Author Yvonne Mason
The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken By the State Are Adopted Out
This is the official how to on how to aquire money when a family adopts a child who was taken by the state. As you can see the dollars go up as the needs go up.
You can go to the link below and see more of the atrocities the State of Georgia does.
http://www.wednesdayschildga.com/
“finding adoptive homes for children”
Financial Assistance
The Adoption Assistance program provides financial aid to all adopted children with Special Needs to help meet the needs of the child. As defined by the State of Georgia for the purpose of adoption, children with Special Needs include those who meet one of the following criteria at the time of placement:
•African-American children older than one year of age
•Three or more siblings placed together at the same time
•Children age eight and older
•Children with documented physical, emotional or mental disabilities
•Two siblings placed together and one child has a special need The Adoption Assistance agreement must occur prior to finalization of the adoption. If a child is not in the permanent custody of the state, assistance might be obtained when a child meets specific title IV-E and special needs criteria. In ALL cases, it must be documented that the adoption would not be possible without assistance.
Types of Assistance
1. Monthly Adoption Assistance Benefits – help to assist adoptive parent(s) in meeting the special needs of the child.
2. Special Services Adoption Assistance – provides a time-limited or one-time special service assistance and must relate to the special needs of the child (e.g., orthodontics, special medical equipment, or respite). There must be documentation that no other resources (community, family or otherwise) are available to meet the needs of the other child. Special Services benefits are reserved for children age 18 and under in the permanent custody of DHR.
3. Non-Recurring Adoption Assistance – covers reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees and other expenses directly related to the finalization of the adoption of a child with Special Needs.
4. Medicaid – available to any child who is eligible for monthly Adoption Assistance benefits.
Length of Eligibility
Under the following conditions a child may continue to receive State Funded Adoption Assistance beyond age 18:
Prior to the adoption, the child was in permanent custody of DHR or a child who was placed in the permanent custody of individuals for the purpose of adoption, child is attending high school on a full time basis and child remains financially dependent on his/her parents. Benefits may continue to age 21 or when the child finishes high school, whichever comes first.
Any child who was adopted at age 13 or older or who was placed for adoption prior to July 1998, may continue to receive adoption assistance benefits after age 18 if they are enrolled in high school, technical school or college on a full time basis. Adoption assistance payments will terminate at age 21, when the child finishes school/college or drops out of the educational program whichever comes first. School/College attendance will be verified on a quarterly/semester basis by the DFCS Case Manager.
Medicaid is available for a child until age 18 or until adoption assistance benefits terminate.
Applying for Assistance
Adoption Assistance is made available by the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) through the county Department of Family and Children Services where the adoptive family resides. In the event a family from another state adopts a child in the permanent custody of DHR, the county of legal responsibility would be responsible for completing the application.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/the-official-how-list-for-aquiring-federal-and-state-money-when-children-taken-by-the-state-are-adopted-out/
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 30, 2010
Your Tax Dollars are Paying for the Buying and Selling of Our Children By CPS
Your Tax Dollars are Paying for the Buying and Selling of Our Children By CPS
November 21, 2009 yvonnemason
The Adoption and Safe Families Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 1990’s states that when a child is placed for adoption the State Child Protective Services is given between 4,000 and 6,000.00 per child. This money is increased using a scale of certain criteria. Once the child is placed in a adopted home the families are paid by the government amounts beginning at 500.00 per child. CPS is told not to work on reunification but to immediatly start working on forcing the parents to sign over their children for adoption especially now with most states broke.
This amount increases when there are special needs and multiple siblings. This money is paid on a monthly basis to the family until the child is 18 years old. The adoptive family can make thousands of dollars a month on procurement of adopted children.
Now, the thing is. This money for the buying and selling of children from parents whose only crime is they are poor and uneducated comes out of the pocket of taxpayers. We are culpable in crime of buying and selling children under the umbrella of CPS.
We as taxpayers are just as guilty in the trama and life altering personalities of children literally ripped from their parents without due process. The parents are not given the discovery also know as evidence, they are not allowed witnesses in court, on in front of the kangaroo panel. This panel determines the so fitness of the parent.
The charges are not considered criminal so they appear in family court and not in a court of law. Child Protective Services hide behind the guise of “confidentality” to keep the so called evidence hidden. They harass, threaten and intimadate the parent so they will be afraid not sign over their children for adoption.
We as taxpayers are part of this abuse on the poor and uneducated. We pay the money to the States and the adoptive parents. We encourage this behavior simply by not standing up to them and saying we are tired of them abusing our children and grandchildren. None of us are safe. At any time CPS can walk in your home take your child and put it up for adoption with out a warrant, a trial by your peers or handing evidence over to you. None of us are safe from this abuse.
Any one can call CPS give a report and your life and the life of your family as you know ceases to exist.
You pay for this abuse when you pay taxes. Your hard earned money pays for you and your family and those you love to be abused by the CPS. IT is time to put a stop to this abuse. It is time to say enough. It is time to give the kids back to their parents.
Yvonne Masone, Author
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/your-tax-dollars-are-paying-for-the-buying-and-selling-of-our-children-by-cps/
November 21, 2009 yvonnemason
The Adoption and Safe Families Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 1990’s states that when a child is placed for adoption the State Child Protective Services is given between 4,000 and 6,000.00 per child. This money is increased using a scale of certain criteria. Once the child is placed in a adopted home the families are paid by the government amounts beginning at 500.00 per child. CPS is told not to work on reunification but to immediatly start working on forcing the parents to sign over their children for adoption especially now with most states broke.
This amount increases when there are special needs and multiple siblings. This money is paid on a monthly basis to the family until the child is 18 years old. The adoptive family can make thousands of dollars a month on procurement of adopted children.
Now, the thing is. This money for the buying and selling of children from parents whose only crime is they are poor and uneducated comes out of the pocket of taxpayers. We are culpable in crime of buying and selling children under the umbrella of CPS.
We as taxpayers are just as guilty in the trama and life altering personalities of children literally ripped from their parents without due process. The parents are not given the discovery also know as evidence, they are not allowed witnesses in court, on in front of the kangaroo panel. This panel determines the so fitness of the parent.
The charges are not considered criminal so they appear in family court and not in a court of law. Child Protective Services hide behind the guise of “confidentality” to keep the so called evidence hidden. They harass, threaten and intimadate the parent so they will be afraid not sign over their children for adoption.
We as taxpayers are part of this abuse on the poor and uneducated. We pay the money to the States and the adoptive parents. We encourage this behavior simply by not standing up to them and saying we are tired of them abusing our children and grandchildren. None of us are safe. At any time CPS can walk in your home take your child and put it up for adoption with out a warrant, a trial by your peers or handing evidence over to you. None of us are safe from this abuse.
Any one can call CPS give a report and your life and the life of your family as you know ceases to exist.
You pay for this abuse when you pay taxes. Your hard earned money pays for you and your family and those you love to be abused by the CPS. IT is time to put a stop to this abuse. It is time to say enough. It is time to give the kids back to their parents.
Yvonne Masone, Author
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/your-tax-dollars-are-paying-for-the-buying-and-selling-of-our-children-by-cps/
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into adoption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
Author Yvonne Mason January 20,2010
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into adoption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
This article says it all. CPS are like trolling prostitutes looking for children who they can rip away from their parents so they can buy and sell those children for profit. It matters not if those children are loved, or not. The job of CPS is to snatch and grab these children without due process without the parents receiving due process so they can sell those children to the highest bidder. Yes, CPS gets up to 40,000 per child by the federal government thanks to Bill Clinton and the bill he signed tagged the Adoption and safe families act. When CPS snatches these children they immediatly look for ways to harass, coerce, or force the parents to sign them over so they can in turn sell them. This is a disgrace and a travesty for not only the children but to those parents who love them.
