Unbiased Reporting

What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

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

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Open Message To Austin Knightly-Our Beloved Grandson



Hi Austin. I'm hoping that somehow you might be able to read this message. Today is Grampies birthday. A very sad day without you here with us, just as the rest of the birthdays and holiday's have been without you. The greatest gift of all would be your return to the family who loves you more than life itself.
No matter how many pills they give you to try to make you forget us, no matter how much brainwashing they do to you and no matter how many times they tell you that you no longer have a mother and grandparents, please know that yes, we are still here fighting for your return and will never give up this fight against the corruption and fraud that took you from us. You will always be in our hearts and prayer's. You will always be Austin Knightly, no matter what. A new name means nothing. The strangers you are with will never be your family. You and the rest of the kids stolen by the state are made to believe these people care about you. None of you realize they are being paid to keep you from your real families. You're being held hostage by the state. You bring in big money, even more now that they've disabled you. The state is pushing drug's into you to keep you under control, because they don't have a clue how to handle the pain they are putting you through. Please don't try to commit suicide again. We will never stop fighting for you to come home.
Please, don't ever trust DCYF, CASA or the stranger's you've been placed with. They don't care about you or any other children. If they cared, you would be home with us. They are looking out for themselves and their job's.
Please know that we didn't let them take you willingly. When DCYF came and dragged you out of the house kicking and screaming, they told Grampie they had a court order and a warrant. They lied. They had nothing and took you illegally.
Grampie said, "Hi," and he loves you. Belle still kisses your picture every day and is waiting for you to come home. We still live in the same house. The house we bought for you, Ally and Isabella. Some day we'll be together again. I promise.
We love you with all our heart's and alway's will. You will alway's be our little buddy. We will never forget the good times we spent together. Please don't forget us and know we are here for you and alway's will be. Love alway's, Grammie and Grampie.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Overhaul of Kansas foster-care system urged (How about country-wide overhaul?)

Overhaul of Kansas foster-care system urged
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star’s Topeka correspondent
More News
Inspired by memories, teen opens her heart to Haiti E-911 fee on Kansas cell phones may be increased so emergency systems can keep up with technology People with friends and colleagues in Haiti wait anxiously for word from them Here are ways to make donations to Haitian relief efforts Offender known for baby oil slatherings is missing Wayside Waifs looks to find homes for dogs before renovations can begin Tax proposals refused by Kansas legislative committee Beware the ‘you’ in YouTube Mother of two toddlers killed in KCK fire blames space heater Local news in brief | Murder charge filed in April killing Missouri state children's agency earns national accreditation Winning lottery numbers for Thursday, Jan. 14 Two toddlers perish in KCK house fire Judge partially opens jury selection in Roeder trial Overhaul of Kansas foster-care system urged Hall Foundation gives $18 million to KU Cancer Center goal Parents sue fraternity over KU student's death Man convicted of first-degree murder in drug-sale death Karl Brooks named regional administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Runaways pose a quandary for police TOPEKA | Legislation to end Kansas’ privatized foster care system is the latest volley from lawmakers who say the state lacks oversight over the contractors managing such child welfare services.

Dozens of parents who lost custody of their children have complained to lawmakers in recent weeks that the state and its contractor caseworkers remove children without giving sufficient reason or the chance to appeal.

The legislation would stop the state from signing new deals with the foster care contractors. The Johnson County lawmaker behind the new legislation said it’s meant to force contractors to answer questions if they want to keep the state’s business.

“We’re certainly going to get their attention,” said Rep. Mike Kiegerl, an Olathe Republican. “There’s a lack of oversight, a lack of transparency. Nobody ought to have the kind of power these caseworkers have.”

The contractors and the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services say they’re happy to address lawmakers’ concerns.

They note that local police and judges also play a key role in deciding when a child should be removed.

SRS officials promised to investigate the complaints raised by parents. But they stand by the privatized system, which was the first of its kind in the United States when it began in 1996.

“We feel like we have made a lot of accomplishments since privatization,” said SRS spokeswoman Michelle Ponce.

Kyle Kessler, a spokesman for contractor KVC Behavioral HealthCare, said his company will “provide any information that is requested.”

To reach David Klepper, call 785-354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.

Posted on Wed, Jan. 13, 2010 10:55 PM
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1682382.html

child welfare system needs to improve visitation with birth parents (Not just in New Jersey, but all over the country!)

New Jersey Real-Time News
Breaking Local News from New JerseyNews, Parental Guidance, Politics, Statehouse »
Federal monitor says N.J. child welfare system needs to improve visitation with birth parents
By Trish G. Graber
January 14, 2010, 9:01PM
TRENTON -- The state must ensure that children in foster care visit their birth parents regularly, "one of the most important factors in determining whether they will reunite with their families," the state's child advocate said in a report issued today.

