In neighborhoods where poor families frequently encounter law enforcement and child welfare, the program immerses at-risk parents at the center of a network of services including probation authorities, school officials, and health and social service agencies.
Back in Brooklyn, the Women's Prison Association helps formerly incarcerated mothers cope with the challenges of transitioning back into the community. Clients are typically eager to reunite with their children, but must wrestle with unemployment, lack of housing or emotional instability. Federal laws limiting the time a child can stay in foster care further complicate the process of regaining custody.
The association's transitional housing facility, Huntington House, gives homeless, formerly incarcerated women a space to prepare for reunification with children who have been placed in foster care. The program places mothers in apartments shared by other clients, where they receive personalized employment and treatment services. After children return to their custody, mothers move into family-style apartments. Staff continue supporting the entire family until they are ready to move on to independent housing in the community.
"We have a built-in way to avoid the trap of housing being the last barrier to getting your children back," said executive director Georgia Lerner.
The group also works uses an intensive "home-based service model" to help women at risk of losing custody. Case managers visit women at home to give them what they need to keep their households running, whether it's support for staying clean, working with probation authorities, keeping up with court dates or signing up for food stamps.
When working with formerly incarcerated women, Lerner said, part of the job is acknowledging that reunification is not the only possible goal and regaining full custody may be out of reach for some women. The Women's Prison Association may instead help a parent devise an alternative custody setup, such as living with a relative under legal guardianship. The central aim, Lerner said, is to protect the parent's role in determining the healthiest care arrangement for the child, and to empower mothers to "make the best decisions and to be full, informed participants in the decision."
Protecting Family Rights
Many advocacy groups also believe police and other government agencies must change the way they treat parents and the children whose safety they are trying to protect.
The Osborne Association, a New York-based nonprofit that works with families affected by the criminal justice system, has drafted guidelines to help state and local law enforcement deal with children of arrested parents. The clinical language hints at the emotional tension of a police encounter: Officers are advised to "consider arresting, handcuffing and questioning of parents out of the view of their children," and to be conscious that "children may feel safer about the situation when compassion is shown to the arrestee." The San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership, a coalition of community groups, service providers and government representatives,has published a Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights as a reference for families, service providers and government agencies. The core principles include the right to regular family visits, the right to be "considered in decisions about a parent," and the right to a "lifelong relationship" between parent and child.
"When a parent is incarcerated, there's sort of an assumption that that that relationship is not as valuable as other parent-child relationships," said partnership coordinator Nell Bernstein. "And of course when a family is involved with child welfare, there's also an assumption of 'this is a bad parent.' Put those two together, and this is a family that is at tremendous risk of dissolution."
The Bill of Rights website features testimony by Ahmad, who was born during his mother's incarceration, adopted as a young child and reunified with his birth family as a teen. The turbulent journey taught him that the child welfare system ignores what matters most.
"All the system saw," he said, "was a drug-addicted mother. 'The baby could do better without her.' They wanted to protect little Ahmad. Why didn't they care about his mother? ... What would have helped me most is compassion for my mom. We have to bring the mom back, so the mom can be a mother to the child."
Michelle Chen is a freelance writer and a native New Yorker. This article is part of a series exploring the connections between the criminal justice and child welfare systems in New York City. The project was supported by a fellowship from the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/socialservices/20100113/15/3146/
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Report Fraud in Child Welfare
Report Fraud in Child Welfare
Phone:
1-800-HHS-TIPS
(1-800-447-8477)
Fax:
1-800-223-8164
TTY:
1-800-377-4950
E-Mail:
HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov
Mail:
Office of Inspector General
Department of Health and Human Services
Attn: HOTLINE
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026
Phone:
1-800-HHS-TIPS
(1-800-447-8477)
Fax:
1-800-223-8164
TTY:
1-800-377-4950
E-Mail:
HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov
Mail:
Office of Inspector General
Department of Health and Human Services
Attn: HOTLINE
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026
Social Worker Reveals The Culture In Which She Works
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 From Pam Roach's Blogspot
Social Worker Reveals The Culture In Which She Works
Brought forward from a comment:
"I've been a social worker for DCFS for over 20 years and worked in different regions. Reading the blogs and comments on here make me very sad but the problems with the department begin with line supervisors and go up the "chain of command". There are many good social workers who are often targeted by supervisors due to their own inadequacies and lack of knowledge and experience. Often supervisors are not hired for their expertise and knowledge; they are hired for who they know regardless of the outcome on staff morale and departmental policies. I have always looked at relative placements first, many times to be told by a supervisor without any placement experience to "find a foster home". I have been told to place children in newly licensed foster homes because " they haven't had any placements yet" although there is a relative willing and able to be a placement. Sometimes it's not possible to place with relatives; when that's the case we should keep looking.
My experience with management is that workplace bullying is accepted in every region. Social workers are targeted if they have more experience and knowledge than their supervisors. In my current region, workers and good supervisors have left in droves during the past two years only to be replaced by the RA's pick of the week. Supervisors are encouraged to target employees if they disagree with the RA and AAs. Until this culture in DCFS is no longer tolerated, we will continue to read about cases such as Madison's. Financial circumstances should not have any effect on whether a family member can be a good placement. We are not supposed to remove children due to poverty; why would we not place a child with "poor" relatives when there is help available for that relative? A relative's medical problems may preclude them from taking placement if they are unable to care for themselves or have severe mental health issues.
I hold little hope in that the new leaders of DCFS will address any of these problems. A targeted employee frequently has little credibility with the leaders. I've seen it happen over and over again with good social workers finally having enough and leaving the agency only to be replaced with employees with little or no experience with children. Many of the young social workers have no children of their own; no exposure to children; and only what they are taught in school and by the department. You can't replace 5, 10, or 15 years of experience working with families yet that is what has happened over the years. Until DCFS gets rid of the "good old boy" mindset and hires competent, fair and unbiased line supervisors, AAs, and region administrators, nothing will change. My hope continues to be that DCFS and their treatment of their employees will actually be fully investigated. Social workers and other employees will only speak out with the strict assurance they will not be further targeted by management.
Pam, if only you could help us."
THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS ...PR
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 12:28 AM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/social-worker-reveals-culture-in-which.html
Social Worker Reveals The Culture In Which She Works
Brought forward from a comment:
"I've been a social worker for DCFS for over 20 years and worked in different regions. Reading the blogs and comments on here make me very sad but the problems with the department begin with line supervisors and go up the "chain of command". There are many good social workers who are often targeted by supervisors due to their own inadequacies and lack of knowledge and experience. Often supervisors are not hired for their expertise and knowledge; they are hired for who they know regardless of the outcome on staff morale and departmental policies. I have always looked at relative placements first, many times to be told by a supervisor without any placement experience to "find a foster home". I have been told to place children in newly licensed foster homes because " they haven't had any placements yet" although there is a relative willing and able to be a placement. Sometimes it's not possible to place with relatives; when that's the case we should keep looking.
My experience with management is that workplace bullying is accepted in every region. Social workers are targeted if they have more experience and knowledge than their supervisors. In my current region, workers and good supervisors have left in droves during the past two years only to be replaced by the RA's pick of the week. Supervisors are encouraged to target employees if they disagree with the RA and AAs. Until this culture in DCFS is no longer tolerated, we will continue to read about cases such as Madison's. Financial circumstances should not have any effect on whether a family member can be a good placement. We are not supposed to remove children due to poverty; why would we not place a child with "poor" relatives when there is help available for that relative? A relative's medical problems may preclude them from taking placement if they are unable to care for themselves or have severe mental health issues.
I hold little hope in that the new leaders of DCFS will address any of these problems. A targeted employee frequently has little credibility with the leaders. I've seen it happen over and over again with good social workers finally having enough and leaving the agency only to be replaced with employees with little or no experience with children. Many of the young social workers have no children of their own; no exposure to children; and only what they are taught in school and by the department. You can't replace 5, 10, or 15 years of experience working with families yet that is what has happened over the years. Until DCFS gets rid of the "good old boy" mindset and hires competent, fair and unbiased line supervisors, AAs, and region administrators, nothing will change. My hope continues to be that DCFS and their treatment of their employees will actually be fully investigated. Social workers and other employees will only speak out with the strict assurance they will not be further targeted by management.
Pam, if only you could help us."
THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS ...PR
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 12:28 AM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/social-worker-reveals-culture-in-which.html
10 Famous Doctors who Made Medicine What it is Today
Surgical Technician Schools
Carolyn Friedman
Guide to online surgical tech degree programs iScrub
iScrub is a blog devoted to providing news, information, and resources to the healthcare community and those it serves. It is our goal to keep our hand on the pulse of the online health community and bring you, our loyal readers, the best of what we find. We strive to be focused in message, but informal in tone. We hope you enjoy.
10 Famous Doctors who Made Medicine What it is Today
During any time period, various changes can take place, particularly in the medical field. In the much earlier years, the doctors little black bag contained everything they needed to treat patients. A medical diagnosis was made more on intuition then scientific facts. But whether in the past or the present, there are those innovators whose compassion and love of learning allow them to make significant medical discoveries that have had a major effect on humankind and improved the quality of life. From medical inventions to performing life saving surgeries, we have compiled a list of 10 famous doctors who have made medicine what it is today.
