HomeAbout Me
Christmas Memories — Mostly suck when you grow up a foster kid.
December 24, 2009
Each year I pray that I survive today and tomorrow. When you have no-one in your world, holidays like these are so painful, most of you can’t even imagine. You think it gets easier over the years? — it NEVER does. No matter how many years go by, no matter how many movies I rent, no matter how many times I pet my animals, no matter how much junk food I eat; the pain at this time of year is absolutely incredible.
You can’t ignore it. TV commercials, radio, everything touts this “as the most wonderful time of the year.” —Family, food, presents, memories, Hallmark….I goto the store and people talk about cooking and baking, talk about unwrapping gifts, talk about seeing Grandma soandso and Aunt soandso….they talk about having not enough time……
……………..well if you live my life, NONE of this is real and I wish time stopped.
First Christmas Times: Christmas with my bio-parents did not exist. I remember getting the shit kicked out of me several years for asking why Santa did not ever stop by “our house.” See, Santa is everywhere — do you think poor kids don’t know he exists? But he never came around, not once. I guess I didn’t deserve a visit from Santa. We had no Christmas tree. We had no ham, no turkey, nothing. …so for me, I was usually hungry, because if nothing was open on Christmas, there was no way to steal something to eat. And the pizza place from where we would steal pizza out of the trash was usually closed before and after Christmas…no pizza. The only neat thing about Christmas with the bio-parents was running through the snow-covered sewer pipes with my brother. They weren’t in the ground and I don’t know why, but they were in empty lots covered with snow. We would hide out all day and night until it got too cold, making snow forts and watching the ghetto-world pass by. They felt safe.
— Enter the world of foster care. A couple good Christmas times and many bad.
Some good Christmas Times: The Bentons gave me a cool art set. It had markers and paper and chalk in it. They also had a big fancy dinner and a real Christmas tree. I learned about lasagna then, because they made it to go with the ham. The tree smelt so beautiful and the needles would come off when I touched it. It was cool. They were fun. They moved. There was the Olsens and their two bio-kids. . They were very religious people and Christmas had alot of meaning to them. They took me to church. I learned all about Jesus and the story of Christmas. I am not sure I understood it at the time, but they tried to teach me about hope. They got rid of me….I don’t think I fit into their family…they were “good people” and well, I was “bad people.”
Some Bad Christmas Times: There were many bad Christmas times too. CPS remember this one? I was staying with the Rippons? It was me and Kelly, that other foster kid. CPS, Remember Mr. Rippon? At Christmas, he dressed up like Santa — and we had to give him a gift, to get a gift. CPS, Remember this? I was already good at this type of “gift-giving,” because I had plenty of experience living with my bio-father. It doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt. Poor Kelly, it was new to her. Remember that CPS? Thankfully you finally listened to me and Kelly…how long did it take? The sad part about this experience, I think gifts need to be paid back now. I think it ruined it all.
Or how about the Stocktons? hahahaha. I was told for Christmas that I was “just the foster kid” and “there was not enough money” for anything and that included Christmas meals. They had a big gathering with all their fat-ass relatives. My skinny-ass was locked in the basement. Another wonderful Christmas.
Christmas is just another indicator of how I don’t fit in society and probably never will. Christmas is a holiday for families and continuation of family memories. I have no continuity in memories; as they are all different from growing up in 13 different “families” – one bio-family and 12 foster/group homes.
Even during foster care, when there were times of presents or food or family gatherings, it was NEVER MY FAMILY…..I was always truly an outsider. And for outsiders, this is not the “most wonderful time of the year,” but “the most painful time of the year.”
http://looneytunes09.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/christmas-memories-mostly-bad-when-you-grow-up-a-foster-kid/
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, February 1, 2010
2 Ohio children caged by adoptive parents sue
Originally published Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM
2 Ohio children caged by adoptive parents sue
Two Ohio teenagers forced to sleep in cages have sued their adoptive parents and caseworkers who arranged the adoptions.
The Associated Press
CLEVELAND —
Two Ohio teenagers forced to sleep in cages have sued their adoptive parents and caseworkers who arranged the adoptions.
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Cuyahoga (ky-uh-HOH'-guh) County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland on behalf of 18-year-old Sharen Gravelle and 17-year-old Michael Gravelle.
Their adoptive parents, also named Michael and Sharen, are now serving two-year prison terms for abusing some of their 11 adopted special-needs children.
The suit also targets caseworkers and the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services in Cincinnati. The suit says the Gravelles were unfit to be parents and should never have gotten custody of the children.