CPS is known for taking children who come from poor and uneducated families. Those families have no money to fight nor to hire an attorney. Most times they are uneducated and easily intimadited by those who work for the state. CPS should be brought up on charges of abuse and buying and selling and kidnapping ofour children. It is time to make them notice and take note that we as American parents are no longer going to stand by while our children are taken and sold to the highest bidder – to famiies who really only care about the money they receive each month from the government for “taking care of children” who don’t really belong to them. They are just holding on to them for extra money until they age out.
Yvonne Mason, Author
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into adoption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
While speaking with my mother-in-law she shared with me some information given to her by a friend, that children services workers in Ohio are paid a $40,000 bonus per child that is removed from their home. As one would expect that figure was concerning to me, and while my research has not substantiated the exact amount I did come across information that substantiates the concept. Indeed in some states there is a bonus given to social workers for each child removed from their home. There is also a federal bonus for each child to be adopted permanently out of foster care.
In 1997 Bill Clinton signed into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act. The Act was designed to give incentive for children to find permanent homes outside of the foster care system. To accomplish this initiative $4,000 – $6,000 is given to the state agencies per each child adopted, but that is just a base figure. If a state can continually increase the number of adoptions each year the state will be paid even more. The bill reads: “$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.”
As is the status quo, a bill meant for the protection and aid of a group has also turned into a way to abuse that group. The incentive to adopt children seems to have translated into a reason to separate children from their homes.
In Texas over 400 children were recently removed from Yearning for Zion Ranch a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound. The state alleged that during an inspection brought on by a call to an abuse hot line, that they observed what they felt was immediate danger to all the children living on the ranch. The call later turned out to be a hoax, and Children Protective Services in Texas were recently ordered to return all the children belonging to 38 mothers who filed. CPS is fighting the decision tooth and nail, but it looks as though there is little recourse left.
All over America there has been great contention whether the kids were actually abused, or if this was religious persecution. With this information, the incentive could have been money. 400 children in the foster care system would require more funding, not only that if they happened to become adopted by Americans who want to help these poor “abused” children the paycheck could be enormous. At the base amount of $4,000 per child adopted into permanent homes CPS would be set to gain $1,600,000. That is quite a bonus, and that is at the lowest amount not adding in the $6,000 figure or the extra for going above and beyond adoption goals.
This act has come under scrutiny for years, but it is surprising how very few people know that it exists or that there are bonuses for removing children permanently from their home. Some have taken issue with the amount of “abuse” being claimed as taking children off of their parents.
As a Fox News article from 2002 describes.
In a high-profile case last summer in Ware, Mass., a one-day-old baby was taken from its mother. The alleged neglect? The mother was not holding the baby or the bottle correctly when she fed her newborn. ( The mother already had children taken away for neglect: read more.)
In 1999, according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting System, 49,000 children were placed in foster care based on “unsubstantiated” reports of abuse and neglect. Of the 900,000 substantiated cases of child abuse filed each year, almost 40 percent fall under a vague “other” category separate from physical or sexual abuse or serious neglect. The remaining 60 percent are mostly for neglect.
It is those “unsubstantiated” and “other” cases — almost 400,000 of them — that gall the likes of Nev Moore. “Child abuse needs to be defined as a deliberate act with the intent to harm,” she argues.
Activists say home schooling, devout religious practices, persistent diaper rash, scratches from a new pet puppy, milk intolerance, cystic fibrosis, a broken home heating system, and messy housekeeping have all been documented not just as abuse or neglect, but as the reason for taking a child into state custody.
Keeping this information in mind, Could this be another level to the argument of the motivations behind the removal of the FLDS children?
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/social-workers-getting-paid-extra-per-child-taken-from-parents-and-placed-into-adoption-be-in-part-motivation-for-the-flds-raid/
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into adoption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
This article says it all. CPS are like trolling prostitutes looking for children who they can rip away from their parents so they can buy and sell those children for profit. It matters not if those children are loved, or not. The job of CPS is to snatch and grab these children without due process without the parents receiving due process so they can sell those children to the highest bidder. Yes, CPS gets up to 40,000 per child by the federal government thanks to Bill Clinton and the bill he signed tagged the Adoption and safe families act. When CPS snatches these children they immediatly look for ways to harass, coerce, or force the parents to sign them over so they can in turn sell them. This is a disgrace and a travesty for not only the children but to those parents who love them.
CPS is known for taking children who come from poor and uneducated families. Those families have no money to fight nor to hire an attorney. Most times they are uneducated and easily intimadited by those who work for the state. CPS should be brought up on charges of abuse and buying and selling and kidnapping ofour children. It is time to make them notice and take note that we as American parents are no longer going to stand by while our children are taken and sold to the highest bidder – to famiies who really only care about the money they receive each month from the government for “taking care of children” who don’t really belong to them. They are just holding on to them for extra money until they age out.
Yvonne Mason, Author
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into adoption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
While speaking with my mother-in-law she shared with me some information given to her by a friend, that children services workers in Ohio are paid a $40,000 bonus per child that is removed from their home. As one would expect that figure was concerning to me, and while my research has not substantiated the exact amount I did come across information that substantiates the concept. Indeed in some states there is a bonus given to social workers for each child removed from their home. There is also a federal bonus for each child to be adopted permanently out of foster care.
In 1997 Bill Clinton signed into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act. The Act was designed to give incentive for children to find permanent homes outside of the foster care system. To accomplish this initiative $4,000 – $6,000 is given to the state agencies per each child adopted, but that is just a base figure. If a state can continually increase the number of adoptions each year the state will be paid even more. The bill reads: “$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.”
As is the status quo, a bill meant for the protection and aid of a group has also turned into a way to abuse that group. The incentive to adopt children seems to have translated into a reason to separate children from their homes.
In Texas over 400 children were recently removed from Yearning for Zion Ranch a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound. The state alleged that during an inspection brought on by a call to an abuse hot line, that they observed what they felt was immediate danger to all the children living on the ranch. The call later turned out to be a hoax, and Children Protective Services in Texas were recently ordered to return all the children belonging to 38 mothers who filed. CPS is fighting the decision tooth and nail, but it looks as though there is little recourse left.
All over America there has been great contention whether the kids were actually abused, or if this was religious persecution. With this information, the incentive could have been money. 400 children in the foster care system would require more funding, not only that if they happened to become adopted by Americans who want to help these poor “abused” children the paycheck could be enormous. At the base amount of $4,000 per child adopted into permanent homes CPS would be set to gain $1,600,000. That is quite a bonus, and that is at the lowest amount not adding in the $6,000 figure or the extra for going above and beyond adoption goals.
This act has come under scrutiny for years, but it is surprising how very few people know that it exists or that there are bonuses for removing children permanently from their home. Some have taken issue with the amount of “abuse” being claimed as taking children off of their parents.
As a Fox News article from 2002 describes.
In a high-profile case last summer in Ware, Mass., a one-day-old baby was taken from its mother. The alleged neglect? The mother was not holding the baby or the bottle correctly when she fed her newborn. ( The mother already had children taken away for neglect: read more.)