1.Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC) - Hippocrates is known as one of the most exceptional individuals in medical history. He was the first physician to believe that thoughts, ideas, and feelings come from the brain and not the heart as other colleagues in his era so adamantly thought . He described in detail disease symptoms and was the first doctor to precisely characterize the symptoms of pneumonia, as well as epilepsy in children. He believed in natural healing processes of relaxation, nutrition, fresh air and cleanliness. Hippocrates traveled through Greece practicing medicine. He founded a medical school on the island of Cos, Greece and began teaching his ideas. He soon developed an Oath for physicians that is still followed today, called the Hippocratic Oath . He died in 377 BC.
2.Jean Astruc (March 19, 1684 - May 5, 1766) - Jean was a French professor of medicine who discovered and wrote about the cure of syphilis and other venereal diseases. He quickly became one of the outstanding doctors of the 18th century recognized throughout the world. The publication in 1736 of his classic work, “De morbis venereis,” is a milestone in the history of syphilis. He was also involved in comprehensive research into the book of Genesis and wrote many acclaimed compositions on how Moses had originally written the book of Genesis.
3.Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec (February 17, 1781 – August 13, 1826) - Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec was a French physician who invented the stethoscope in 1816. Before then, the only way a doctor could hear the sounds of the heart and the chest was by placing his ear on the patients’ chest. However, this sound was not always clear, especially if the patient was obese. Through his original creation, he was able to explore sounds in the lungs and heart. This instrument helped him to determine diagnoses for the autopsies he performed. He was known to be the father of clinical auscultation and wrote many journals and clinical terms that are still used by physicians around the world today.
4.Henry Gray (1827-1861) - Dr. Gray was an English anatomist and surgeon who is most noted for publishing the book Gray’s Anatomy . With some help of his friend Henry Vandyke Carter, a skilled draughtsman and former demonstrator of anatomy at St. George’s Hospital. A second edition was prepared by Gray and published in 1860. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) at the age of 25 and held the positions of demonstrator of Anatomy, curator of the museum, and Lecturer of Anatomy at St. George’s Hospital. In 1861 he was a main candidate for the title of assistant surgeon. Sadly, he was overcome by an attack of smallpox, which he contracted while looking after a nephew, and died and untimely death at the young age of 34.
5.Joseph Lister (April 5, 1827 - February 10, 1912) - For almost a decade, doctors tried to understand why wounds became infected after surgical procedures. John Lister was one of them. An English surgeon and a pioneer of antiseptic surgery, he completed comprehensive research on the origins of infection and created many of the sterilization procedures used in today’s hospitals that keep infection to a minimum. Lister successfully introduced carbolic acid to sterilize surgical instruments and to clean wounds, which led to the reduction of post-operative infections and safer surgical practices for patients.
6.Theodor Billroth( April 26, 1829 - February 6, 1894) - Dr. Billroth was an innovative surgeon as well as a teacher. He was directly responsible for a number of landmarks in surgery, including the first esophagectomy (1871), the first laryngectomyl (1873), and the first successful gastroduodenostomy (1881.) These procedures, of course with some modification, are still practiced by physicians when treating gastric cancers and some cases of peptic ulcer disease. At the University of Vienna, he promoted longer post medical school rotations in surgery. He started what where considered extended “apprenticeships” in surgery with a curriculum that contained 1 year of hospital work in general medicine, followed by a year of dissection on cadavers and animals, and ending with a 2 or 3 year assistantship in surgery under a senior surgeon. This was the start of modern day residency training in surgery as it is known today.
7.Charles Richard Drew (June 3, 1904 - April 1, 1950) - Dr. Charles Richard was an African American physician and medical researcher. His studies were in the field of blood transfusions and creating advancements in procedures for blood storage. He focused his knowledge on developing blood banks on a larger scale early in World War II. This caused thousands of lives to be saved in the armed forces. He protested against the practice of racial segregation in the donation of blood saying there was no clinical scientific evidence. These beliefs were a contributing factor of his termination. Finally in 1943, he was recognized for his actions and became the first black surgeon to serve as a medical examiner for the American Board of Surgery.
8.Virginia Apgar (June 7, 1909 - August 77, 1974) Virginia was an American doctor who was dedicated to the advancement of anesthesia and pediatrics. Because of her expertise in the fields of teratology and anesthesiology, she familiarized the field of neonatology . Even more, she is highly respected for the development of the Apgar test, which is a procedure that is used to determine the health of newborn babies. This test has significantly decreased the mortality rate of infants in countries across the globe.
9.Christiaan Neethling Barnard (November 8, 1922 - September 2, 2001) - The West African physician served as a cardiothoracic surgeon at Groote Schuur Hospital in 1958, where he established the hospital’s first heart unit. He had been experimenting for several years with animal heart transplants after he performed the first successful kidney transplant in West Africa in 1959. He followed with the first heart transplant in 1967, where he was assisted by Dr. Michael DeBakey. This operation lasted nine hours and required a team of more than 25 people. These procedures played a substantial role in urology and cardiac surgeries performed by doctors in today’s operating rooms.
10.Peter Safar (April 12, 1924 – August 2, 2003) - Dr. Safar was the thought provoking voice behind both cardiopulmonary resuscitation and critical care medicine. As an honored professor of resuscitation medicine at the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Medicine, he created this country’s first intensive care unit and paramedic ambulance services that have changed the outlines of emergency services for patients. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in medicine 3 times.
With the aid of technological advancements and the introduction of antibiotics and other vital drugs, these doctors have paved the way for their successors to shed light on traditional beliefs in medicine and open up endless possibilities to equipment and procedures that would never have been thought possible years ago.
Complete Listing of our Articles
•Examining Cosmetic Surgery: 4 Considerations Before You Go Under the Knife
•100 Best Blogs for Living Healthy on a Budget
•Introducing iScrub
•The Surgery is Over… Now What? 4 Tips for A Successful Rehab
•Top 100 Doctor Bloggers
•100+ Ways to Spring Clean Your Mind and Body
•The Top 50 Surgeon Bloggers
•52 Ways To Lower Your Carbon Footprint In College
•What Does a Surgical Technician Do?
•How Do I Apply to Surgical Technician School?
•Where Do Surgical Technicians Work?
•What Is Surgical Technician School Like?
•What Is the Salary and Employment Outlook for a Surgical Technician?
•10 Famous Doctors who Made Medicine What it is Today
http://surgicaltechnicianschools.org/?page_id=94
Carolyn Friedman
Guide to online surgical tech degree programs iScrub
iScrub is a blog devoted to providing news, information, and resources to the healthcare community and those it serves. It is our goal to keep our hand on the pulse of the online health community and bring you, our loyal readers, the best of what we find. We strive to be focused in message, but informal in tone. We hope you enjoy.
10 Famous Doctors who Made Medicine What it is Today
During any time period, various changes can take place, particularly in the medical field. In the much earlier years, the doctors little black bag contained everything they needed to treat patients. A medical diagnosis was made more on intuition then scientific facts. But whether in the past or the present, there are those innovators whose compassion and love of learning allow them to make significant medical discoveries that have had a major effect on humankind and improved the quality of life. From medical inventions to performing life saving surgeries, we have compiled a list of 10 famous doctors who have made medicine what it is today.
1.Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC) - Hippocrates is known as one of the most exceptional individuals in medical history. He was the first physician to believe that thoughts, ideas, and feelings come from the brain and not the heart as other colleagues in his era so adamantly thought . He described in detail disease symptoms and was the first doctor to precisely characterize the symptoms of pneumonia, as well as epilepsy in children. He believed in natural healing processes of relaxation, nutrition, fresh air and cleanliness. Hippocrates traveled through Greece practicing medicine. He founded a medical school on the island of Cos, Greece and began teaching his ideas. He soon developed an Oath for physicians that is still followed today, called the Hippocratic Oath . He died in 377 BC.
2.Jean Astruc (March 19, 1684 - May 5, 1766) - Jean was a French professor of medicine who discovered and wrote about the cure of syphilis and other venereal diseases. He quickly became one of the outstanding doctors of the 18th century recognized throughout the world. The publication in 1736 of his classic work, “De morbis venereis,” is a milestone in the history of syphilis. He was also involved in comprehensive research into the book of Genesis and wrote many acclaimed compositions on how Moses had originally written the book of Genesis.
3.Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec (February 17, 1781 – August 13, 1826) - Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec was a French physician who invented the stethoscope in 1816. Before then, the only way a doctor could hear the sounds of the heart and the chest was by placing his ear on the patients’ chest. However, this sound was not always clear, especially if the patient was obese. Through his original creation, he was able to explore sounds in the lungs and heart. This instrument helped him to determine diagnoses for the autopsies he performed. He was known to be the father of clinical auscultation and wrote many journals and clinical terms that are still used by physicians around the world today.