The prosecutor's office, which handles legal matters for the county agency, had no immediate comment Thursday.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010117625_apuscagedchildren.html?prmid=obinsite
2 Ohio children caged by adoptive parents sue
Two Ohio teenagers forced to sleep in cages have sued their adoptive parents and caseworkers who arranged the adoptions.
The Associated Press
CLEVELAND —
Two Ohio teenagers forced to sleep in cages have sued their adoptive parents and caseworkers who arranged the adoptions.
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Cuyahoga (ky-uh-HOH'-guh) County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland on behalf of 18-year-old Sharen Gravelle and 17-year-old Michael Gravelle.
Their adoptive parents, also named Michael and Sharen, are now serving two-year prison terms for abusing some of their 11 adopted special-needs children.
The suit also targets caseworkers and the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services in Cincinnati. The suit says the Gravelles were unfit to be parents and should never have gotten custody of the children.
The prosecutor's office, which handles legal matters for the county agency, had no immediate comment Thursday.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010117625_apuscagedchildren.html?prmid=obinsite
Detectives' quest: Find relatives of foster kids
In NH relatives are not notified when a child is removed from his/her home. When relatives call DCYF and ask to take the children, their told, "Relative Placement is not an option. The child is being placed in foster care, period!"
Originally published January 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Page modified January 30, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Detectives' quest: Find relatives of foster kids
After a day of knocking on doors chasing fleeting leads, Carlos Lopez and his partner finally heard welcome words: Yes, a resident confirmed, the man they were seeking lived in this house and would be home that evening.
By ERIK ECKHOLM
The New York Times
PREV of NEXT
NICOLE BENGIVENO / NYT
Carlos Lopez and Liz Johnson pursue leads to relatives of foster kids in St. Louis. Finding an adoptive parent for older children with years in foster care is known in child welfare circles as the toughest challenge.
ST. LOUIS — After a day of knocking on doors chasing fleeting leads, Carlos Lopez and his partner finally heard welcome words: Yes, a resident confirmed, the man they were seeking lived in this house and would be home that evening.
Lopez, a former police detective, does gumshoe work for what he calls a more fulfilling cause: tracking down long-lost relatives of teenagers languishing in foster care, in desperate need of family ties and in danger of becoming rootless adults.
That recent day, he was hoping to find the father of a boy who had lived in 16 foster homes since 1995. The boy did not remember his mother, who had long since disappeared.
Finding an adoptive parent for older children with years in foster care is known in child-welfare circles as the toughest challenge. Typically, their biological parents abused or neglected them and had parental rights terminated.
Limited number of saints
Relatives may not know where the children are, or even that they exist. And the supply of saints in the public, willing to adopt teenagers shaken by years of trauma and loss, is limited.
The intensive searches in St. Louis reflect a growing national shift toward relatives as caretakers, a quest that has often been limited by a scarcity of known suitable kin. But scores of foster and adoption agencies throughout the country have found that assertive efforts relying on the Internet, the telephone, advertisements and, in a some cases, door-to-door questioning by full-time investigators, can turn up dozens of relatives for almost any child. Many of them turn out to be willing to help nieces, nephews and grandchildren they had never seen.
"The lost relatives are a largely untapped resource for adoption," said Melanie Scheetz, director of the nonprofit Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition in St. Louis, which employs Lopez. "The system has overlooked all these amazing, strong people who are out there and willing to help."
Role of Washington program
The potential of such searches was established about a decade ago by Kevin Campbell, a former head of a charity in Washington state. In his initial work, mainly using computer databases, Campbell located 40 to 150 relatives each for most children in his program, reaching as far as grandparents' siblings.
"Some relatives recoil when contacted," he said; the surprise calls can rekindle ugly family histories. "But many want to help and are willing to consider adoption."
Many foster children are intensely curious about their biological families, said Campbell, now a consultant who trains agencies in a six-stage strategy of counseling and searches known as Family Finding.
But the children also must be prepared to learn unpleasant facts.
"People have a right to know the truth about their families," he said. "We work with youths to get answers, knowing that some of the answers may not be hopeful."
Efforts to help foster teenagers, including those in St. Louis, have been widely supported by grants from Wendy's Wonderful Kids, created by the founder of the fast-food chain.
In the St. Louis area, at any given time some 400 foster children ages 10 and older whose parents' rights were terminated are eligible for adoption. With a $2 million federal grant and private aid, the Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition has begun unusually intense 12- to 20-week searches for family connections and potential adopters.