In 1999, according to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting System, 49,000 children were placed in foster care based on “unsubstantiated” reports of abuse and neglect. Of the 900,000 substantiated cases of child abuse filed each year, almost 40 percent fall under a vague “other” category separate from physical or sexual abuse or serious neglect. The remaining 60 percent are mostly for neglect.
It is those “unsubstantiated” and “other” cases — almost 400,000 of them — that gall the likes of Nev Moore. “Child abuse needs to be defined as a deliberate act with the intent to harm,” she argues.
Activists say home schooling, devout religious practices, persistent diaper rash, scratches from a new pet puppy, milk intolerance, cystic fibrosis, a broken home heating system, and messy housekeeping have all been documented not just as abuse or neglect, but as the reason for taking a child into state custody.
Keeping this information in mind, Could this be another level to the argument of the motivations behind the removal of the FLDS children?
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/social-workers-getting-paid-extra-per-child-taken-from-parents-and-placed-into-adoption-be-in-part-motivation-for-the-flds-raid/
Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings
Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings
Author Yvonne Mason
Chapter 38: Federal Laws Affecting State Proceedings
38.1. Introduction
38.2. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
38.3. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
38.4. Adoption and Safe Families Act
38.5. Foster Care Independence Act
38.6. Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001
38.7. Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006
38.8. Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
38.9. Multiethnic Placement Act
38.10. Court Improvement Program
38.11. Child and Family Services Reviews
38.1 Introduction
Since 1974, federal law has played a major role in the development of state law and policy on child abuse and neglect proceedings. Some laws, such as the Indian Child Welfare Act, discussed in Chapter 39, apply directly to state court proceedings. Most of the laws in this area affect the states because they grant or deny federal funds depending on the state’s compliance with certain conditions.
The federal law on child abuse and neglect is found primarily in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title VI-B and Title IV-E offer funds to the states for family preservation and support services, child welfare services, state administrative costs in administering child welfare programs, foster care payments, and adoption subsidies. Seventy-five percent of the funds used to support children in foster care in New Mexico is federal money which, under the legislation passed by Congress over the past 25 years, is available only if the state meets eligibility requirements. Similarly, these funds can be withdrawn if requirements are not met.
38.2 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
Congress began to take an active role in the child welfare system with the adoption of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), P.L. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 U.S.C. §§5101–5107. The Act created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, authorized financial assistance to public agencies and private nonprofit agencies for demonstration programs designed to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect, and provided for grants to states to assist the states in developing, strengthening, and carrying out child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs.
CAPTA has been amended a number of times over the years and contains a number of requirements that states must meet as a condition of receiving funds under the Act. States are, for example, required to provide for the reporting of abuse or neglect, immunity for persons reporting abuse or neglect, prompt investigation of reports, and methods for preserving confidentiality of records. The Act also requires that states establish citizen review panels, the requirements for which are outlined in the law, and that provisions be in place requiring that guardians ad litem, who have received training appropriate to the role, be appointed to represent children in abuse and neglect proceedings. Fingerprinting and criminal background record checks are required for prospective foster and adoptive parents and for other adults living in the household. 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2).
When CAPTA was passed, it required that state programs assisted under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, which was adopted in 1968, meet these same conditions. This requirement remains in effect. Title IV-B, which provides funding for child welfare services and, since 1993, family preservation and family support services, continues to be subject to the conditions listed in CAPTA. 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(D). (Title IV-B is found in 42 U.S.C. §§620-629g.)
38.3 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
While CAPTA brought some attention to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect, less attention was being paid to the child’s long-term need for permanency. It became apparent that children were drifting from foster home to foster home. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500, 42 U.S.C. §§670-676 (and amending §§620-628), was the next major effort to address the needs of children who suffered from abuse or neglect. The Act was intended to protect children when they were in foster care, to shorten the time children spent in foster care and to encourage permanency planning for children through the reunification of families when possible and termination of parental rights and adoption when not.
P.L. 96-272 established Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which makes federal financial assistance available to states with foster care systems that meet the Act’s requirements. In particular, Title IV-E provided for federal participation in foster care maintenance payments, as well as subsidies for the adoption of children with special needs. The Act also provided for the withdrawal or reduction of financial assistance from states that did not comply with federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §§670-676.
For a state to be eligible for payments under the Act, it had to have a state plan in place. The plan had to provide that, in each case, reasonable efforts would be made (1) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (2) to make it possible for the child to return to his home. The plan also had to provide for the development of a case plan for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments, as well as for a case review system for the child. As part of the case review system, the status of the child had to be reviewed by a court at least every six months and the child had to be assured of a dispositional hearing by the court no later than 18 months after the original placement, and periodically thereafter.
Besides having a state plan in place, the state could only make foster care maintenance payments with respect to any given child if the removal from the home was the result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child. The court also had to find that reasonable efforts to maintain the child in the home or, after removal, to return the child home were made.
These Title IV-E provisions and requirements remain in place today with a number of additions and modifications made by the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, as well as more recent legislation. One of the most significant changes is that the requirement for a dispositional hearing no later than 18 months after the original placement has been changed to a requirement that a permanency hearing be held within 12 months of the date the child is considered to have entered foster care and at least every 12 months thereafter. A permanency plan must be determined at this hearing. See §38.4 below.
38.4 Adoption and Safe Families Act
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), P.L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115, amending 42 U.S.C. §§671-675, was passed in 1997 to improve the safety of children and to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children who need them, as well as to continue to support families. Stating that the child’s health and safety were of paramount concern, the law made changes in and clarified some of the policies established under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. It contained a wide range of provisions, from reauthorization of existing programs to providing adoption incentives for states.
ASFA regulations were announced by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department on January 25, 2000, and went into effect on March 27. States had 12 months in which to meet some of the requirements, but most had to be met right away. See 65 F.R. 4020 (January 25, 2000), amending 45 C.F.R. Parts 1355, 1356, and 1357. This chapter will focus on the provisions of the ASFA regulations that affect judicial abuse and neglect proceedings.
A state must meet certain requirements in order to comply with foster care program provisions of the Title IV-E state plan or to be eligible to receive federal financial participation for foster care maintenance payments. While some requirements affect state plan compliance alone, others affect the child’s eligibility for Title IV-E foster care payments.
Reasonable Efforts Generally. The state must make reasonable efforts to:
maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from his or her home, as long as the child’s safety is assured;
effect the safe reunification of the child and family (if temporary out-of-home placement is necessary to ensure the immediate safety of the child); and
make and finalize alternate permanency plans in a timely manner when reunification is not appropriate or possible. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b).
“Contrary to Welfare” Determination in First Court Ruling. A child’s removal from the home must be the result of a judicial determination that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child, or that placement outside the home would be in the best interest of the child. This determination must be made in the first court ruling that sanctions (even temporarily) the removal of the child from the home. If this “contrary to the welfare” determination is not made in the first court ruling, the child is not eligible for Title IV-E foster care payments for the duration of that stay in foster care. The omission cannot be remedied. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(c).
Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal. When a child is removed from his or her home, a judicial determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made, or were not required, to prevent removal must be made no later than 60 days from the date the child is removed from his home. If this determination is not made, the child is not eligible for Title IV-E foster care payments for the duration of that stay in foster care. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(1).
Reasonable Efforts Not Required. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal or to reunify the family are not required where the state agency has obtained a judicial determination that such efforts are not required because:
The parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in state law);
The parent has been convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, aiding or abetting, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent; or
Parental rights have been terminated involuntarily with respect to a sibling. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(3).