4.Henry Gray (1827-1861) - Dr. Gray was an English anatomist and surgeon who is most noted for publishing the book Gray’s Anatomy . With some help of his friend Henry Vandyke Carter, a skilled draughtsman and former demonstrator of anatomy at St. George’s Hospital. A second edition was prepared by Gray and published in 1860. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) at the age of 25 and held the positions of demonstrator of Anatomy, curator of the museum, and Lecturer of Anatomy at St. George’s Hospital. In 1861 he was a main candidate for the title of assistant surgeon. Sadly, he was overcome by an attack of smallpox, which he contracted while looking after a nephew, and died and untimely death at the young age of 34.
5.Joseph Lister (April 5, 1827 - February 10, 1912) - For almost a decade, doctors tried to understand why wounds became infected after surgical procedures. John Lister was one of them. An English surgeon and a pioneer of antiseptic surgery, he completed comprehensive research on the origins of infection and created many of the sterilization procedures used in today’s hospitals that keep infection to a minimum. Lister successfully introduced carbolic acid to sterilize surgical instruments and to clean wounds, which led to the reduction of post-operative infections and safer surgical practices for patients.
6.Theodor Billroth( April 26, 1829 - February 6, 1894) - Dr. Billroth was an innovative surgeon as well as a teacher. He was directly responsible for a number of landmarks in surgery, including the first esophagectomy (1871), the first laryngectomyl (1873), and the first successful gastroduodenostomy (1881.) These procedures, of course with some modification, are still practiced by physicians when treating gastric cancers and some cases of peptic ulcer disease. At the University of Vienna, he promoted longer post medical school rotations in surgery. He started what where considered extended “apprenticeships” in surgery with a curriculum that contained 1 year of hospital work in general medicine, followed by a year of dissection on cadavers and animals, and ending with a 2 or 3 year assistantship in surgery under a senior surgeon. This was the start of modern day residency training in surgery as it is known today.
7.Charles Richard Drew (June 3, 1904 - April 1, 1950) - Dr. Charles Richard was an African American physician and medical researcher. His studies were in the field of blood transfusions and creating advancements in procedures for blood storage. He focused his knowledge on developing blood banks on a larger scale early in World War II. This caused thousands of lives to be saved in the armed forces. He protested against the practice of racial segregation in the donation of blood saying there was no clinical scientific evidence. These beliefs were a contributing factor of his termination. Finally in 1943, he was recognized for his actions and became the first black surgeon to serve as a medical examiner for the American Board of Surgery.
8.Virginia Apgar (June 7, 1909 - August 77, 1974) Virginia was an American doctor who was dedicated to the advancement of anesthesia and pediatrics. Because of her expertise in the fields of teratology and anesthesiology, she familiarized the field of neonatology . Even more, she is highly respected for the development of the Apgar test, which is a procedure that is used to determine the health of newborn babies. This test has significantly decreased the mortality rate of infants in countries across the globe.
9.Christiaan Neethling Barnard (November 8, 1922 - September 2, 2001) - The West African physician served as a cardiothoracic surgeon at Groote Schuur Hospital in 1958, where he established the hospital’s first heart unit. He had been experimenting for several years with animal heart transplants after he performed the first successful kidney transplant in West Africa in 1959. He followed with the first heart transplant in 1967, where he was assisted by Dr. Michael DeBakey. This operation lasted nine hours and required a team of more than 25 people. These procedures played a substantial role in urology and cardiac surgeries performed by doctors in today’s operating rooms.
10.Peter Safar (April 12, 1924 – August 2, 2003) - Dr. Safar was the thought provoking voice behind both cardiopulmonary resuscitation and critical care medicine. As an honored professor of resuscitation medicine at the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Medicine, he created this country’s first intensive care unit and paramedic ambulance services that have changed the outlines of emergency services for patients. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in medicine 3 times.
With the aid of technological advancements and the introduction of antibiotics and other vital drugs, these doctors have paved the way for their successors to shed light on traditional beliefs in medicine and open up endless possibilities to equipment and procedures that would never have been thought possible years ago.
Complete Listing of our Articles
•Examining Cosmetic Surgery: 4 Considerations Before You Go Under the Knife
•100 Best Blogs for Living Healthy on a Budget
•Introducing iScrub
•The Surgery is Over… Now What? 4 Tips for A Successful Rehab
•Top 100 Doctor Bloggers
•100+ Ways to Spring Clean Your Mind and Body
•The Top 50 Surgeon Bloggers
•52 Ways To Lower Your Carbon Footprint In College
•What Does a Surgical Technician Do?
•How Do I Apply to Surgical Technician School?
•Where Do Surgical Technicians Work?
•What Is Surgical Technician School Like?
•What Is the Salary and Employment Outlook for a Surgical Technician?
•10 Famous Doctors who Made Medicine What it is Today
http://surgicaltechnicianschools.org/?page_id=94
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Cops & Child Protective Services abuse children when they take them from innocent parents
Examiner Bio Cops & Child Protective Services abuse children when they take them from innocent parents
July 27, 8:27 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court Examiner Daniel Weaver
I have often argued that Child Protective Services and the police are guilty of abusing children. I don't mean they are guilty of abuse when they take children from homes where the parents have sexually and physically abused them, or where children have been neglected through starvation and the like. What I mean is that when children are taken from innocent parents, which happens a lot more than the public realizes, they are often abused.
I will be writing some more about this in the coming weeks. Today, however, I wanted to focus on how Child Protective Services and the police traumatize children during the removal process. Can you imagine being four years old or eight years old or even a teenager, and a number of cops and/or Child Protective Services investigators show up at your house. Your parents have done nothing wrong. They have never hurt or neglected you. Yet here is a big cop with a gun, handcuffs and a taser. You start crying. Your mother or father naturally get upset because you are being taken. The cops then threaten your parents. Finally, the cops drag you to the police car, kicking and screaming.
Taking children from families, without due process, and in many cases when the parents have done nothing wrong, is a widespread phenomenon in the western world. It is child abuse. Nothing more. Nothing less. In part two of this series, I will discuss how children are sometimes abused during the interrogation process.
To read this entire article, please go to:
http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Cops--Child-Protective-Services-abuse-children-when-they-take-them-from-innocent-parents
July 27, 8:27 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court Examiner Daniel Weaver
I have often argued that Child Protective Services and the police are guilty of abusing children. I don't mean they are guilty of abuse when they take children from homes where the parents have sexually and physically abused them, or where children have been neglected through starvation and the like. What I mean is that when children are taken from innocent parents, which happens a lot more than the public realizes, they are often abused.
I will be writing some more about this in the coming weeks. Today, however, I wanted to focus on how Child Protective Services and the police traumatize children during the removal process. Can you imagine being four years old or eight years old or even a teenager, and a number of cops and/or Child Protective Services investigators show up at your house. Your parents have done nothing wrong. They have never hurt or neglected you. Yet here is a big cop with a gun, handcuffs and a taser. You start crying. Your mother or father naturally get upset because you are being taken. The cops then threaten your parents. Finally, the cops drag you to the police car, kicking and screaming.
Taking children from families, without due process, and in many cases when the parents have done nothing wrong, is a widespread phenomenon in the western world. It is child abuse. Nothing more. Nothing less. In part two of this series, I will discuss how children are sometimes abused during the interrogation process.
To read this entire article, please go to:
http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Cops--Child-Protective-Services-abuse-children-when-they-take-them-from-innocent-parents
Would you Weep- DFCS Stealing Children
Would you Weep- DFCS Stealing Children
January 8, 2010 yvonnemason
Georgia
Things That Make Us Weep
Would you weep if your daughter’s children had been seized and swept into foster care by the
Department of Family and Children Services (DFACS) that didn’t bother to
contact you before farming them out to strangers?
Would you weep if your granddaughters were placed with foster parents who already housed 18
foster children and were told they could adopt your grandchildren?
Would you weep if your oldest granddaughter told you that the foster father molested her on two
different occasions?
Would you weep if a juvenile judge reneged on a promise to remove your granddaughters from
that overcrowded foster home, where the foster father molested one of them?
Would you weep if that judge wrote a new order to send the girls to live with their father on the
West Coast, where he worked in “adult entertainment,” whose girl friend
worked as an “escort” and his brother, also in the business, had a sexual charge
brought against him?
Would you weep if the father of your granddaughters were to come knocking on your door to
take them, kicking and screaming, to California to live with him?
Would you weep if you had five years of debilitating experiences with a powerful government
agency that did the above and denied your right to visit your granddaughters?
_____________________________________________
The above facts, written here in the form of questions, outline a story related to Senator Nancy
Schaefer of District 50. The grandmother sorrowfully shared her desperation over continuing
circumstances surrounding the custody of her grandchildren. She told how agency personnel
had her daughter sign “a paper” to give up her children, if she ever wanted to see them again.
She signed and has never recovered from having her girls permanently taken away from her.
Senator Schaefer’s Findings. “Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with
multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I
have worked with other desperate parents and children across the state because they have no
rights and no one to turn [to]. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers,
social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who ‘pick up’
the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all over the state
of Georgia.