The report follows a federal monitor's assessment of New Jersey child welfare system showing the state's seven-year court-ordered reform effort has improved outcomes for children, but the department still needs to work on several areas -- including facilitating and documenting visits between kids in the system and their parents.


Matt Rainey/The Star-LedgerA 2006 file photo of Ronald Chen."While New Jersey has made great strides in reforming its child welfare system, this is a critical area that clearly needs more focused attention," said New Jersey Acting Child Advocate Ronald Chen.

The federal monitor found children removed from their homes had at least a weekly visit with a parent only 17 percent of the time, during the first six months of 2009. The figure is less than half what it should be in the next reporting period, covering the final six months of last year.

Association for Children of New Jersey Director Ceil Zalkind said last week the statistics raised a red flag. She called visitation -- between children and their parents, as well as between separated siblings -- a "fundamental" issue, critical "to ensuring that children are safe whether living with their own families or in placement."

Department of Children and Families Commissioner Kimberly Ricketts said caseworkers indeed coordinated more visits than recorded in the report, but failed to record them in the computer system, which skewed results.

Research by the Child Advocate's office found children are 10 times more likely to be reunited with their parents when mothers visit their children regularly. Children who do not experience regular visits with their parents spend three times longer in out-of-home care than those who do. And kids visited regularly by their parents show fewer behavioral problems and less anxiety and depression than those who are not, the report said.

"The absence of frequent and supportive parent-child family time can have a profoundly negative effect on a child and seriously jeopardize the child's safety, permanency and well-being," Chen said in the 33-page report.

As of Sept 2009, 8,353 New Jersey children were placed out of the home, in home-based foster care, group homes, an independent living setup, or with a family member or family friend, according to the report.

The report also lays out practices used in child welfare systems across the country that promote children's well-being. They include holding visits in "the least restrictive, most comfortable setting possible" and facilitating contact between parents and their children almost immediately after removal from the home.

In Rhode Island, for example, a program offers visitation at the Providence Children's Museum, where children and parents can spend time together in a "healthy" setting. In California, children must be given the opportunity to call their birth parent an hour after they are removed from their home, under state law.

"It is our hope that this information will be used by professionals in all areas of the child welfare field to view visits as an opportunity to further strengthen families and ensure that even more children safely return home," Chen said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous coverage:
• Report shows improvement at N.J. child welfare system

• Federal monitors give largely positive marks for N.J. child welfare

• Federal monitor to unveil report on Division of Youth and Family Services

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/child_advocate_report_says_nj.html

Resolve to reunite foster children with families

Resolve to reunite foster children with families

Joan L. Benso is president and CEO of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, a statewide children's advocacy organization based in Harrisburg.

Northampton County (Pennsylvania) January 14, 2010

A new year commonly ushers in declarations and promises of what we can do differently, better, healthier. As a child advocate, I can think of no sounder resolution than to ensure every child in the Lehigh Valley, and in Pennsylvania, lives in a safe, stable and permanent home in 2010 and beyond.

Between April 1, 2008, and April 1, 2009, there were more than 31,000 children living in foster care in Pennsylvania; 607 in Lehigh County; 419 in Northampton County. While many children will safely be reunified with their birth families or relatives, others will neither be reunited with their birth families nor adopted and instead placed in group homes and institutions, perhaps until they turn 18 and ''age out'' of the system as 1,100 youth in Pennsylvania do every year.

How is Lehigh County doing in assuring safe, stable and permanent families for its children? ''The State of Child Welfare,'' (porchlightproject.org/reports_and_media_socw09.shtml) a new report by Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, shows that while there are many practices already in place that help to promote permanency and strengthen families in crisis, there are key areas that need improvement as well.

Lehigh County has a very low rate of re-entry into foster care for children who have left the system as compared with other urban counties and the state. From April 2007 to March 2009, barely 6 percent of children re-entered the foster care system within 12 months following reunification with parents or relatives compared with 32 percent of children in other urban counties. That is to be commended and shows that the county is concentrating on strengthening its families by addressing the reasons children were removed in the first place and remedied them so children don't return to foster care.

However, far too many Lehigh County children in the foster care system face great instability as 43 percent experience three or more placement settings in the time (12 to 23 months) spent in care. Every time a child moves, the traumatic experience of separation and lack of continuity in his or her life grows. A child who experiences multiple placements while in foster care struggles to build and maintain healthy relationships and is disadvantaged academically due to repeated school changes.

Northampton County children also experience lower re-entry rates than the state and other like counties. However, the county emancipates a lot of its older youth in foster care (11 percent) and needs to do a better job finding permanent families for these teens, perhaps turning to relatives and extended family members as potential guardians.