Foster Care Placement; Limit on Court Role. To satisfy the requirements for a case plan for each child (see §38.3 on P.L. 96-272), the state agency must promulgate policy materials and instructions for use by staff to determine the appropriateness and necessity for the foster care placement of the child. Federal financial participation in foster care payments is not available when a court orders a placement with a specific foster care provider. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(g).
Permanency Hearing; Deadline. Previously, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act required that states hold dispositional hearings within 18 months after placement of a child in foster care. ASFA repeals this provision and establishes a permanency planning hearing. This hearing must occur within 12 months of the date a child “is considered to have entered foster care,” or within 30 days of a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family are not required. A child “is considered to have entered foster care” on the earlier of the date of the first judicial finding of abuse or neglect or the date that is 60 days after the child is removed from the home. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20(a).
Permanency Plan Set at Hearing. The court must determine the permanency plan, or goal, for the child at the permanency hearing. 45 C.F.R. §§1355.20 and 1356.21(h). (This hearing to determine the permanency plan does not have to be the “permanency hearing” described in state law. Under ASFA, the court can hold a hearing on the permanency plan any time, which must be at least every twelve months.)
Permissible plans. Permissible permanency plans, or goals, under ASFA are:
Reunification;
Adoption;
Legal guardianship;
Placement permanently with a fit and willing relative; or
Another planned permanent living arrangement, but only if the state agency has documented to the court a compelling reason why none of the other options would be in the child’s best interest. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20
Reasonable Efforts to Finalize Plan. The state agency must obtain a judicial determination that it has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect (whether the plan is reunification, adoption, legal guardianship, placement with a fit and willing relative, or placement in another planned permanent living arrangement). This determination must be made within 12 months of the date the child is considered to have entered foster care, and at least once every twelve months thereafter while the child is in foster care. If the determination is not made, the child becomes ineligible for Title IV-E payments after the end of the twelfth month following the date he or she is considered to have entered foster care, and remains ineligible until such a determination is made. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(2).
TPR Required; Deadline for Filing. The state must file or join in a petition to terminate parental rights if the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The petition must be filed by the end of the child’s 15th month in foster care. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(i).
This 15 month period runs from the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care, that is, the date on which the child was adjudicated an abused or neglected child or the date 60 days after the child was removed from the home, whichever comes first. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20(a).
TPR Within 60 days of Felony Determination. If the parent has been convicted of one of the felonies listed in the regulations, the petition to terminate must be filed within 60 days of a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the child and parent are not required. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(iii)
TPR Within 60 days of Abandoned Infant Determination. If a child is determined by the court to be an “abandoned infant” (as defined by state law), the petition to terminate must be filed within 60 days of the judicial determination that the infant is abandoned. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(ii).
Exceptions to TPR Requirement. The state agency may elect not to file for TPR if:
at the agency’s option, the child is being cared for by a relative;
the agency has documented in the case plan (which must be available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the individual child, or
the agency has not provided to the family services that the state deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the home, when reasonable efforts to reunify the family are required. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(2).
Recruiting Adoptive Family Begins at Filing for TPR. When the state files a petition to terminate parental rights, it must concurrently begin to recruit, identify, process and approve a qualified adoptive family on behalf of the child, regardless of age. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(3).
Specific Findings on “Contrary to Welfare” and “Reasonable Efforts” Required. Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be:
explicitly documented,
made on a case-by-case basis, and
stated in the court order.
A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d).
38.5 Foster Care Independence Act
The Foster Care Independence Act, P.L. 106-169 (also known as the Chafee Act), was signed into law on December 14, 1999, creating the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, which is run through the states under Title IV-E. An Independent Living program that helped older foster children earn high school diplomas, participate in vocational training or education and learn daily living skills such as budgeting, career planning and securing housing and employment existed before the Chafee Act was passed but it focused on youth under the age of 18. The Chafee Act doubled the annual appropriations to the states for the program and requires that a portion of the funds be used for assistance to young people ages 18 to 21 who exit foster care. The intent is to provide states with funding for programs that provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other support and services to former foster care recipients to complement their own efforts to achieve self-sufficiency. 42 U.S.C. §677.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, P.L. 107-133, 115 Stat. 2413, enacted in January 2002, authorize vouchers for “education and training, including postsecondary training and education, to youths who have aged out of foster care.” See 42 U.S.C. §677(a)(6), added in 2002. Among other things, the law provides that states may allow youths participating in the voucher program on the date they turn 21 to remain eligible until they turn 23, as long as they are enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program and are making satisfactory progress toward completion of the program. Vouchers may not exceed the lesser of $5,000 per year or the total cost of attendance. 42 U.S.C. §677(i). (The extent to which the state receives these funds depends on actual congressional appropriations from year to year, as well as on the manner in which funds are distributed or allocated to the states.)
38.6 Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001
Besides authorizing vouchers for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 made a number of amendments to Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. §629 through §629h. Public Law 107-133 also authorized appropriations for FFY 2002 through 2006 to promote family support and preservation, as well as time-limited family reunification and adoption. 42 U.S.C. §629.
38.7 Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006
The Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act was enacted July 3, 2006 to encourage the “safe and expedited placement of children into safe, permanent homes across State lines.” P.L. 109-239, §2, 120 Stat. 508. The Act amends Titles IV-B and IV-E in a number of ways intended to improve the orderly and timely interstate placement of children. It also requires that the court determine at permanency hearings whether a child’s out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the children’s best interest. 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(C).
This legislation also includes a number of provisions unrelated to interstate placement. One is that the state provide for a child’s health and education records to be provided to the child at no cost when the child leaves foster care by reason of having attained the age of majority. 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(D). Another is that, as a condition of receiving federal Court Improvement Project dollars (see §38.10 below), the highest court in the state must have a rule that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers are notified of proceedings respecting the child. 25 U.S.C. §629h(b). This relates to the Title IV-E requirement that the state have a procedure for assuring that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers are provided notice of, and a right to be heard in, in the proceedings. 25 U.S.C. §675(5)(G). Federal guidelines interpret the word “proceedings” to mean permanency hearings and periodic judicial reviews. Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-07-03, which can be found at the Children’s Bureau website, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.
38.8 Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act, P.L. 109-288, enacted September 28, 2006 reauthorizes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program for another five years. The legislation also makes a number of changes to Titles IV-B and IV-E, including the following:
The state’s case review system must include procedural safeguards to assure that in any permanency hearing with respect to the child, including any hearing regarding the transition of the child from foster care to independent living, the court consult, in an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child. 42 U.S.C. §475(5)(C). (Federal guidelines interpret this requirement to permit the child’s views to be reported by, for example, the child’s GAL or attorney. Child Welfare Policy Manual §8.3C.2c (10/17/07)
The state must put into place procedures for the child welfare system to respond to disasters. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(16).
State plans for child welfare services must describe standards for the content and frequency of caseworker visits with children in foster care that, at a minimum, ensure that children are visited on a monthly basis and that the visits focus on issues pertinent to case planning and service delivery to ensure the children’s safety, permanency and well-being. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(17).
38.9 Multiethnic Placement Act
The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act, P.L. 103-382, 108 Stat. 4056, was adopted in 1994 and modified in 1996 by the interethnic adoption provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act, P.L. 104-188, 110 Stat. 1903. The Multiethnic Placement Act was passed to promote the best interests of children by: (1) decreasing the length of time that children wait to be adopted; (2) preventing discrimination in the placement of children on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and (3) facilitating the identification and recruitment of foster and adoptive families that can meet children’s needs. MEPA, as amended, is found in 42 U.S.C. §§622(b)(7), 671(a)(18) and 1996b.