Of 56 cases last year, 90 percent were connected with a relative and 70 percent were matched with adoptive parents, most but not all of them relatives, Scheetz said.
Recognized in advertisement
The pull of blood ties affected Robert Jackson, 53, a meatpacker across the Mississippi River in Fairview, Ill. He had not known that his troubled younger brother had fathered two children in St. Louis who soon ended up in foster care, with the parents' rights terminated by a court. By chance, about two years ago he saw an advertisement in a local newspaper for potential adoptive parents that featured a picture of Charles, now 13, and Charlotte, now 12.
Jackson did a double-take: The boy bore an uncanny resemblance to his brother, the girl resembled a sister, and Charles and Charlotte were family names. After confirming his suspicion, Jackson recalled: "I thought, 'We've got to bring them back into the family.' "
He and his wife, Maxine, went to see the children and started the adoption process. Of that first meeting with his uncle, Charles said, "I thought he really looked like me."
After his adoption, recalled Liz Johnson, a social worker and "recruiter" with the coalition, Charles said to her: "I'm a real boy now. I'm not a boy in foster care anymore."
While the outlook for these two seems bright, their case shows the potential complexity of such transitions. The children had the same foster mother for many years and were deeply attached to her, as she was to them, but she would not commit to adoption.
The children chose to move in with their newfound relatives, but suffered emotional turmoil and problems at their new school, which was far more demanding academically than the one they left in St. Louis. They still see a therapist weekly. Causing new heartache, Maxine died of cancer in December, six months after the children moved in.
To speed the process of recruiting parents and preparing children for adoptions, the St. Louis coalition employs Lopez and one other investigator full time alongside its social workers and starts transitional therapy for children before a parent is located, rather than waiting, as is common.
Disappointments, rejections
Many older children in foster care, after years of disappointments and rejections, initially say they do not want to be adopted. While children cannot be forced to accept adoptive parents, counselors help make them aware of the advantages of permanent legal ties to caring adults.
Teenagers in foster care often learn how to be on their own, said Latasha Holt, 26, a cashier and former foster child who is studying to become a parole officer. Holt described her loneliness in high school, when she lived in a group home and was too ashamed to let others know.
"I had friends until the school day ended at 2:15," she said. "Graduation was extremely emotional for me because I didn't have anybody there."
Holt had to feed her younger siblings when she was only 7 because their mother disappeared for days at a time. The children all ended up in foster care.
Recently, Holt became the foster parent of her 18-year-old sister, Sharda.
A legal adoption is in the works, and in the meantime she made sure that Sharda had a better graduation experience, throwing her a luau-themed surprise party.
The man found recently by Lopez and his partner, social worker Sheila Suderwalla, proved willing to cooperate.
That man knew that a girlfriend from his teenage years had borne a boy, but he said he understood he was not the father.
However, he agreed to a paternity test, and he and his wife said that while they awaited the results, they could at least tell the boy about his mother.
"They may give us leads to other relatives," Suderwalla said. "If nothing else, this will help give the boy a sense of his identity."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010939817_foster31.html?syndication=rss
Originally published January 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Page modified January 30, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Detectives' quest: Find relatives of foster kids
After a day of knocking on doors chasing fleeting leads, Carlos Lopez and his partner finally heard welcome words: Yes, a resident confirmed, the man they were seeking lived in this house and would be home that evening.
By ERIK ECKHOLM
The New York Times
PREV of NEXT
NICOLE BENGIVENO / NYT
Carlos Lopez and Liz Johnson pursue leads to relatives of foster kids in St. Louis. Finding an adoptive parent for older children with years in foster care is known in child welfare circles as the toughest challenge.
ST. LOUIS — After a day of knocking on doors chasing fleeting leads, Carlos Lopez and his partner finally heard welcome words: Yes, a resident confirmed, the man they were seeking lived in this house and would be home that evening.
Lopez, a former police detective, does gumshoe work for what he calls a more fulfilling cause: tracking down long-lost relatives of teenagers languishing in foster care, in desperate need of family ties and in danger of becoming rootless adults.
That recent day, he was hoping to find the father of a boy who had lived in 16 foster homes since 1995. The boy did not remember his mother, who had long since disappeared.
Finding an adoptive parent for older children with years in foster care is known in child-welfare circles as the toughest challenge. Typically, their biological parents abused or neglected them and had parental rights terminated.
Limited number of saints
Relatives may not know where the children are, or even that they exist. And the supply of saints in the public, willing to adopt teenagers shaken by years of trauma and loss, is limited.