My organization's report doesn't single out any one county. That is not the purpose. The report provides comprehensive data for all 67 counties that will help policy-makers, children and youth administrators and others invested in the welfare of vulnerable children assess how state and county governments are doing providing safe, stable and permanent families for all children in Pennsylvania. It is important to note that every county -- every local child welfare system -- can make improvements in how it addresses the needs of children in the foster care system and how families are aided and strengthened to help prevent a child's removal in the first place.

Both Lehigh and Northampton counties have made strides to improve the conditions for children who are at risk of abuse and neglect and should keep building on their efforts, moving forward to assure every child a safe, stable and permanent family.

These are all our children, therefore all of us can make a collective resolution to safely reduce the number of children in foster care this year and to find permanent families for those children who cannot be reunified with their birth parents or relatives. We can make 2010 the year we devote to creating forever families for all children in Pennsylvania.

Joan L. Benso is president and CEO of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, a statewide children's advocacy organization based in Harrisburg.
Copyright © 2010, The Morning Call

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-yv_benso0106.7139267jan14,0,6691622.story

Thursday, January 14, 2010

A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers (In NH Pro-Se litigants ALWAYS lose!)

A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers


By JOHN T. BRODERICK Jr. and RONALD M. GEORGE
Published: January 1, 2010
AMERICA’S courts are built on a system of rules and procedures that assume that almost everyone who comes to court has a lawyer. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. An increasing number of civil cases go forward without lawyers. Litigants who cannot afford a lawyer, and either do not qualify for legal aid or are unable to have a lawyer assigned to them because of dwindling budgets, are on their own — pro se. What’s more, they’re often on their own in cases involving life-altering situations like divorce, child custody and loss of shelter.

As the economy has worsened, the ranks of the self-represented poor have expanded. In a recent informal study conducted by the Self-Represented Litigation Network, about half the judges who responded reported a greater number of pro se litigants as a result of the economic crisis. Unrepresented litigants now also include many in the middle class and small-business owners who unexpectedly find themselves in distress and without sufficient resources to pay for the legal assistance they need.

As judges, we believe more needs to be done to meet this growing challenge: an inaccessible, overburdened justice system serves none of us well. California took a major step forward in October when it became the first state to recognize as a goal the right to counsel in certain civil cases. (The state also committed to a pilot project, financed by court fees, to provide lawyers for low-income citizens in cases where basic human needs are at stake.)

But this is only a beginning. It is essential that we promote other efforts to close the “justice gap.”

One such effort involves the “unbundling” of legal services. Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association, or similar provisions, which allow lawyers to unbundle their services and take only part of a case, a cost-saving practice known as “limited-scope representation” that, with proper ethical safeguards, is responsive to new realities.

Traditionally, lawyers have been required to stay with a case from beginning to end, unless a court has excused them from this obligation. Now, in those states that explicitly or implicitly allow unbundling, people or businesses can hire a lawyer on a limited basis to help them fill out forms, to prepare documents, to coach them on how to present in court or to appear in court for one or two hearings.

For example, a lawyer could advise a client in a divorce proceeding about legal principles governing the division of marital assets or provide assistance in calculating child-support obligations. A lawyer might also draft pleadings or legal memos or provide representation at a hearing to obtain a domestic-violence restraining order.

What could be wrong with this? Well, some lawyers have expressed concern that limited legal representation will encourage litigants to dissect their cases in an effort to save money, sacrificing quality representation that the litigant might otherwise be able to afford. We have also heard the argument that by offering too much assistance to self-represented litigants, the courts themselves are undermining the value of lawyers and the legal profession. Apparently, some are concerned that the court system will become so user-friendly that there will be no need for lawyers.

We respectfully disagree. Litigants who can afford the services of a lawyer will continue to use one until a case or problem is resolved. Lawyers make a difference and clients know that. But for those whose only option is to go it alone, at least some limited, affordable time with a lawyer is a valuable option we should all encourage.

In fact, we believe that limited-scope-representation rules will allow lawyers — especially sole practitioners — to service people who might otherwise have never sought legal assistance. We also believe that carefully drafted ethical rules allowing lawyers to handle part of a case give the legal profession an opportunity to help the courts address the ever-growing number of litigants who cross our thresholds. This cause has special relevance now as state courts are faced with serious cutbacks in financing, forcing some to close their doors one day a week or a month, lay off front-line staff members and delay jury trials. None of this bodes well for the judicial system or for those seeking to vindicate their rights through the courts, whether they have a lawyer or not.