“In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services
(DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that
the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced. Parents and families should
be warned of the dangers.”
At the Mercy of a “Protected Empire”
“Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide,
I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.”
– Senator ancy Schaefer, District 50
————-
“The Department of Child Protective Services, known as DFCS in Georgia and other titles in
other states, has become a ‘protected empire’ built on taking children and separating families.
This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched
situations and need protection. This report is concerned with the children and parents caught up
in ‘legal kidnapping,’ ineffective policies, and DFCS who do not remove a child or children
when a child is enduring torment and abuse.
“In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and
without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching
encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did
not know where their children were and had not seen them in years.
“I had witnessed the ‘Gestapo’ at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which
children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off school buses, and out of
homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the DFCS
department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. In
another county children were not removed when they were enduring the worst possible abuse.
“Due to being exposed, several employees in a particular DFCS office were fired. However,
they have now been rehired, either in neighboring counties or in the same county again.
According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the
same practices that they had before the light was shown on their deeds. I have come to this
conclusion. Poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have
the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system.
“The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash
‘bonuses’ to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the
‘adoption incentive bonuses,’ local child protective services need more children. They must
have merchandise (children) that [will] sell and [they must] have plenty of them so the buyer
can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an
additional $2,000 for a ‘special needs’ child. Employees work to keep federal dollars flowing.
“Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care and the head of
a Foster Parents Association in my District was recently arrested because of child molestation.
Some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce
their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce.
“There’s double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. When
a child in foster care is placed with a new family, ‘adoption bonus funds’ are available. When a
child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a
constituent of mine, more funds are involved. There are no financial resources and no real drive
[for DFCS] to unite a family and help keep them together.”
S.B. 415 Limits DHR Power Over Children
When Senator Nancy Schaefer heard, repeatedly, that state agencies were taking far too many
children into custody and putting them in foster care, she began probing the system to get the
facts. Soon she was face to face with the real possibility of corruption in the Department of
Family and Children Services (DFACS), a division of the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Schaefer’s District 50 stretches into eight of Georgia’s northeast counties. Many of her
constituents have experienced instances in which children were, arbitrarily, seized by the state
and placed in foster care or given in adoption, without sufficient evidence of abuse or neglect
and without consent from parents who are intimidated into cooperating. Parents want their
children back, but have no idea where they are or whether they’ll see them again.
S.B. 415 was introduced by Senator Schaefer on February 6th to rectify unethical, if not illegal,
treatment by DFACS. The first thing the bill does is reduce from seven days to three days the
time children may be held without a court order. Currently, DHR has power to order unlimited
medical treatment for children without parental consent. If S.B. 415 passes, “no medication
shall be administered to the child over the objection of the custodial parent or legal custodian.”1
Current law gives blanket immunity from liability to DHR, its employees, agents, and assigns
that consent to medical treatment for children under their care and supervision. But, that will be
gone, if the following statement remains in the bill. “This immunity shall not extend to seizures
of children that are found to be in violation of this article nor to the administration of
medication to a child over the objection of the custodial parent or legal custodian.”
S.B. 415 includes another important change that requires DHR to place children with a relative,
unless there is no relative willing and able to accept the responsibility. DFACS would have to
prove reasonable efforts were made to contact each and every one of a child’s relatives via a
registered letter, phone calls and e-mails, before placing the child in DHR custody.
Current law allows closed hearings in deprived child cases, but S.B. 415 requires open hearings
in such cases unless the parents or guardians object. Section 5 prohibits DHR from badgering
parents by, repeatedly, filing the same charges, in efforts to terminate their rights.
Sections 6 and 7 give parents facing termination of parental rights the right to full disclosure of
the charges against them. Within 48 hours prior to the termination hearing, parents must have
access to the names, addresses, telephone numbers and statements (written or oral) of witnesses.
They must be allowed to inspect, copy or photograph all physical evidence to be introduced, as
well as photographs, police incident reports and other reports forming the basis of the charges.
Section 8 prohibits the practice of paying bonuses to agents that seize children by stating that no
entity of the State of Georgia shall apply for, obtain, receive, or accept any adoption incentive
payments under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
ACTION – Support. Contact Senate Judiciary Committee Senators Smith, Ch., 404 656-0034; Harp, 463-3931; Hamrick,
656-0036; Adelman, 463-1376; Brown, 656-5035; Carter, 651-7738; Cowsert, 463-1366; Fort, 656-5091; Hill, 656-0150;
Meyer von Bremen, 656-0037; Reed, 463-1379, Ex-Officio; Seabaugh, 656-6446 Ex-Officio; Wiles, 657-0406.
1Georgia Insight’s Proposed Amendment to Tighten S.B. 415
Specifically require DHR to obtain parental consent before medicating children. The current wording, actually,
allows DHR to drug children unless the parent proactively says they can’t. Parents need DHR to inform them
of pending medication, so parents would know they could and, probably, should opt their children out.
When elected officials in our representative republic think expanding government by creating an
appointed agency is a good thing, there’s something wrong.
House passed H.B. 881, Moving Charter Schools Further from Voters
It’s anti-parent, anti-voter and anti-local control.
It gives the federal government total control over schools, curriculum and students.
—————————————————————————————–
This subject is one of the most misunderstood things I’ve ever tried to explain. But, despite its
passage in the House by a vote of 119 – 48, here goes. (a) Charter schools are unconstitutional
in Georgia, because our constitution puts schools under the management and control of locally
elected school board members, who must reside within the territory embraced by the school.
(b) Charters are with the State Board of Education that’s appointed by the governor – one from
each of Georgia’s 13 congressional districts. (c) Therefore, the appointed State Board of
Education is not authorized by the state constitution to manage and control local schools.
Likewise, members of locally elected school boards are not authorized to give the State Board
of Education power to manage and control schools in the local board’s district.
(d) Charter schools are not projects of states, but were created by a federal initiative in order to
gain federal control over education. The control is a slick accomplishment via legal slight-ofhand.
This is how it’s done. Charter schools may waive local and state laws, policies, rules and
regulations, but they are not authorized to waive federal laws, policies, rules and regulations.
Background. The federal charter schools project surfaced in 1991 when the first President
Bush created the New American Schools Development Corporation to put a “radical, break-themold”
charter school in each congressional district throughout the country. About 1,000 charter
schools existed when President Clinton gave his 1997 State of the Union speech and said, “Our
plan will help America to create 3,000 of these charter schools by the next century.” With
funding of $500 million over five years granted in his Charter School Expansion Act of 1998,
schools took the bait, despite the loss of local rights or states’ rights or damages to education.
(e) In 1993 Georgia’s first charter school bill passed, allowing individual schools to apply to
local school boards for charter status. That continued until last session when S.B. 39 authorized
entire school systems to be chartered in unison. But, this year’s H.B. 881 “takes the cake!”
H.B. 881 passed the House January 31st, causing previous bills to pale in comparison. No
matter how hard I try, I cannot understand why our legislators voted for H.B. 881, knowing
they’re under oath to uphold the State constitution. Although they were elected, they are
willing to create a non-elected appointed commission to govern an unconstitutional form of
education in Georgia. It’s bad that parents are misled into believing charter schools will mean
more parental input and better education, when that’s only a sound byte to charter more schools.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/would-you-weep-dfcs-stealing-children/
January 8, 2010 yvonnemason
Georgia
Things That Make Us Weep
Would you weep if your daughter’s children had been seized and swept into foster care by the
Department of Family and Children Services (DFACS) that didn’t bother to
contact you before farming them out to strangers?
Would you weep if your granddaughters were placed with foster parents who already housed 18
foster children and were told they could adopt your grandchildren?
Would you weep if your oldest granddaughter told you that the foster father molested her on two
different occasions?
Would you weep if a juvenile judge reneged on a promise to remove your granddaughters from
that overcrowded foster home, where the foster father molested one of them?
Would you weep if that judge wrote a new order to send the girls to live with their father on the
West Coast, where he worked in “adult entertainment,” whose girl friend
worked as an “escort” and his brother, also in the business, had a sexual charge
brought against him?
Would you weep if the father of your granddaughters were to come knocking on your door to
take them, kicking and screaming, to California to live with him?
Would you weep if you had five years of debilitating experiences with a powerful government
agency that did the above and denied your right to visit your granddaughters?
_____________________________________________
The above facts, written here in the form of questions, outline a story related to Senator Nancy
Schaefer of District 50. The grandmother sorrowfully shared her desperation over continuing
circumstances surrounding the custody of her grandchildren. She told how agency personnel
had her daughter sign “a paper” to give up her children, if she ever wanted to see them again.
She signed and has never recovered from having her girls permanently taken away from her.
Senator Schaefer’s Findings. “Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with
multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I
have worked with other desperate parents and children across the state because they have no
rights and no one to turn [to]. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers,
social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who ‘pick up’
the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all over the state
of Georgia.
“In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services
(DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that
the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced. Parents and families should
be warned of the dangers.”
At the Mercy of a “Protected Empire”
“Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide,
I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.”