The intensive searches in St. Louis reflect a growing national shift toward relatives as caretakers, a quest that has often been limited by a scarcity of known suitable kin. But scores of foster and adoption agencies throughout the country have found that assertive efforts relying on the Internet, the telephone, advertisements and, in a some cases, door-to-door questioning by full-time investigators, can turn up dozens of relatives for almost any child. Many of them turn out to be willing to help nieces, nephews and grandchildren they had never seen.
"The lost relatives are a largely untapped resource for adoption," said Melanie Scheetz, director of the nonprofit Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition in St. Louis, which employs Lopez. "The system has overlooked all these amazing, strong people who are out there and willing to help."
Role of Washington program
The potential of such searches was established about a decade ago by Kevin Campbell, a former head of a charity in Washington state. In his initial work, mainly using computer databases, Campbell located 40 to 150 relatives each for most children in his program, reaching as far as grandparents' siblings.
"Some relatives recoil when contacted," he said; the surprise calls can rekindle ugly family histories. "But many want to help and are willing to consider adoption."
Many foster children are intensely curious about their biological families, said Campbell, now a consultant who trains agencies in a six-stage strategy of counseling and searches known as Family Finding.
But the children also must be prepared to learn unpleasant facts.
"People have a right to know the truth about their families," he said. "We work with youths to get answers, knowing that some of the answers may not be hopeful."
Efforts to help foster teenagers, including those in St. Louis, have been widely supported by grants from Wendy's Wonderful Kids, created by the founder of the fast-food chain.
In the St. Louis area, at any given time some 400 foster children ages 10 and older whose parents' rights were terminated are eligible for adoption. With a $2 million federal grant and private aid, the Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition has begun unusually intense 12- to 20-week searches for family connections and potential adopters.
Of 56 cases last year, 90 percent were connected with a relative and 70 percent were matched with adoptive parents, most but not all of them relatives, Scheetz said.
Recognized in advertisement
The pull of blood ties affected Robert Jackson, 53, a meatpacker across the Mississippi River in Fairview, Ill. He had not known that his troubled younger brother had fathered two children in St. Louis who soon ended up in foster care, with the parents' rights terminated by a court. By chance, about two years ago he saw an advertisement in a local newspaper for potential adoptive parents that featured a picture of Charles, now 13, and Charlotte, now 12.
Jackson did a double-take: The boy bore an uncanny resemblance to his brother, the girl resembled a sister, and Charles and Charlotte were family names. After confirming his suspicion, Jackson recalled: "I thought, 'We've got to bring them back into the family.' "
He and his wife, Maxine, went to see the children and started the adoption process. Of that first meeting with his uncle, Charles said, "I thought he really looked like me."
After his adoption, recalled Liz Johnson, a social worker and "recruiter" with the coalition, Charles said to her: "I'm a real boy now. I'm not a boy in foster care anymore."
While the outlook for these two seems bright, their case shows the potential complexity of such transitions. The children had the same foster mother for many years and were deeply attached to her, as she was to them, but she would not commit to adoption.
The children chose to move in with their newfound relatives, but suffered emotional turmoil and problems at their new school, which was far more demanding academically than the one they left in St. Louis. They still see a therapist weekly. Causing new heartache, Maxine died of cancer in December, six months after the children moved in.
To speed the process of recruiting parents and preparing children for adoptions, the St. Louis coalition employs Lopez and one other investigator full time alongside its social workers and starts transitional therapy for children before a parent is located, rather than waiting, as is common.
Disappointments, rejections
Many older children in foster care, after years of disappointments and rejections, initially say they do not want to be adopted. While children cannot be forced to accept adoptive parents, counselors help make them aware of the advantages of permanent legal ties to caring adults.
Teenagers in foster care often learn how to be on their own, said Latasha Holt, 26, a cashier and former foster child who is studying to become a parole officer. Holt described her loneliness in high school, when she lived in a group home and was too ashamed to let others know.
"I had friends until the school day ended at 2:15," she said. "Graduation was extremely emotional for me because I didn't have anybody there."
Holt had to feed her younger siblings when she was only 7 because their mother disappeared for days at a time. The children all ended up in foster care.
Recently, Holt became the foster parent of her 18-year-old sister, Sharda.
A legal adoption is in the works, and in the meantime she made sure that Sharda had a better graduation experience, throwing her a luau-themed surprise party.
The man found recently by Lopez and his partner, social worker Sheila Suderwalla, proved willing to cooperate.