The Act amended the requirements for states to meet in order to receive Title IV-B funding. The state’s plan for child welfare services must provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(7).
The state’s plan for foster care and adoption assistance under Title IV-E must also comply with MEPA. The plan must provide that neither the state nor any other entity in the state that receives funds from the federal government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may discriminate on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or of the child. 42 U.S.C. §671(a)(18).
The 1996 legislation amended the civil rights laws to prohibit persons and governments involved in adoption or foster care placements from:
Denying to any individual the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the individual or of the child; or
Delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child.
However, this law is not to be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 42 U.S.C. §1996b(3).
38.10 Court Improvement Program
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, P.L. 103-66, provided for grants to state courts to assess and improve the handling of proceedings relating to foster care and adoption. These grants were intended to enable courts:
to conduct assessments of the role, responsibilities, and effectiveness of state courts in carrying out state laws requiring proceedings that implement Title IV-B and IV-E, that determine the advisability or appropriateness of foster care placement, that determine whether to terminate parental rights and that determine whether to approve the adoption or other permanent placement of a child; and
to implement changes deemed necessary as a result of the assessments.
Funding for court improvement grants was initially authorized for four years; congressional legislation has since extended the authorization through federal fiscal year 2011. In 2006, Congress not only extended authorization through 2011, but added two new grant programs. One grant is for improved data collection to ensure that the safety, permanency, and well-being needs of children are met in a timely and complete manner. The other is for the training of judges, attorneys and other legal personnel in child welfare cases, including cross-training with the child welfare agency. 42 U.S.C. §629h.
The New Mexico Court Improvement Project was made possible by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Grant money was first awarded to the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Supreme Court, in 1995. The Court Improvement Project continues to receive federal funds to implement and evaluate its ongoing initiatives and is now receiving training and data grants as well as the basic grant that it has been receiving since the inception of the program.
38.11 Child and Family Service Reviews
In 1994, Congress amended the Social Security Act to authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review state child and family service programs to ensure conformity with the requirements of Titles IV-B and IV E. In 2000, the HHS published a rule to establish a new approach to monitoring state programs. Under the rule, states are assessed for substantial conformity with certain federal requirements for child protective, foster care, adoption, family preservation and family support, and independent living services. The Children’s Bureau within HHS administers the review system, which is known as the Child and Family Service Reviews, or CFSRs.
The CFSRs look at the extent to which the states are achieving the following outcomes for families and children receiving services:
Safety
Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency
Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for families.
Well-Being
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Each CFSR is a two-stage process consisting of a statewide assessment and an onsite review. At the end of the onsite review, states determined not to have achieved substantial conformity in all the areas assessed must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan, or PIP, addressing the areas of nonconformity. States that do not achieve their required improvements face financial penalties. (This information was excerpted from the Child and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.)
The first round of CFSRs was completed nationally in 2004 and the second round began in 2007. New Mexico was one of the first states reviewed in this second round, and the state submitted its proposed PIP to the Children’s Bureau in November 2007.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/federal-laws-affecting-state-proceedings/
Author Yvonne Mason
Chapter 38: Federal Laws Affecting State Proceedings
38.1. Introduction
38.2. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
38.3. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
38.4. Adoption and Safe Families Act
38.5. Foster Care Independence Act
38.6. Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001
38.7. Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006
38.8. Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
38.9. Multiethnic Placement Act
38.10. Court Improvement Program
38.11. Child and Family Services Reviews
38.1 Introduction
Since 1974, federal law has played a major role in the development of state law and policy on child abuse and neglect proceedings. Some laws, such as the Indian Child Welfare Act, discussed in Chapter 39, apply directly to state court proceedings. Most of the laws in this area affect the states because they grant or deny federal funds depending on the state’s compliance with certain conditions.
The federal law on child abuse and neglect is found primarily in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title VI-B and Title IV-E offer funds to the states for family preservation and support services, child welfare services, state administrative costs in administering child welfare programs, foster care payments, and adoption subsidies. Seventy-five percent of the funds used to support children in foster care in New Mexico is federal money which, under the legislation passed by Congress over the past 25 years, is available only if the state meets eligibility requirements. Similarly, these funds can be withdrawn if requirements are not met.
38.2 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
Congress began to take an active role in the child welfare system with the adoption of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), P.L. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 U.S.C. §§5101–5107. The Act created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, authorized financial assistance to public agencies and private nonprofit agencies for demonstration programs designed to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect, and provided for grants to states to assist the states in developing, strengthening, and carrying out child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs.
CAPTA has been amended a number of times over the years and contains a number of requirements that states must meet as a condition of receiving funds under the Act. States are, for example, required to provide for the reporting of abuse or neglect, immunity for persons reporting abuse or neglect, prompt investigation of reports, and methods for preserving confidentiality of records. The Act also requires that states establish citizen review panels, the requirements for which are outlined in the law, and that provisions be in place requiring that guardians ad litem, who have received training appropriate to the role, be appointed to represent children in abuse and neglect proceedings. Fingerprinting and criminal background record checks are required for prospective foster and adoptive parents and for other adults living in the household. 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2).
When CAPTA was passed, it required that state programs assisted under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, which was adopted in 1968, meet these same conditions. This requirement remains in effect. Title IV-B, which provides funding for child welfare services and, since 1993, family preservation and family support services, continues to be subject to the conditions listed in CAPTA. 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(D). (Title IV-B is found in 42 U.S.C. §§620-629g.)
38.3 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
While CAPTA brought some attention to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect, less attention was being paid to the child’s long-term need for permanency. It became apparent that children were drifting from foster home to foster home. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500, 42 U.S.C. §§670-676 (and amending §§620-628), was the next major effort to address the needs of children who suffered from abuse or neglect. The Act was intended to protect children when they were in foster care, to shorten the time children spent in foster care and to encourage permanency planning for children through the reunification of families when possible and termination of parental rights and adoption when not.
P.L. 96-272 established Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which makes federal financial assistance available to states with foster care systems that meet the Act’s requirements. In particular, Title IV-E provided for federal participation in foster care maintenance payments, as well as subsidies for the adoption of children with special needs. The Act also provided for the withdrawal or reduction of financial assistance from states that did not comply with federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §§670-676.
For a state to be eligible for payments under the Act, it had to have a state plan in place. The plan had to provide that, in each case, reasonable efforts would be made (1) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (2) to make it possible for the child to return to his home. The plan also had to provide for the development of a case plan for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments, as well as for a case review system for the child. As part of the case review system, the status of the child had to be reviewed by a court at least every six months and the child had to be assured of a dispositional hearing by the court no later than 18 months after the original placement, and periodically thereafter.
Besides having a state plan in place, the state could only make foster care maintenance payments with respect to any given child if the removal from the home was the result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the child. The court also had to find that reasonable efforts to maintain the child in the home or, after removal, to return the child home were made.
These Title IV-E provisions and requirements remain in place today with a number of additions and modifications made by the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, as well as more recent legislation. One of the most significant changes is that the requirement for a dispositional hearing no later than 18 months after the original placement has been changed to a requirement that a permanency hearing be held within 12 months of the date the child is considered to have entered foster care and at least every 12 months thereafter. A permanency plan must be determined at this hearing. See §38.4 below.