– Senator ancy Schaefer, District 50
————-
“The Department of Child Protective Services, known as DFCS in Georgia and other titles in
other states, has become a ‘protected empire’ built on taking children and separating families.
This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched
situations and need protection. This report is concerned with the children and parents caught up
in ‘legal kidnapping,’ ineffective policies, and DFCS who do not remove a child or children
when a child is enduring torment and abuse.
“In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and
without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching
encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did
not know where their children were and had not seen them in years.
“I had witnessed the ‘Gestapo’ at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which
children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off school buses, and out of
homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the DFCS
department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. In
another county children were not removed when they were enduring the worst possible abuse.
“Due to being exposed, several employees in a particular DFCS office were fired. However,
they have now been rehired, either in neighboring counties or in the same county again.
According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the
same practices that they had before the light was shown on their deeds. I have come to this
conclusion. Poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have
the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system.
“The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash
‘bonuses’ to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the
‘adoption incentive bonuses,’ local child protective services need more children. They must
have merchandise (children) that [will] sell and [they must] have plenty of them so the buyer
can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an
additional $2,000 for a ‘special needs’ child. Employees work to keep federal dollars flowing.
“Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care and the head of
a Foster Parents Association in my District was recently arrested because of child molestation.
Some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce
their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce.
“There’s double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. When
a child in foster care is placed with a new family, ‘adoption bonus funds’ are available. When a
child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a
constituent of mine, more funds are involved. There are no financial resources and no real drive
[for DFCS] to unite a family and help keep them together.”
S.B. 415 Limits DHR Power Over Children
When Senator Nancy Schaefer heard, repeatedly, that state agencies were taking far too many
children into custody and putting them in foster care, she began probing the system to get the
facts. Soon she was face to face with the real possibility of corruption in the Department of
Family and Children Services (DFACS), a division of the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Schaefer’s District 50 stretches into eight of Georgia’s northeast counties. Many of her
constituents have experienced instances in which children were, arbitrarily, seized by the state
and placed in foster care or given in adoption, without sufficient evidence of abuse or neglect
and without consent from parents who are intimidated into cooperating. Parents want their
children back, but have no idea where they are or whether they’ll see them again.
S.B. 415 was introduced by Senator Schaefer on February 6th to rectify unethical, if not illegal,
treatment by DFACS. The first thing the bill does is reduce from seven days to three days the
time children may be held without a court order. Currently, DHR has power to order unlimited
medical treatment for children without parental consent. If S.B. 415 passes, “no medication
shall be administered to the child over the objection of the custodial parent or legal custodian.”1
Current law gives blanket immunity from liability to DHR, its employees, agents, and assigns
that consent to medical treatment for children under their care and supervision. But, that will be
gone, if the following statement remains in the bill. “This immunity shall not extend to seizures
of children that are found to be in violation of this article nor to the administration of
medication to a child over the objection of the custodial parent or legal custodian.”
S.B. 415 includes another important change that requires DHR to place children with a relative,
unless there is no relative willing and able to accept the responsibility. DFACS would have to
prove reasonable efforts were made to contact each and every one of a child’s relatives via a
registered letter, phone calls and e-mails, before placing the child in DHR custody.
Current law allows closed hearings in deprived child cases, but S.B. 415 requires open hearings
in such cases unless the parents or guardians object. Section 5 prohibits DHR from badgering
parents by, repeatedly, filing the same charges, in efforts to terminate their rights.
Sections 6 and 7 give parents facing termination of parental rights the right to full disclosure of
the charges against them. Within 48 hours prior to the termination hearing, parents must have
access to the names, addresses, telephone numbers and statements (written or oral) of witnesses.
They must be allowed to inspect, copy or photograph all physical evidence to be introduced, as
well as photographs, police incident reports and other reports forming the basis of the charges.
Section 8 prohibits the practice of paying bonuses to agents that seize children by stating that no
entity of the State of Georgia shall apply for, obtain, receive, or accept any adoption incentive
payments under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
ACTION – Support. Contact Senate Judiciary Committee Senators Smith, Ch., 404 656-0034; Harp, 463-3931; Hamrick,
656-0036; Adelman, 463-1376; Brown, 656-5035; Carter, 651-7738; Cowsert, 463-1366; Fort, 656-5091; Hill, 656-0150;
Meyer von Bremen, 656-0037; Reed, 463-1379, Ex-Officio; Seabaugh, 656-6446 Ex-Officio; Wiles, 657-0406.
1Georgia Insight’s Proposed Amendment to Tighten S.B. 415
Specifically require DHR to obtain parental consent before medicating children. The current wording, actually,
allows DHR to drug children unless the parent proactively says they can’t. Parents need DHR to inform them
of pending medication, so parents would know they could and, probably, should opt their children out.
When elected officials in our representative republic think expanding government by creating an
appointed agency is a good thing, there’s something wrong.
House passed H.B. 881, Moving Charter Schools Further from Voters
It’s anti-parent, anti-voter and anti-local control.
It gives the federal government total control over schools, curriculum and students.
—————————————————————————————–
This subject is one of the most misunderstood things I’ve ever tried to explain. But, despite its
passage in the House by a vote of 119 – 48, here goes. (a) Charter schools are unconstitutional
in Georgia, because our constitution puts schools under the management and control of locally
elected school board members, who must reside within the territory embraced by the school.
(b) Charters are with the State Board of Education that’s appointed by the governor – one from
each of Georgia’s 13 congressional districts. (c) Therefore, the appointed State Board of
Education is not authorized by the state constitution to manage and control local schools.
Likewise, members of locally elected school boards are not authorized to give the State Board
of Education power to manage and control schools in the local board’s district.
(d) Charter schools are not projects of states, but were created by a federal initiative in order to
gain federal control over education. The control is a slick accomplishment via legal slight-ofhand.
This is how it’s done. Charter schools may waive local and state laws, policies, rules and
regulations, but they are not authorized to waive federal laws, policies, rules and regulations.
Background. The federal charter schools project surfaced in 1991 when the first President
Bush created the New American Schools Development Corporation to put a “radical, break-themold”
charter school in each congressional district throughout the country. About 1,000 charter
schools existed when President Clinton gave his 1997 State of the Union speech and said, “Our
plan will help America to create 3,000 of these charter schools by the next century.” With
funding of $500 million over five years granted in his Charter School Expansion Act of 1998,
schools took the bait, despite the loss of local rights or states’ rights or damages to education.
(e) In 1993 Georgia’s first charter school bill passed, allowing individual schools to apply to
local school boards for charter status. That continued until last session when S.B. 39 authorized
entire school systems to be chartered in unison. But, this year’s H.B. 881 “takes the cake!”
H.B. 881 passed the House January 31st, causing previous bills to pale in comparison. No
matter how hard I try, I cannot understand why our legislators voted for H.B. 881, knowing
they’re under oath to uphold the State constitution. Although they were elected, they are
willing to create a non-elected appointed commission to govern an unconstitutional form of
education in Georgia. It’s bad that parents are misled into believing charter schools will mean
more parental input and better education, when that’s only a sound byte to charter more schools.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/would-you-weep-dfcs-stealing-children/
Foster care too often fails to keep kids safe
Foster care too often fails to keep kids safe
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/foster0521a.htm
Foster care too often fails to keep kids safe
By Patricia Callahan and Kirk Mitchell
Denver Post Staff Writers
Eleven children were molested. One was forced to have sex with a dog.
One lay injured on a bathroom floor, his face smeared with his own feces. That toddler, Miguel Arias-Baca, later died.
They are the state’s dirty little secrets.
Foster children, wards of the state taken from abusive or neglectful relatives, suffered again in foster homes that were supposed to keep them from harm.
Colorado child-welfare officials have watched these horror stories and many others unfold in foster homes chosen and supervised by private foster-care businesses.
Yet, the state has done little or nothing to punish the businesses responsible for the children whose lives were damaged.
In fact, the state continues to pour millions in taxpayer funds – $36.7 million last fiscal year – into private agencies, which now oversee more than half of Colorado’s foster kids and collect more than three-quarters of the public’s foster-care dollars.
While state officials have made hollow threats to foster-care agencies that repeatedly break state rules, some foster parents and agency executives are mak ing six-figure incomes from the business of foster care.
Foster-care businesses “by and large are cash cows,” said K.C. Robbie, who manages financial data for the state’s child-welfare division.
A Denver Post investigation revealed that the state’s private foster-care system too often fails to protect abused and neglected kids.
Responsibility lies both with the Legislature, which controls the laws governing foster care, and the state Department of Human Services, which is supposed to protect the vulnerable children in foster care.
Among The Post’s findings:
- About 40 percent of the 2,440 children in the private foster-care system are supervised by businesses whose records included serious problems, such as using former criminals as foster parents, placing kids in homes where they later were abused or molested, or repeatedly violating state rules.
- Virtually anyone can become a foster parent with a private business, including most felons and people with alcohol, drug or serious psychological problems. The standards for becoming a mentor through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado far exceed those for becoming a foster parent in Colorado.