That man knew that a girlfriend from his teenage years had borne a boy, but he said he understood he was not the father.
However, he agreed to a paternity test, and he and his wife said that while they awaited the results, they could at least tell the boy about his mother.
"They may give us leads to other relatives," Suderwalla said. "If nothing else, this will help give the boy a sense of his identity."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010939817_foster31.html?syndication=rss
Armed woman jailed after approaching social workers
I may be unhappy with the corruption within DCYF and the NH court's, but violence is not the answer. Some day our Government will open its eyes to the destruction caused by DCYF and the court's. They will get what they deserve, but not by me or any other law abiding citizen. They will self destruct on their own without any outside help. It's just a matter of time.
UPDATE: Armed woman jailed after approaching social workers
By Beth Smith
Posted January 27, 2010 at 7:51 a.m. , updated January 27, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
A Henderson County woman was jailed Tuesday after allegedly advancing on two social workers while armed with a loaded rifle.
The Henderson County Sheriff’s Office charged 50-year-old Brigette Howard, 20000 section of Kentucky 416-East, with tampering with physical evidence. The sheriff’s office is also seeking a misdemeanor charge of menacing against Howard, officials said.
Howard’s neighbor, Helen Craig, 60, 20000 section of Kentucky 416-East, was also arrested in connection with this incident. She was charged with hindering prosecution.
The sheriff’s office said the incident occurred around 5 p.m. when the two employees with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services were in the Hebbardsville area on an unrelated welfare investigation.
The social workers had parked their vehicle on Kentucky 416 in front of Howard’s house, waiting for a deputy to arrive. The deputy was going to accompany them to a different location in order to conduct the welfare check, authorities said.
While the social workers were waiting for the deputy to arrive, Howard came out of her house, carrying a loaded .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle and came toward the vehicle, the sheriff’s office said.
The social workers put the vehicle in reverse to get away from Howard, but they were on a dead-end road and had to stop, officials said.
Meanwhile, Howard, who authorities said was still armed, continued advancing on the social workers.
“She followed them,” said Chief Deputy David Crafton. “They showed her their I.D.’s and asked her to put down the rifle. She said, ‘I don’t have to.’ ”
While Howard was coming toward the vehicle, one of the social workers started blowing the horn in an effort to attract attention, Crafton said.
That’s when Craig, Howard’s neighbor, allegedly came out onto her porch and saw what was happening, but didn’t offer any assistance, officials said.
The social worker driving the vehicle “put the vehicle in drive and sped past Howard and drove down the road where she met (a deputy),” Crafton said.
In the time between the exit of the social workers and being confronted by sheriff’s deputies, Howard allegedly hid the rifle in Craig’s truck.
Crafton said it is the belief of the sheriff’s office that Craig knew the rifle was in her truck and that’s why she was charged with hindering prosecution.
Crafton said that when questioned by deputies, Howard told them that she tells anyone who comes to the vicinity of her house that she has a gun.
Howard was charged with tampering with physical evidence for “attempting to hide the rifle and then lying about the incident to responding deputies,” a press release said.
Howard and Craig were lodged at the Henderson County Detention Center.
Neither of the social workers were injured.
PREVIOUS:
Indiana sex and violent offender registry
The Henderson County Sheriff's Office said a woman was arrested Tuesday after she chased a vehicle with two social workers while carrying gun.
Brigette Howard, 50, was carrying a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle as she pursued the vehicle on foot for a block down Kentucky 416 East, according to a Sheriff's report.
She is currently facing a charge of tampering with physical evidence at the scene because she allegedly attempted to hide the rifle and then lied about the incident to the investigating deputies, according to the report. Other charges are pending.
Helen Craig, 60, was arrested and charged with hindering the prosecution from the same incident.
The social workers were not harmed
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jan/27/woman-gun-chases-social-workers
UPDATE: Armed woman jailed after approaching social workers
By Beth Smith
Posted January 27, 2010 at 7:51 a.m. , updated January 27, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
A Henderson County woman was jailed Tuesday after allegedly advancing on two social workers while armed with a loaded rifle.
The Henderson County Sheriff’s Office charged 50-year-old Brigette Howard, 20000 section of Kentucky 416-East, with tampering with physical evidence. The sheriff’s office is also seeking a misdemeanor charge of menacing against Howard, officials said.
Howard’s neighbor, Helen Craig, 60, 20000 section of Kentucky 416-East, was also arrested in connection with this incident. She was charged with hindering prosecution.
The sheriff’s office said the incident occurred around 5 p.m. when the two employees with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services were in the Hebbardsville area on an unrelated welfare investigation.