38.4 Adoption and Safe Families Act
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), P.L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115, amending 42 U.S.C. §§671-675, was passed in 1997 to improve the safety of children and to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children who need them, as well as to continue to support families. Stating that the child’s health and safety were of paramount concern, the law made changes in and clarified some of the policies established under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. It contained a wide range of provisions, from reauthorization of existing programs to providing adoption incentives for states.
ASFA regulations were announced by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department on January 25, 2000, and went into effect on March 27. States had 12 months in which to meet some of the requirements, but most had to be met right away. See 65 F.R. 4020 (January 25, 2000), amending 45 C.F.R. Parts 1355, 1356, and 1357. This chapter will focus on the provisions of the ASFA regulations that affect judicial abuse and neglect proceedings.
A state must meet certain requirements in order to comply with foster care program provisions of the Title IV-E state plan or to be eligible to receive federal financial participation for foster care maintenance payments. While some requirements affect state plan compliance alone, others affect the child’s eligibility for Title IV-E foster care payments.
Reasonable Efforts Generally. The state must make reasonable efforts to:
maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from his or her home, as long as the child’s safety is assured;
effect the safe reunification of the child and family (if temporary out-of-home placement is necessary to ensure the immediate safety of the child); and
make and finalize alternate permanency plans in a timely manner when reunification is not appropriate or possible. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b).
“Contrary to Welfare” Determination in First Court Ruling. A child’s removal from the home must be the result of a judicial determination that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child, or that placement outside the home would be in the best interest of the child. This determination must be made in the first court ruling that sanctions (even temporarily) the removal of the child from the home. If this “contrary to the welfare” determination is not made in the first court ruling, the child is not eligible for Title IV-E foster care payments for the duration of that stay in foster care. The omission cannot be remedied. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(c).
Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal. When a child is removed from his or her home, a judicial determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made, or were not required, to prevent removal must be made no later than 60 days from the date the child is removed from his home. If this determination is not made, the child is not eligible for Title IV-E foster care payments for the duration of that stay in foster care. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(1).
Reasonable Efforts Not Required. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal or to reunify the family are not required where the state agency has obtained a judicial determination that such efforts are not required because:
The parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in state law);
The parent has been convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, aiding or abetting, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent; or
Parental rights have been terminated involuntarily with respect to a sibling. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(3).
Foster Care Placement; Limit on Court Role. To satisfy the requirements for a case plan for each child (see §38.3 on P.L. 96-272), the state agency must promulgate policy materials and instructions for use by staff to determine the appropriateness and necessity for the foster care placement of the child. Federal financial participation in foster care payments is not available when a court orders a placement with a specific foster care provider. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(g).
Permanency Hearing; Deadline. Previously, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act required that states hold dispositional hearings within 18 months after placement of a child in foster care. ASFA repeals this provision and establishes a permanency planning hearing. This hearing must occur within 12 months of the date a child “is considered to have entered foster care,” or within 30 days of a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family are not required. A child “is considered to have entered foster care” on the earlier of the date of the first judicial finding of abuse or neglect or the date that is 60 days after the child is removed from the home. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20(a).
Permanency Plan Set at Hearing. The court must determine the permanency plan, or goal, for the child at the permanency hearing. 45 C.F.R. §§1355.20 and 1356.21(h). (This hearing to determine the permanency plan does not have to be the “permanency hearing” described in state law. Under ASFA, the court can hold a hearing on the permanency plan any time, which must be at least every twelve months.)
Permissible plans. Permissible permanency plans, or goals, under ASFA are:
Reunification;
Adoption;
Legal guardianship;
Placement permanently with a fit and willing relative; or
Another planned permanent living arrangement, but only if the state agency has documented to the court a compelling reason why none of the other options would be in the child’s best interest. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20
Reasonable Efforts to Finalize Plan. The state agency must obtain a judicial determination that it has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect (whether the plan is reunification, adoption, legal guardianship, placement with a fit and willing relative, or placement in another planned permanent living arrangement). This determination must be made within 12 months of the date the child is considered to have entered foster care, and at least once every twelve months thereafter while the child is in foster care. If the determination is not made, the child becomes ineligible for Title IV-E payments after the end of the twelfth month following the date he or she is considered to have entered foster care, and remains ineligible until such a determination is made. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(2).
TPR Required; Deadline for Filing. The state must file or join in a petition to terminate parental rights if the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The petition must be filed by the end of the child’s 15th month in foster care. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(i).
This 15 month period runs from the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care, that is, the date on which the child was adjudicated an abused or neglected child or the date 60 days after the child was removed from the home, whichever comes first. 45 C.F.R. §1355.20(a).
TPR Within 60 days of Felony Determination. If the parent has been convicted of one of the felonies listed in the regulations, the petition to terminate must be filed within 60 days of a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the child and parent are not required. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(iii)
TPR Within 60 days of Abandoned Infant Determination. If a child is determined by the court to be an “abandoned infant” (as defined by state law), the petition to terminate must be filed within 60 days of the judicial determination that the infant is abandoned. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(1)(ii).
Exceptions to TPR Requirement. The state agency may elect not to file for TPR if:
at the agency’s option, the child is being cared for by a relative;
the agency has documented in the case plan (which must be available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the individual child, or
the agency has not provided to the family services that the state deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the home, when reasonable efforts to reunify the family are required. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(2).
Recruiting Adoptive Family Begins at Filing for TPR. When the state files a petition to terminate parental rights, it must concurrently begin to recruit, identify, process and approve a qualified adoptive family on behalf of the child, regardless of age. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)(3).
Specific Findings on “Contrary to Welfare” and “Reasonable Efforts” Required. Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be:
explicitly documented,
made on a case-by-case basis, and
stated in the court order.
A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d).
38.5 Foster Care Independence Act
The Foster Care Independence Act, P.L. 106-169 (also known as the Chafee Act), was signed into law on December 14, 1999, creating the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, which is run through the states under Title IV-E. An Independent Living program that helped older foster children earn high school diplomas, participate in vocational training or education and learn daily living skills such as budgeting, career planning and securing housing and employment existed before the Chafee Act was passed but it focused on youth under the age of 18. The Chafee Act doubled the annual appropriations to the states for the program and requires that a portion of the funds be used for assistance to young people ages 18 to 21 who exit foster care. The intent is to provide states with funding for programs that provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other support and services to former foster care recipients to complement their own efforts to achieve self-sufficiency. 42 U.S.C. §677.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001, P.L. 107-133, 115 Stat. 2413, enacted in January 2002, authorize vouchers for “education and training, including postsecondary training and education, to youths who have aged out of foster care.” See 42 U.S.C. §677(a)(6), added in 2002. Among other things, the law provides that states may allow youths participating in the voucher program on the date they turn 21 to remain eligible until they turn 23, as long as they are enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program and are making satisfactory progress toward completion of the program. Vouchers may not exceed the lesser of $5,000 per year or the total cost of attendance. 42 U.S.C. §677(i). (The extent to which the state receives these funds depends on actual congressional appropriations from year to year, as well as on the manner in which funds are distributed or allocated to the states.)
38.6 Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001
Besides authorizing vouchers for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 made a number of amendments to Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. §629 through §629h. Public Law 107-133 also authorized appropriations for FFY 2002 through 2006 to promote family support and preservation, as well as time-limited family reunification and adoption. 42 U.S.C. §629.