- The state pays three times more for private foster care than it does for traditional, county-supervised foster homes, records show. Yet the two systems provide the same level of care, a 1998 state audit found.
- Government officials say they can’t regulate how taxpayer money is spent by foster-care businesses. The state doesn’t even know how much money the agencies pay their foster parents, the audit found. State officials say they have no power to prevent foster-care businesses from spending state subsidies for children on expensive offices and big salaries.
- Foster parents often skip from one business to another. Some foster parents have fallen into trouble at one agency, quietly quit and slipped to another agency that was unaware of the previous problems.
- Colorado’s system is unusual. It is one of only three states to grant permanent licenses to foster-care businesses. One state doesn’t license private agencies. All others have licenses that must be renewed, giving those states leverage to get problems fixed. And, Colorado is one of only 11 states that divide child-welfare duties between state and county offices, a split that critics say diffuses responsibility and accountability.
- Colorado asks foster-care businesses to report their own failings. The state, lacking money to send out the “self-assessment” forms each year, asks private agencies to re-use old forms with a different color pen.
Last year the state Department of Human Services declared the private foster-care network, which it oversees, to be primarily healthy.
“More than 85 percent of the facilities provide good care to children, costeffectively, and conduct their business responsibly,” the department report said. “Foster parents, in almost all cases, provide safe, nurturing environments for the children in placement.” While many of the state’s 40 private foster-care agencies have no serious problems, 11 foster-care businesses together amassed 1,057 violations of state rules from 1994 to 1999, state records show.
“When you have a system where there is virtually no accountability, these types of abuses are inevitable and simply predictable,” said Phyllis Roestenberg, a staff attorney at the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center. “Our system is sick.” For this investigation, The Denver Post crunched 1.8 million computer records from five state databases and examined every inspection report and abuse complaint in the private agencies’ state files. Reporters reviewed police reports, court records, tax returns, and interviewed experts, foster parents, government officials and agency executives.
When shown The Post’s results, a national child advocate was shocked.
“There are big problems in foster care nationally, but if what you’re describing is going on in the Colorado system, it certainly ranks up there with among the worst of the systems in the country,” said Marcia Robinson Lowry, director of Children’s Rights Inc., a New York-based organization that has sued 11 cities and states for failing to protect kids.
“If this has been going on for a long time and the state has not acted to correct these problems, this is a system that is really ripe for litigation.”
Marva Livingston Hammons, a member of Gov. Bill Owens’ cabinet and head of Colorado’s Human Services Department, vowed to hold her staff accountable. Agencies should not be allowed to violate state foster-care rules repeatedly without consequences, she said.
“We have to be willing to take action,” Hammons said.
The problems in Colorado’s privatized foster care stem in part from the explosion of foster-care businesses and the state’s inability to keep up with them.
The number of foster-care homes supervised by businesses has increased by 800 percent in 13 years. In 1986, the state had 203 privately supervised foster homes. This year, there are 1,844.
A handful of child-placement agencies – the state’s name for the foster-care businesses – appeared in the 1940s to manage adoptions.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, counties had difficulty finding foster homes for kids who needed more help because of mental disabilities or severe medical problems.
The state turned to the businesses and increased the typical foster-care subsidy.
“Sometimes the rates paid to private agencies to serve disabled children were higher because they literally had to bring in extra help from the outside to serve their needs,” said Dana Andrews, the state administrator who oversees the licensing of foster-care businesses.
That soon changed. The explosion came in the early to mid-1990s. Foster parents who were working for counties began defecting to the private agencies, where the subsidies remained much higher and the help was rumored to be better.
More private businesses appeared to compete for the subsidies. They, in turn, recruited more foster parents.
And the money followed.
Colorado developed a two-tiered system, public and private. Today, some 57 percent of foster children are placed in homes supervised by private businesses, while the rest are in county-supervised foster homes. But 78 percent of the $47.2 million the state spent on foster care last year went to private foster-care businesses.
In fiscal 1999, the average monthly subsidy for a child in privatized foster care was $1,529, while the average subsidy for a child in a county foster home was $519, according to the state.
Part of that larger subsidy is supposed to cover basic administrative costs and staff. Counties already have staff to cover those responsibilities. It also can include the cost of therapy.
In addition, the state and the foster-care industry claim that the private sector runs “therapeutic foster homes,” where highly trained foster parents take in kids with more severe problems.
A Post computer analysis of foster-child records found about an equal number of children deemed “high risk” in both county and private-agency foster homes. The state database did not provide a risk factor for roughly the same number of children in both types of homes.
The state auditor in 1998 found “no evidence that (privately managed) foster homes provide a higher quality of care than do the county-administered homes.” Auditors questioned the cost difference, noting private businesses have spent as much as 65 percent of state subsidies on administration and other costs not related to children’s care.
“Unlike many other publicly funded programs, there are no limits on what is spent or retained for administrative purposes,” auditors wrote, adding that the rate disparity “cannot be adequately justified.”
The state says it lacks the manpower to keep up with the ballooning number of foster-care businesses. Until last February, the Human Services Department had only eight people to monitor and inspect not just foster-care businesses but also facilities that house and treat children with psychological problems. Six of those people also monitored adoption agencies and supervised other state workers who inspected preschools, school extended-care programs and daycare homes and centers. A fiveperson monitoring team began working in April.
Marilyn Bernier, now the state’s deputy licensing administrator, said that when she was an inspector, she had nightmares about children being in danger as she juggled cases last year. Bernier inspected 25 foster-care businesses, supervised four people and monitored a company that in turn was responsible for inspecting 700 day-care homes.
“We’re supposed to be protecting children and making them safe, and then they get placed in situations where they are re-abused,” Bernier said. “That is very scary to me. I couldn’t let it go.” Although Colorado’s system follows a national privatization trend in foster care, some policy decisions have made the state’s approach unusual.
Colorado sets itself apart by dividing child-welfare responsibilities between its 63 counties and the state. Under this structure, state officials supervise both the county social services departments and the private agencies.
The state typically doesn’t visit the private-agency foster homes. That’s left to county caseworkers. Instead, the state reviews the files the businesses keep on foster kids.
Those businesses are supposed to supervise their own homes and report abuse cases to the county. County caseworkers investigate abuse complaints in foster homes. State inspectors then step in and look for licensing violations.
Critics say the system diffuses authority, lets abuse cases fall through the cracks and allows state and county workers to blame each other when things go wrong in foster care.
Also, the private agencies have a financial incentive to keep their foster homes open. If agencies close homes, they lose subsidies.
Richard Wexler, a critic of the way foster-care money is spent, called this practice “the ultimate example of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
“You are expecting these private agencies to turn themselves in and say, “We’ve been bad,’- ” said Wexler, who heads the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “You will have children suffering enormous harm in secret behind closed doors.”
Asked about her experience in private-agency foster care, one teenager called foster parents in two of her previous homes “money grubbers.” When a county cut the monthly subsidy for the girl to $800, her foster mom told an agency caseworker that the girl “wasn’t worth $800,” according to an internal agency memo.
While other states face a shortage of foster parents, Colorado has plenty of foster homes for kids with all but the most severe needs, state officials say. In addition to the financial incentive to recruit more foster parents, relatives of abused children are coming forward to care for them, according to the state.
“We’ve seen a tremendous surge in the number of foster homes,” said Jane Beveridge, director of the state’s child-welfare division.
Many of those homes are run by dedicated foster parents who have helped turn troubled children’s lives around. Some of Colorado’s foster-care businesses run smoothly.
But some foster-care businesses have recruited foster parents with criminal records or questionable backgrounds.
Alpine Child Placement Agency recruited a Lakewood foster mom even though she had pleaded guilty to solicitation for prostitution. She had received a deferred judgment.
A Fort Collins woman who was charged with selling drugs out of her day-care home was later recruited by two different fostercare businesses. She pleaded guilty to drug possession and received a deferred judgment, court records show.
When that woman worked for Fort Collins-based Jacob Family Services Inc., her biological son sexually assaulted her 14-year-old foster daughter, court records show. That son also received a deferred judgment.
With her son awaiting trial, she moved to Maple Star Colorado, another foster-care business. When she left her foster children at home alone, her 15-year-old foster son forced two 9-year-old foster brothers to have sex with each other and made one of the boys have sex with a dog, court records show. Previously, that 15-year-old raped one of the 9-year-old boys, accord ing to court records.
Skipping from one agency to another when trouble arises is common. And sometimes it can have deadly results.
Last year, 2 1/2-year-old Miguel Arias-Baca was killed in a foster home supervised by All About Kids, a private business. Ricky Haney, his foster father, was charged with smearing Miguel’s face in his own feces and throwing the toddler to the floor with enough force to cause fatal bleeding in his brain.
Haney, who pleaded guilty to a felony child abuse charge two weeks ago, told police he had returned home from a Super Bowl party and was upset that Miguel had soiled his diaper. Haney and his wife, E’von, both had arrest records that went undetected because of a glitch at the state’s investigative bureau.