The social workers had parked their vehicle on Kentucky 416 in front of Howard’s house, waiting for a deputy to arrive. The deputy was going to accompany them to a different location in order to conduct the welfare check, authorities said.
While the social workers were waiting for the deputy to arrive, Howard came out of her house, carrying a loaded .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle and came toward the vehicle, the sheriff’s office said.
The social workers put the vehicle in reverse to get away from Howard, but they were on a dead-end road and had to stop, officials said.
Meanwhile, Howard, who authorities said was still armed, continued advancing on the social workers.
“She followed them,” said Chief Deputy David Crafton. “They showed her their I.D.’s and asked her to put down the rifle. She said, ‘I don’t have to.’ ”
While Howard was coming toward the vehicle, one of the social workers started blowing the horn in an effort to attract attention, Crafton said.
That’s when Craig, Howard’s neighbor, allegedly came out onto her porch and saw what was happening, but didn’t offer any assistance, officials said.
The social worker driving the vehicle “put the vehicle in drive and sped past Howard and drove down the road where she met (a deputy),” Crafton said.
In the time between the exit of the social workers and being confronted by sheriff’s deputies, Howard allegedly hid the rifle in Craig’s truck.
Crafton said it is the belief of the sheriff’s office that Craig knew the rifle was in her truck and that’s why she was charged with hindering prosecution.
Crafton said that when questioned by deputies, Howard told them that she tells anyone who comes to the vicinity of her house that she has a gun.
Howard was charged with tampering with physical evidence for “attempting to hide the rifle and then lying about the incident to responding deputies,” a press release said.
Howard and Craig were lodged at the Henderson County Detention Center.
Neither of the social workers were injured.
PREVIOUS:
Indiana sex and violent offender registry
The Henderson County Sheriff's Office said a woman was arrested Tuesday after she chased a vehicle with two social workers while carrying gun.
Brigette Howard, 50, was carrying a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle as she pursued the vehicle on foot for a block down Kentucky 416 East, according to a Sheriff's report.
She is currently facing a charge of tampering with physical evidence at the scene because she allegedly attempted to hide the rifle and then lied about the incident to the investigating deputies, according to the report. Other charges are pending.
Helen Craig, 60, was arrested and charged with hindering the prosecution from the same incident.
The social workers were not harmed
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jan/27/woman-gun-chases-social-workers
WARNING ** HOW CHILDREN ARE PLACED FOR ADOPTION When they have GOOD parents and Families. IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY.
September 11, 2009...5:40 pm
** WARNING ** HOW CHILDREN ARE PLACED FOR ADOPTION When they have GOOD parents and Families. IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY.
By Sandra Ami
Sadly, there is a huge cover up, there is a small (and I do mean SMALL) amount of personnel who are claiming to correct the problems; I do also believe that it’s only a front to show people they are trying to do something, this is partially why:
Over and Over we hear of “no funds available” yet if the dollars where truly accounted for, one would find just the Children alone bring in TRILLIONS of dollars.
Again, as I have said, as the REALITY goes (and there is even more)… :
1) First a Child’s name and address come up to Social Services. It could be by anyone, and more often by doctors these days. Once Social Services has a name and address, they then start the process of stealing the child(ren) from the home. Usually in the Public Schools, as it’s easier to get cooperation from the staff when taking children, especially because they too are Govt. Employees.
2) They attempt to interview the parents and EACH WORD THE PARENTS SAY is used in creating the reports AGAINST THEM (and I can give several examples).