38.7 Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006
The Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act was enacted July 3, 2006 to encourage the “safe and expedited placement of children into safe, permanent homes across State lines.” P.L. 109-239, §2, 120 Stat. 508. The Act amends Titles IV-B and IV-E in a number of ways intended to improve the orderly and timely interstate placement of children. It also requires that the court determine at permanency hearings whether a child’s out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the children’s best interest. 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(C).
This legislation also includes a number of provisions unrelated to interstate placement. One is that the state provide for a child’s health and education records to be provided to the child at no cost when the child leaves foster care by reason of having attained the age of majority. 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(D). Another is that, as a condition of receiving federal Court Improvement Project dollars (see §38.10 below), the highest court in the state must have a rule that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers are notified of proceedings respecting the child. 25 U.S.C. §629h(b). This relates to the Title IV-E requirement that the state have a procedure for assuring that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers are provided notice of, and a right to be heard in, in the proceedings. 25 U.S.C. §675(5)(G). Federal guidelines interpret the word “proceedings” to mean permanency hearings and periodic judicial reviews. Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-07-03, which can be found at the Children’s Bureau website, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.
38.8 Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act, P.L. 109-288, enacted September 28, 2006 reauthorizes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program for another five years. The legislation also makes a number of changes to Titles IV-B and IV-E, including the following:
The state’s case review system must include procedural safeguards to assure that in any permanency hearing with respect to the child, including any hearing regarding the transition of the child from foster care to independent living, the court consult, in an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child. 42 U.S.C. §475(5)(C). (Federal guidelines interpret this requirement to permit the child’s views to be reported by, for example, the child’s GAL or attorney. Child Welfare Policy Manual §8.3C.2c (10/17/07)
The state must put into place procedures for the child welfare system to respond to disasters. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(16).
State plans for child welfare services must describe standards for the content and frequency of caseworker visits with children in foster care that, at a minimum, ensure that children are visited on a monthly basis and that the visits focus on issues pertinent to case planning and service delivery to ensure the children’s safety, permanency and well-being. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(17).
38.9 Multiethnic Placement Act
The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act, P.L. 103-382, 108 Stat. 4056, was adopted in 1994 and modified in 1996 by the interethnic adoption provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act, P.L. 104-188, 110 Stat. 1903. The Multiethnic Placement Act was passed to promote the best interests of children by: (1) decreasing the length of time that children wait to be adopted; (2) preventing discrimination in the placement of children on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and (3) facilitating the identification and recruitment of foster and adoptive families that can meet children’s needs. MEPA, as amended, is found in 42 U.S.C. §§622(b)(7), 671(a)(18) and 1996b.
The Act amended the requirements for states to meet in order to receive Title IV-B funding. The state’s plan for child welfare services must provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed. 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(7).
The state’s plan for foster care and adoption assistance under Title IV-E must also comply with MEPA. The plan must provide that neither the state nor any other entity in the state that receives funds from the federal government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may discriminate on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or of the child. 42 U.S.C. §671(a)(18).
The 1996 legislation amended the civil rights laws to prohibit persons and governments involved in adoption or foster care placements from:
Denying to any individual the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the individual or of the child; or
Delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child.
However, this law is not to be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 42 U.S.C. §1996b(3).
38.10 Court Improvement Program
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, P.L. 103-66, provided for grants to state courts to assess and improve the handling of proceedings relating to foster care and adoption. These grants were intended to enable courts:
to conduct assessments of the role, responsibilities, and effectiveness of state courts in carrying out state laws requiring proceedings that implement Title IV-B and IV-E, that determine the advisability or appropriateness of foster care placement, that determine whether to terminate parental rights and that determine whether to approve the adoption or other permanent placement of a child; and
to implement changes deemed necessary as a result of the assessments.
Funding for court improvement grants was initially authorized for four years; congressional legislation has since extended the authorization through federal fiscal year 2011. In 2006, Congress not only extended authorization through 2011, but added two new grant programs. One grant is for improved data collection to ensure that the safety, permanency, and well-being needs of children are met in a timely and complete manner. The other is for the training of judges, attorneys and other legal personnel in child welfare cases, including cross-training with the child welfare agency. 42 U.S.C. §629h.
The New Mexico Court Improvement Project was made possible by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Grant money was first awarded to the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Supreme Court, in 1995. The Court Improvement Project continues to receive federal funds to implement and evaluate its ongoing initiatives and is now receiving training and data grants as well as the basic grant that it has been receiving since the inception of the program.
38.11 Child and Family Service Reviews
In 1994, Congress amended the Social Security Act to authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review state child and family service programs to ensure conformity with the requirements of Titles IV-B and IV E. In 2000, the HHS published a rule to establish a new approach to monitoring state programs. Under the rule, states are assessed for substantial conformity with certain federal requirements for child protective, foster care, adoption, family preservation and family support, and independent living services. The Children’s Bureau within HHS administers the review system, which is known as the Child and Family Service Reviews, or CFSRs.
The CFSRs look at the extent to which the states are achieving the following outcomes for families and children receiving services:
Safety
Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency
Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for families.
Well-Being
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Each CFSR is a two-stage process consisting of a statewide assessment and an onsite review. At the end of the onsite review, states determined not to have achieved substantial conformity in all the areas assessed must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan, or PIP, addressing the areas of nonconformity. States that do not achieve their required improvements face financial penalties. (This information was excerpted from the Child and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.)
The first round of CFSRs was completed nationally in 2004 and the second round began in 2007. New Mexico was one of the first states reviewed in this second round, and the state submitted its proposed PIP to the Children’s Bureau in November 2007.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/federal-laws-affecting-state-proceedings/
UK POSS ADOPTION FRAUD, NORMA HOWES EXPERT PSYCOLOGIST/INDEPENDENT SW
UK POSS ADOPTION FRAUD, NORMA HOWES EXPERT PSYCOLOGIST/INDEPENDENT SW
To members of CROSS OF CHANGE
Sheva Burton January 29 at 8:32pm Reply
I RECIEVED THIS REQUEST , CAN PEOPLE PLEASE REPLY HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY RELEVANT INFO, AND ALL BLOGGERS AND FAMILY JUSTICE UK GROUPS , PLEASE CAN YOU SPREAD THIS AND FEEDBACK HERE, FOR NOW.....................................................................................ALSO IF YOU CAN HELP WITH GETTIN INFO FROM LA,S PLEASE INDICATE BELOW.........................THANKS................................................
Can you post out there for people to indicate if they have had a Norma Howes involved as an expert psychologist/independant social worker in their cases, especially re adoptions as I may have found a massive adoption fraud.
The next stage will be an FOI requestion to as many LA's as possible to request if she has been involved in any child care proceedings in these areas, it will need peoples help.
To members of CROSS OF CHANGE
Sheva Burton January 29 at 8:32pm Reply
I RECIEVED THIS REQUEST , CAN PEOPLE PLEASE REPLY HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY RELEVANT INFO, AND ALL BLOGGERS AND FAMILY JUSTICE UK GROUPS , PLEASE CAN YOU SPREAD THIS AND FEEDBACK HERE, FOR NOW.....................................................................................ALSO IF YOU CAN HELP WITH GETTIN INFO FROM LA,S PLEASE INDICATE BELOW.........................THANKS................................................
Can you post out there for people to indicate if they have had a Norma Howes involved as an expert psychologist/independant social worker in their cases, especially re adoptions as I may have found a massive adoption fraud.
The next stage will be an FOI requestion to as many LA's as possible to request if she has been involved in any child care proceedings in these areas, it will need peoples help.