Prior to joining All About Kids, the Haneys worked for Synthesis, another private foster-care agency. But they left that agency after an abuse allegation was lodged against them, state officials said. Investigators didn’t substantiate the allegation, but Synthesis dropped them as foster parents.
“Looking back on it, there were all kinds of red flags,” the state’s Andrews told a panel of child-welfare experts last year.
The quality of foster parents varies because the businesses have different screening procedures and standards. Some private agencies do very thorough “home studies,” mandated assessments of a family’s ability to care for a foster child. Other agencies’ home studies are flimsy. Some agencies have failed to document prospective foster parents’ problems with alcoholism, addictions and psychiatric conditions, state records show.
“These are private businesses,” said licensing administrator Andrews. “We don’t have the right to tell private agencies who they can certify (as foster parents) and who they can’t.” The state requires agencies to get criminal records on each potential foster parent. But the only people barred from becoming foster parents are those convicted of certain felonies including some violent crimes, domestic violence, child abuse and sex offenses.
The state does not forbid agencies from certifying prospective foster parents who are “insane or mentally incompetent,” who have problems with alcohol or drugs or who are convicted of misdemeanor child abuse or misdemeanor violent crimes.
A state regulation says agencies may exclude people who fit those categories. But they don’t have to.
Six years ago, the Legislature inadvertently made it more difficult to crack down on problem agencies.
The state once granted foster care agencies and other child-care businesses licenses that had to be renewed every two years. If agencies broke rules, the state could refuse to renew a license.
But state inspectors monitored so many agencies that they weren’t processing renewals on time.
“If your caseload is too big, and you can’t get out to visit them, they had a license hanging on the wall that looked like it was expired,” Andrews said.
Child-care businesses balked. Rather than requesting enough licensing workers to do the job, the Human Services Department asked the Legislature for permanent li censes instead of renewable ones.
Now the state asks agencies to perform a “self assessment” when they send in their licensing fees every year. They are given a checklist of state rules, and they are asked to say whether they are following them. That way, visits by state inspectors don’t take as long.
Some agencies don’t fill out the checklist on time because the state doesn’t send out the forms every year.
“We don’t have the money to send them (checklists) out, so they’re supposed to use the same form but a different pen,” said Bernier, the deputy licensing administrator.
Some advocates think the selfassessment process is absurd: What agency is going to say it chronically breaks state rules?
“It’s outrageous,” said Roestenberg, of the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center. “For the convenience of the licensing agency, we assume these enormous risks on the backs of children.” If state inspectors catch a bad agency, their only recourse is a suspension, revocation or probation of the business’ license, or the state can levy a fine.
It took three years for the state to put one foster-care business’ license on probation.
And sometimes the state threatens an agency but doesn’t follow through.
After a foster father with Grand Junction-based Jacob Center West sexually assaulted his foster son in 1996, a state inspector said, “There is a large amount of culpability that lies with Jacob Center West.”
The investigator threatened the agency’s license if another abuse case occurred in one of its homes. The agency, now known as Gateway Youth and Family Services, since has had five substantiated abuse complaints in its foster homes. The state has done nothing to the business’ license.
Prompted by The Post’s investigation, Andrews launched a review of Gateway and several other foster-care businesses. She said a newly formed team of five childwelfare monitors will hold agencies more accountable.
“I think what you’re seeing is a pattern of very high caseloads and staff who have a lot to do and can’t focus on one agency,” Andrews said. “That’s where you miss the followup. You write it down and you move on to 20 other things.” Patricia Callahan’s e-mail address is Pcallahan@denverpost.com. Kirk Mitchell’s e-mail address is Kmitchell@denverpost.com.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/foster-care-too-often-fails-to-keep-kids-safe/
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/foster0521a.htm
Foster care too often fails to keep kids safe
By Patricia Callahan and Kirk Mitchell
Denver Post Staff Writers
Eleven children were molested. One was forced to have sex with a dog.
One lay injured on a bathroom floor, his face smeared with his own feces. That toddler, Miguel Arias-Baca, later died.
They are the state’s dirty little secrets.
Foster children, wards of the state taken from abusive or neglectful relatives, suffered again in foster homes that were supposed to keep them from harm.
Colorado child-welfare officials have watched these horror stories and many others unfold in foster homes chosen and supervised by private foster-care businesses.
Yet, the state has done little or nothing to punish the businesses responsible for the children whose lives were damaged.
In fact, the state continues to pour millions in taxpayer funds – $36.7 million last fiscal year – into private agencies, which now oversee more than half of Colorado’s foster kids and collect more than three-quarters of the public’s foster-care dollars.
While state officials have made hollow threats to foster-care agencies that repeatedly break state rules, some foster parents and agency executives are mak ing six-figure incomes from the business of foster care.
Foster-care businesses “by and large are cash cows,” said K.C. Robbie, who manages financial data for the state’s child-welfare division.
A Denver Post investigation revealed that the state’s private foster-care system too often fails to protect abused and neglected kids.
Responsibility lies both with the Legislature, which controls the laws governing foster care, and the state Department of Human Services, which is supposed to protect the vulnerable children in foster care.
Among The Post’s findings:
- About 40 percent of the 2,440 children in the private foster-care system are supervised by businesses whose records included serious problems, such as using former criminals as foster parents, placing kids in homes where they later were abused or molested, or repeatedly violating state rules.
- Virtually anyone can become a foster parent with a private business, including most felons and people with alcohol, drug or serious psychological problems. The standards for becoming a mentor through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado far exceed those for becoming a foster parent in Colorado.
- The state pays three times more for private foster care than it does for traditional, county-supervised foster homes, records show. Yet the two systems provide the same level of care, a 1998 state audit found.
- Government officials say they can’t regulate how taxpayer money is spent by foster-care businesses. The state doesn’t even know how much money the agencies pay their foster parents, the audit found. State officials say they have no power to prevent foster-care businesses from spending state subsidies for children on expensive offices and big salaries.
- Foster parents often skip from one business to another. Some foster parents have fallen into trouble at one agency, quietly quit and slipped to another agency that was unaware of the previous problems.
- Colorado’s system is unusual. It is one of only three states to grant permanent licenses to foster-care businesses. One state doesn’t license private agencies. All others have licenses that must be renewed, giving those states leverage to get problems fixed. And, Colorado is one of only 11 states that divide child-welfare duties between state and county offices, a split that critics say diffuses responsibility and accountability.
- Colorado asks foster-care businesses to report their own failings. The state, lacking money to send out the “self-assessment” forms each year, asks private agencies to re-use old forms with a different color pen.
Last year the state Department of Human Services declared the private foster-care network, which it oversees, to be primarily healthy.
“More than 85 percent of the facilities provide good care to children, costeffectively, and conduct their business responsibly,” the department report said. “Foster parents, in almost all cases, provide safe, nurturing environments for the children in placement.” While many of the state’s 40 private foster-care agencies have no serious problems, 11 foster-care businesses together amassed 1,057 violations of state rules from 1994 to 1999, state records show.
“When you have a system where there is virtually no accountability, these types of abuses are inevitable and simply predictable,” said Phyllis Roestenberg, a staff attorney at the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center. “Our system is sick.” For this investigation, The Denver Post crunched 1.8 million computer records from five state databases and examined every inspection report and abuse complaint in the private agencies’ state files. Reporters reviewed police reports, court records, tax returns, and interviewed experts, foster parents, government officials and agency executives.
When shown The Post’s results, a national child advocate was shocked.
“There are big problems in foster care nationally, but if what you’re describing is going on in the Colorado system, it certainly ranks up there with among the worst of the systems in the country,” said Marcia Robinson Lowry, director of Children’s Rights Inc., a New York-based organization that has sued 11 cities and states for failing to protect kids.
“If this has been going on for a long time and the state has not acted to correct these problems, this is a system that is really ripe for litigation.”
Marva Livingston Hammons, a member of Gov. Bill Owens’ cabinet and head of Colorado’s Human Services Department, vowed to hold her staff accountable. Agencies should not be allowed to violate state foster-care rules repeatedly without consequences, she said.
“We have to be willing to take action,” Hammons said.
The problems in Colorado’s privatized foster care stem in part from the explosion of foster-care businesses and the state’s inability to keep up with them.
The number of foster-care homes supervised by businesses has increased by 800 percent in 13 years. In 1986, the state had 203 privately supervised foster homes. This year, there are 1,844.
A handful of child-placement agencies – the state’s name for the foster-care businesses – appeared in the 1940s to manage adoptions.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, counties had difficulty finding foster homes for kids who needed more help because of mental disabilities or severe medical problems.
The state turned to the businesses and increased the typical foster-care subsidy.
“Sometimes the rates paid to private agencies to serve disabled children were higher because they literally had to bring in extra help from the outside to serve their needs,” said Dana Andrews, the state administrator who oversees the licensing of foster-care businesses.
That soon changed. The explosion came in the early to mid-1990s. Foster parents who were working for counties began defecting to the private agencies, where the subsidies remained much higher and the help was rumored to be better.
More private businesses appeared to compete for the subsidies. They, in turn, recruited more foster parents.