3) The SW goes back to the office and (through a pre-formatted form), types ALL THEY CAN negative about the parents, in the reports they will have compiled a list of things the parents have told them that they can use against them, the shock only comes after you appear in court when you realize you have told them things which can include but most definitely not limited to: if the parents drink Soda or Coffee; if the parent(s) were verbally or physically abused (explaining a pattern of abuse in the family to substantiate any claims the SW conjures up); If you dropped out of College- that too can be used against you; They want to know if your parents were divorced, that will be used about your mental stress or inability to connect as you had/have issues with the divorce that you have never dealt with; do you EVER drink alcoholic beverages (you will be deemed a drinker PERIOD); do you work? if you are a mother that stays home, they will report that the ’stress of being a full time mom’ even if you claim no stress; they will ask if you EVER argue with your spouse (if you are a single parent WATCH OUT) if you EVER argue, that will be held against you as STRESS giving you the INABILITY TO PARENT YOUR CHILD..The list goes on, and their lists in their reports go on. The idea is to put so many allegations against you that it is virtually impossible for you to defend. The things you find to be meaningless (which in actuality are) are in fact things they take advantage of and use against you. IF you take ANY prescription medications, you are automatically deemed, dependent or mentally ill. Therefore they then can recommend you for Mental Health Care, and Counseling which they get paid extra for (it’s all part of the payment plan from the govt.) It doesn’t matter if you have personal Health Care, because the do NOT allow you to use it, they put you on Govt. Health Care Plans so that they can control and monitor all your records, without you having access. Your children will ALSO be placed on these plans to prevent you from accessing your children’s records. AFTER the report is made against you, and the children have been taken, these children feed into the Mental Health (DHHS) industry as well, by placing them on drugs to calm them as they have been traumatized by their kidnapping from schools and are not able to see their parents or go home, but instead thrusted into a place with a group of strangers who, really don’t care about them, as they are just another kid being brought in for money. The child cries profusely, therefore it’s justified they need medication and Counseling (which is more funding, and deeming the child(ren) as “special needs” (more funding). They don’t tell you, that also one criteria for being a Special Needs child is simply being 6 yrs of age or older.
4) There is a TDM (Team Decision Meeting) with the parents to “determine where the children will be placed IF not with the parents” though they have NO INTENTION of placing the children with the parents OR any of those discussed in the TDM. The purpose of the TDM is basically to abide by the law in having one, there is absolutely no other purpose for it. Everything that is said in the TDM will NOT be placed in the reports as required by law. In fact, they can, do and have put into the report that, after the meeting “No FAMILY AVAILABLE” “REQUEST CONFIDENTIAL FOSTER CARE” even after you had discussed family and/or friends for placement, even if those family and friends were present in that meeting.
5) The case goes to court, and in ALMOST ALL cases, the parents are NEVER ALLOWED TO SPEAK, and in Orange County CA, the parents wait outside while the cases are being discussed, leaving NOTHING for the Court Record. The parents are SOMETIMES called in when the FINDINGS are decided upon outside of the parents presence. The parents are in that courtroom for a total of 20 seconds to state they were there and hear the findings read.
6) The parents are told “if you plea guilty, they will allow your children to come home (or with a family member) if you do not plead your child will go into a foster home where he/she is 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE”. Parents then substantiate all the claims, even though they are all false and grossly exaggerated, by pleading to protect their children from harm or death. Only to find.. they lied, and your child IS PLACED IN A FOSTER HOME, and NOT sent home with you. You can complain as much as you like, and tell anyone they lied to you, however it was all only words and not in writing, therefore none of what they said matters ((((( THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I TELL PARENTS TO ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN in a Journal.. RECORD EVERYTHING digital recorder if possible, and ALWAYS COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL when you can )))
But remember, in these “secret courts” no one is allowed Cameras or any recording devices what so ever, UNLESS YOU ARE THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS adopting the child (your child).
7) Now that they have to show that they have TRIED to “RE-UNIFY” the parents, because it’s the law, they will then put the parents through a battery of “services” telling the parents “if you take (ie.) Parenting classes, abuse classes, counseling etc. AND TAKE MEDICATIONS (in most cases) WE WILL GIVE YOU YOUR CHILDREN BACK UPON COMPLETION” these services must be facilitated by the Social Worker, and they fail to tell you they WONT START THESE SERVICES in most cases until it’s too late for you to complete them in time for the TERMINATION of Parental Rights Hearing. They also fail to tell you that IF you should miss even ONE of your appointments that you have FAILED to comply with the Re-Unification process. AND YOUR CHILD IS ADOPTED..
They put the parents through these “services” because (and ONLY because) it brings their Organization more Federal Funding and PRIVATE Non Profit Grants.
The courts, in most cases, provide your child with their own attorney called The Guardian et Lidem or GAL, with whom generally never meet the child.
Each parent is given their own attorney (so they can not form an alliance, while they are being plotted against one another with accusations). Each parent is told they will be able to get the child(ren) if they side with the Social Worker against the other, which actually only to substantiates their case for ADOPTION, however the parents comply to protect their children. (IF you admit your wife/husband is ___ then you will be able to take the children home.. the same is told to the other parent). The parents are desperate to protect the child and get them out of the Children’s home or Foster Home. The parents are also told they are not allowed to discuss the case with ANYONE but their attorneys, not even each other. They are told this from the first day of court. THE SECRETS BEGIN to protect THE GUILTY.