We need members of the legal profession to join with us, as many have done, in meeting this challenge by making unbundled legal services and other innovative solutions — like self-help Web sites, online assistance programs and court self-help centers — work for all who need them. If we are to maintain public trust and confidence in the courts, we must keep faith with our founding principles and our core belief in equal justice under the law.

John T. Broderick Jr. is the chief justice of New Hampshire. Ronald M. George is the chief justice of California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/opinion/02broderick.html?scp=1&sq=do-it-yourself%20lawyers&st=cse

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

HOW THE FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD HURTS NEBRASKA CHILDREN (All Children, not just in Nebraska!)

Guest View: How the Foster Care Review Board hurts Nebraska children
StoryDiscussionBy Richard Wexler | Posted: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:30 am | No

TO “GOTCHA”: HOW THE FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD HURTS NEBRASKA CHILDREN

By Richard Wexler

Mary Callahan is a foster parent from Maine who got fed up with the fact that almost every child the state placed with her never needed to be taken from his or her birth parents. Her activism helped transform the Maine system into a national leader in keeping children safe by keeping families together.

Callahan has a term for how most child welfare systems work. They put a family under a microscope, judge anything and everything they do, and then lie in wait, for as long as it takes for a parent to slip up. Callahan calls it the “’gotcha’ moment.”

But I’d never encountered a state where this was the officially-recommended course of action – until I read the Annual Report of the Nebraska Foster Care Review Board. Now it’s no longer a mystery why Nebraska harms so many children by needlessly tearing apart families and holding children in foster care at higher rates than almost any other state.

The board is totally out-of-touch with best practice in child welfare, and clueless concerning what really works to keep children safe. Its report reads like a manual for getting to “gotcha.”

n In a state that takes children at one of the highest rates in the nation, the Review Board says removal decisions are correct at least 98 percent of the time. So either all those states that take proportionately fewer children – including those with strong records for keeping children safe - don’t know what they’re doing, or the Review Board is blind to Nebraska’s rampant needless destruction of families.

n Even the review board had to concede that in 22 percent of cases, the state failed to make “reasonable efforts” to reunify families after the child was removed, when it should have done so. So the real figure must be far higher.

n When children really can’t stay safely in their own homes, the best option is kinship care with a relative. Study after study has shown these kinship care placements to be better – and safer – for children than what should properly be called “stranger care.” But even though Nebraska uses kinship care at a rate below the national average, nearly every comment about kinship care in the Review Board report frets about the state doing too much of it.

n In contrast, the board loves the worst form of “care,” institutionalization. Even though Nebraska institutionalizes children at a rate well above the national average, the review board calls for even more of it, instead of demanding far better alternatives such as Wraparound programs. Indeed, the word Wraparound does not even appear in the report.

Worst of all is the angry, hectoring, patronizing tone the report takes toward families. Most parents who lose their children to foster care are neither sadists nor brutes. Often, their poverty is confused with neglect. Other times there are serious, real problems, but problems that can be fixed with a helping hand.

The reason to extend that hand is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children. Multiple studies document the inherent trauma of being thrown into foster care. Indeed, several landmark studies show that in typical cases, children fare better when left in their own homes than even comparably-maltreated children fare in foster care.

Yet instead of putting the children first and offering a helping hand, the Review Board puts its hatred of the parents first, and offers only a wagging finger – over and over and over again.

Yes, there are token references to prevention, but mostly, the board’s vision of prevention is really surveillance, complete with an Orwellian suggestion that every new mother be assessed by hospital staff to see if she is a potential child abuser. Best practices like drug court and pre-hearing conferences are perverted into ways to crack down on families. Visits are viewed not as a chance to help children, who desperately need to see their parents, but to hover over the parents, writing down every word and gesture, awaiting that “gotcha moment.”

Thirty-nine times, - an average of once every three pages - there are references to the need to assess parental “willingness” or parental “ability” or parental “appropriateness” and, most often of all, “parental compliance.” Reading this report was a bit like watching one of those Star Trek episodes in which the conquering Borg order those they’ve subjugated to “Comply! Comply!”

Governors and legislators come and go, but the Foster Care Review Board is always there, wagging its finger. Replacing the director is not enough. The whole Board needs to be replaced and reconstituted, with a membership that includes a far wider range of perspectives about child welfare.

Otherwise, no matter how hard Nebraska tries to move its child welfare system into the 21st Century, the Foster Care Review Board will keep dragging it into the 19th.

Richard Wexler is Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.info. He has followed Nebraska child welfare for more than a decade and been a keynote speaker at two Nebraska child welfare conferences.

Posted in Columnists, Mailbag on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:30 am

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_1e40cba8-ff98-11de-adf4-001cc4c03286.html

To Reunite Families, Agencies Try a Holistic Approach

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/