And the money followed.
Colorado developed a two-tiered system, public and private. Today, some 57 percent of foster children are placed in homes supervised by private businesses, while the rest are in county-supervised foster homes. But 78 percent of the $47.2 million the state spent on foster care last year went to private foster-care businesses.
In fiscal 1999, the average monthly subsidy for a child in privatized foster care was $1,529, while the average subsidy for a child in a county foster home was $519, according to the state.
Part of that larger subsidy is supposed to cover basic administrative costs and staff. Counties already have staff to cover those responsibilities. It also can include the cost of therapy.
In addition, the state and the foster-care industry claim that the private sector runs “therapeutic foster homes,” where highly trained foster parents take in kids with more severe problems.
A Post computer analysis of foster-child records found about an equal number of children deemed “high risk” in both county and private-agency foster homes. The state database did not provide a risk factor for roughly the same number of children in both types of homes.
The state auditor in 1998 found “no evidence that (privately managed) foster homes provide a higher quality of care than do the county-administered homes.” Auditors questioned the cost difference, noting private businesses have spent as much as 65 percent of state subsidies on administration and other costs not related to children’s care.
“Unlike many other publicly funded programs, there are no limits on what is spent or retained for administrative purposes,” auditors wrote, adding that the rate disparity “cannot be adequately justified.”
The state says it lacks the manpower to keep up with the ballooning number of foster-care businesses. Until last February, the Human Services Department had only eight people to monitor and inspect not just foster-care businesses but also facilities that house and treat children with psychological problems. Six of those people also monitored adoption agencies and supervised other state workers who inspected preschools, school extended-care programs and daycare homes and centers. A fiveperson monitoring team began working in April.
Marilyn Bernier, now the state’s deputy licensing administrator, said that when she was an inspector, she had nightmares about children being in danger as she juggled cases last year. Bernier inspected 25 foster-care businesses, supervised four people and monitored a company that in turn was responsible for inspecting 700 day-care homes.
“We’re supposed to be protecting children and making them safe, and then they get placed in situations where they are re-abused,” Bernier said. “That is very scary to me. I couldn’t let it go.” Although Colorado’s system follows a national privatization trend in foster care, some policy decisions have made the state’s approach unusual.
Colorado sets itself apart by dividing child-welfare responsibilities between its 63 counties and the state. Under this structure, state officials supervise both the county social services departments and the private agencies.
The state typically doesn’t visit the private-agency foster homes. That’s left to county caseworkers. Instead, the state reviews the files the businesses keep on foster kids.
Those businesses are supposed to supervise their own homes and report abuse cases to the county. County caseworkers investigate abuse complaints in foster homes. State inspectors then step in and look for licensing violations.
Critics say the system diffuses authority, lets abuse cases fall through the cracks and allows state and county workers to blame each other when things go wrong in foster care.
Also, the private agencies have a financial incentive to keep their foster homes open. If agencies close homes, they lose subsidies.
Richard Wexler, a critic of the way foster-care money is spent, called this practice “the ultimate example of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
“You are expecting these private agencies to turn themselves in and say, “We’ve been bad,’- ” said Wexler, who heads the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “You will have children suffering enormous harm in secret behind closed doors.”
Asked about her experience in private-agency foster care, one teenager called foster parents in two of her previous homes “money grubbers.” When a county cut the monthly subsidy for the girl to $800, her foster mom told an agency caseworker that the girl “wasn’t worth $800,” according to an internal agency memo.
While other states face a shortage of foster parents, Colorado has plenty of foster homes for kids with all but the most severe needs, state officials say. In addition to the financial incentive to recruit more foster parents, relatives of abused children are coming forward to care for them, according to the state.
“We’ve seen a tremendous surge in the number of foster homes,” said Jane Beveridge, director of the state’s child-welfare division.
Many of those homes are run by dedicated foster parents who have helped turn troubled children’s lives around. Some of Colorado’s foster-care businesses run smoothly.
But some foster-care businesses have recruited foster parents with criminal records or questionable backgrounds.
Alpine Child Placement Agency recruited a Lakewood foster mom even though she had pleaded guilty to solicitation for prostitution. She had received a deferred judgment.
A Fort Collins woman who was charged with selling drugs out of her day-care home was later recruited by two different fostercare businesses. She pleaded guilty to drug possession and received a deferred judgment, court records show.
When that woman worked for Fort Collins-based Jacob Family Services Inc., her biological son sexually assaulted her 14-year-old foster daughter, court records show. That son also received a deferred judgment.
With her son awaiting trial, she moved to Maple Star Colorado, another foster-care business. When she left her foster children at home alone, her 15-year-old foster son forced two 9-year-old foster brothers to have sex with each other and made one of the boys have sex with a dog, court records show. Previously, that 15-year-old raped one of the 9-year-old boys, accord ing to court records.
Skipping from one agency to another when trouble arises is common. And sometimes it can have deadly results.
Last year, 2 1/2-year-old Miguel Arias-Baca was killed in a foster home supervised by All About Kids, a private business. Ricky Haney, his foster father, was charged with smearing Miguel’s face in his own feces and throwing the toddler to the floor with enough force to cause fatal bleeding in his brain.
Haney, who pleaded guilty to a felony child abuse charge two weeks ago, told police he had returned home from a Super Bowl party and was upset that Miguel had soiled his diaper. Haney and his wife, E’von, both had arrest records that went undetected because of a glitch at the state’s investigative bureau.
Prior to joining All About Kids, the Haneys worked for Synthesis, another private foster-care agency. But they left that agency after an abuse allegation was lodged against them, state officials said. Investigators didn’t substantiate the allegation, but Synthesis dropped them as foster parents.
“Looking back on it, there were all kinds of red flags,” the state’s Andrews told a panel of child-welfare experts last year.
The quality of foster parents varies because the businesses have different screening procedures and standards. Some private agencies do very thorough “home studies,” mandated assessments of a family’s ability to care for a foster child. Other agencies’ home studies are flimsy. Some agencies have failed to document prospective foster parents’ problems with alcoholism, addictions and psychiatric conditions, state records show.
“These are private businesses,” said licensing administrator Andrews. “We don’t have the right to tell private agencies who they can certify (as foster parents) and who they can’t.” The state requires agencies to get criminal records on each potential foster parent. But the only people barred from becoming foster parents are those convicted of certain felonies including some violent crimes, domestic violence, child abuse and sex offenses.
The state does not forbid agencies from certifying prospective foster parents who are “insane or mentally incompetent,” who have problems with alcohol or drugs or who are convicted of misdemeanor child abuse or misdemeanor violent crimes.
A state regulation says agencies may exclude people who fit those categories. But they don’t have to.
Six years ago, the Legislature inadvertently made it more difficult to crack down on problem agencies.
The state once granted foster care agencies and other child-care businesses licenses that had to be renewed every two years. If agencies broke rules, the state could refuse to renew a license.
But state inspectors monitored so many agencies that they weren’t processing renewals on time.
“If your caseload is too big, and you can’t get out to visit them, they had a license hanging on the wall that looked like it was expired,” Andrews said.
Child-care businesses balked. Rather than requesting enough licensing workers to do the job, the Human Services Department asked the Legislature for permanent li censes instead of renewable ones.
Now the state asks agencies to perform a “self assessment” when they send in their licensing fees every year. They are given a checklist of state rules, and they are asked to say whether they are following them. That way, visits by state inspectors don’t take as long.
Some agencies don’t fill out the checklist on time because the state doesn’t send out the forms every year.
“We don’t have the money to send them (checklists) out, so they’re supposed to use the same form but a different pen,” said Bernier, the deputy licensing administrator.
Some advocates think the selfassessment process is absurd: What agency is going to say it chronically breaks state rules?
“It’s outrageous,” said Roestenberg, of the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center. “For the convenience of the licensing agency, we assume these enormous risks on the backs of children.” If state inspectors catch a bad agency, their only recourse is a suspension, revocation or probation of the business’ license, or the state can levy a fine.
It took three years for the state to put one foster-care business’ license on probation.
And sometimes the state threatens an agency but doesn’t follow through.
After a foster father with Grand Junction-based Jacob Center West sexually assaulted his foster son in 1996, a state inspector said, “There is a large amount of culpability that lies with Jacob Center West.”
The investigator threatened the agency’s license if another abuse case occurred in one of its homes. The agency, now known as Gateway Youth and Family Services, since has had five substantiated abuse complaints in its foster homes. The state has done nothing to the business’ license.
Prompted by The Post’s investigation, Andrews launched a review of Gateway and several other foster-care businesses. She said a newly formed team of five childwelfare monitors will hold agencies more accountable.
“I think what you’re seeing is a pattern of very high caseloads and staff who have a lot to do and can’t focus on one agency,” Andrews said. “That’s where you miss the followup. You write it down and you move on to 20 other things.” Patricia Callahan’s e-mail address is Pcallahan@denverpost.com. Kirk Mitchell’s e-mail address is Kmitchell@denverpost.com.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/foster-care-too-often-fails-to-keep-kids-safe/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)