Friday, January 29, 2010
If Nancy Schaefer Gets It- Why Can’t DFC/DCYF????
If Nancy Schaefer Gets It- Why Can’t DFC????
January 29, 2010 yvonnemason
Child trafficking and fraud by CPS. These kids should’ve never been removed.Posted by katherine shipula on January 28, 2010 at 3:58pm in Patriots for America – Texas
Back to Patriots for America – Texas Discussions
From the legislative desk of Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia November 16, 2007
THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICESBY: Nancy SchaeferSenator, 50th District< My introduction into child protective service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.
The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parents children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with the caseworker.
In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them. After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in adult entertainment. His girlfriend worked as an escort and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.
Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmothers door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.
The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved back to the southeast, and the foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.
To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are in my opinion permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has not recovered.
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 with whom to turn. 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 sta te 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.
The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Service (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 does not remove a child or children when a child is enduring torment and abuse. (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B)
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 of school uses, 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. Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.
I have come to the conclusion:
· that 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. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and thats where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by the system that makes a profit for holding children longer and bonuses for not returning children;
· that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;
· that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
· that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and court watches! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that social workers are the glue that holds the system together that funds the court, the childs attorney, and the multiple other jobs including DFCSs attorney.
· that 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 sell and you 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 the federal dollars flowing;
· that there is 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 then “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;
· that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together;
· that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
· that the Policy Manual is considered the last word for DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
· that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today all children are not always safer. 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;
· that 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 and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them.
· fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
· that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not bring out that a foster parent is there only to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many Foster Parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system;
· that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims,
parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the
systems services.
· that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
· that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official safety, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.
· That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
FINAL REMARKS
On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and troubled children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and sometimes beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become adult centered to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for a director of DFCS.
I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. Its time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy Proverbs 31:8-9
Please continue to read:
Recommendations
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.
2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage.
3. End the financial incentives that separate families.
4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.
5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives.
6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a child from his or her parents.
7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.)
8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/if-nancy-schaefer-gets-it-why-cant-dfc/
January 29, 2010 yvonnemason
Child trafficking and fraud by CPS. These kids should’ve never been removed.Posted by katherine shipula on January 28, 2010 at 3:58pm in Patriots for America – Texas
Back to Patriots for America – Texas Discussions
From the legislative desk of Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia November 16, 2007
THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICESBY: Nancy SchaeferSenator, 50th District< My introduction into child protective service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.
The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parents children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with the caseworker.
In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them. After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in adult entertainment. His girlfriend worked as an escort and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.
Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmothers door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.
The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved back to the southeast, and the foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.
To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are in my opinion permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has not recovered.
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 with whom to turn. 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 sta te 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.
The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Service (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 does not remove a child or children when a child is enduring torment and abuse. (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B)
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 of school uses, 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. Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.
I have come to the conclusion:
· that 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. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and thats where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by the system that makes a profit for holding children longer and bonuses for not returning children;
· that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;
· that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
· that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and court watches! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that social workers are the glue that holds the system together that funds the court, the childs attorney, and the multiple other jobs including DFCSs attorney.
· that 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 sell and you 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 the federal dollars flowing;
· that there is 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 then “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;
· that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together;
· that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
· that the Policy Manual is considered the last word for DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
· that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today all children are not always safer. 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;
· that 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 and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them.
· fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
· that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not bring out that a foster parent is there only to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many Foster Parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system;
· that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims,
parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the
systems services.
· that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
· that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official safety, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.
· That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
FINAL REMARKS
On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and troubled children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and sometimes beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become adult centered to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for a director of DFCS.
I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. Its time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy Proverbs 31:8-9
Please continue to read:
Recommendations
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.
2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage.
3. End the financial incentives that separate families.
4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.
5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives.
6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a child from his or her parents.
7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.)
8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/if-nancy-schaefer-gets-it-why-cant-dfc/
Child welfare systems don't work, despite defense
Friday, January 29, 2010
Child welfare systems don't work, despite defense
By Richard Wexler
Posted: 01/29/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
Re: "Allow Colorado's county-based child welfare system to work as designed," Dec. 31 guest commentary.
Ever since the great "state vs. county" debate broke out over Colorado child welfare, I've maintained it's a sideshow wasting everyone's time and effort. Among the nation's best — and worst — systems are some run by states and some run by counties.
But if anything could get me to change my mind, it would be the self-satisfied commentary from Donald Cassata, director of the Adams County Human Services Department.
His claim that the system is "not broken" is at odds with everything we know about foster care in general and the Colorado systems in particular. Consider:
• The evidence keeps mounting about the enormous harm of tearing children from everyone they know and love and throwing them into foster care. A landmark study of 15,000 typical cases — not the horrors that make headlines — found that children left with their own parents fared better even than comparably maltreated children left in foster care.
That's because most parents who lose children to foster care are neither sadists nor brutes. Far more common are cases in which family poverty is confused with "neglect."
But year after year, the county-run systems that Cassata defends tear apart families at a rate double the national average.
• This does nothing to keep children safer. It only overwhelms child welfare systems, leaving workers less time to find children in real danger. Other states know this. Illinois takes children at one-quarter the Colorado rate, but independent court-appointed monitors found that, as foster care plummeted, child safety improved.
• Still another study found abuse in one in three foster homes, a rate consistent with other independent studies, and a much higher rate than reflected in official statistics. It also found that, among foster care alumni, only 20 percent do well as young adults. How can anyone claim a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five is "not broken"?
Despite Cassata's dismissal of all that pain, I still think the issue of state or county control is irrelevant. But I can think of one Colorado county with a child welfare system that needs new leadership.
Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.info.
All contents Copyright 2010 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14289768#ixzz0e0vBGDJP
Child welfare systems don't work, despite defense
By Richard Wexler
Posted: 01/29/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
Re: "Allow Colorado's county-based child welfare system to work as designed," Dec. 31 guest commentary.
Ever since the great "state vs. county" debate broke out over Colorado child welfare, I've maintained it's a sideshow wasting everyone's time and effort. Among the nation's best — and worst — systems are some run by states and some run by counties.
But if anything could get me to change my mind, it would be the self-satisfied commentary from Donald Cassata, director of the Adams County Human Services Department.
His claim that the system is "not broken" is at odds with everything we know about foster care in general and the Colorado systems in particular. Consider:
• The evidence keeps mounting about the enormous harm of tearing children from everyone they know and love and throwing them into foster care. A landmark study of 15,000 typical cases — not the horrors that make headlines — found that children left with their own parents fared better even than comparably maltreated children left in foster care.
That's because most parents who lose children to foster care are neither sadists nor brutes. Far more common are cases in which family poverty is confused with "neglect."
But year after year, the county-run systems that Cassata defends tear apart families at a rate double the national average.
• This does nothing to keep children safer. It only overwhelms child welfare systems, leaving workers less time to find children in real danger. Other states know this. Illinois takes children at one-quarter the Colorado rate, but independent court-appointed monitors found that, as foster care plummeted, child safety improved.
• Still another study found abuse in one in three foster homes, a rate consistent with other independent studies, and a much higher rate than reflected in official statistics. It also found that, among foster care alumni, only 20 percent do well as young adults. How can anyone claim a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five is "not broken"?
Despite Cassata's dismissal of all that pain, I still think the issue of state or county control is irrelevant. But I can think of one Colorado county with a child welfare system that needs new leadership.
Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.info.
All contents Copyright 2010 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14289768#ixzz0e0vBGDJP
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)