Parents want to tell everyone, they want to scream at the top of their lungs for help.. yet.. even if they do mention it to anyone, the first responses are “you must have done something wrong, they are after all protecting children.. they are CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES” and no one will listen. While Social Services laughs knowing their marketing scheme has worked and people BELIEVE they are there to Protect children.. but little do people know, CPS is FOR REVENUE CORP. ((Many of the Judges, Social Workers and others involved, have started their own Foundations that get funds and Grants when children are taken.. Judges profit off the adoptions they order, Judges, DHHS workers and others involved in this process are on the Board of Directors for agencies such as United Way and other Foundations.
Child Protective Services does Fund Raisers for Untied Way and other Foundations, Untied Way then gives Grants to CASA (the child avocacy hired by the courts to be suposedly unbias on the Child’s behalf after they have been taken) CASA gives grants to Child Protective Services, and CASA (in CA) is in the State Building right next door to the head Child Protective Services office. )
Once 12 months has gone by, there is a REVIEW hearing, the children are STILL NOT HOME, as they have promised over and over and over each month that “if” you do ___, the children will most likely come home after the next hearing.. the next hearing has come and gone, and the parents are told they must do ___ now, all creating more services and more money prolonging the case as much as possible till the 18 mos has run out.. the 18 month hearing.. is THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS hearing.. The law states they must place the child in a PERMANENT HOME.. and you have a good chance betting it wont be that of the parents, or any other family member..
(In over 70% of the cases, the children should NEVER have been taken in the first place.. as said by former L.A. Director of Child and Family Services, as well as SOME honest Social Workers and others within the system brave enough to place their jobs in jeopardy to make such statements)
They also fail to tell the parents that it will be likely that the Gay/Lesbian social worker will be or has placed your child with a Gay/Lesbian couple who wishes to Adopt. ((YOUR CHILD)) (boys are often placed with Gay men, and girls with Lesbian couples)
Remember.. in “THE OC” (Orange County, CA) there are between 3000 and 5000 children taken each MONTH, those numbers are higher in San Diego County and Los Angeles County, I’ve been told by a head of the Appealate courts… So.. that’s Souther California alone.. it’s safe to say that an estimated amount of children is in the 10’s of thousands EACH MONTH.. One portion of one state. Other states are equally as bad and it’s argued could be even worse. States I know about that are horrible for these practices and make huge profits off the abduction of children are: CA, OR, FL, NH, CO, TX, TN, KS, KY, NY, NC, NJ, VA, GA; These are just a few, that I have personally found to be so brazen. If you live in another state, don’t think that you are immune from it.
It doesn’t matter who you are, or what you do, they can still take your child. Attorneys have had their own children taken, when they have tried to defend the parents in these courts. Neighbors and Family members have also been threatened by the Social Workers that their children will also be taken if they don’t give information to them about the ones in question.
The threats are in abundance. After all .. who are you going to plea to, for the safe return of your child(ren)? The only people you can, are those who Kidnapped them in the first place.
(Keep in mind.. that Doctors are contracted with Social Services, and will lose their contracts if they do not substantiate the claims made against a parent, MANY social workers and people in positions connected are even adopting children.
MANDATED reporters ; nurses, teachers, doctors, councilors, school personnel etc. are all threated with their licenses if they do not substantiate claims, or turn parents in. Many of these professionals are using CPS to retaliate against parents who they do not get along with. Doctors are calling CPS if a parents gets a second opinion, teacher are calling if parents don’t like the teacher, nurses are if there are conflicts with the nurses.. these Mandated Reporters are nothing more than SCOUTS for CPS, to obtain children for Federal and State Funds and Grants from both as well as Non Profits, such as United Way and others. There is so much more..
I was personally told, by a government official, “CPS MUST obtain more and more children each month in order to justify their Budget”
I’ve been told that Social Workers have a quota to fill each month, for children being placed up for adoption. Where are all these children going to come from? Ask yourself, do you really believe there are THAT many parents who abuse or neglect their children?
Social Services (CPS, DCFS and by other names) claim most of their cases are “Neglect” cases. Neglect is defind broadly from a simple sunburn, to a missed doctor’s visit. Neglect can be an unbathed child, or toys left out in plain view. Neglect can be anything the Social Worker wants to define it as.
AND most Social Workers don’t even carry a license in any field of Social Work.
YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH.. YOUR CHILD ”’CAN”’ BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN FUNDING.
http://amiablyme.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/warnging-how-children-are-placed-for-adoption-when-they-have-good-parents-and-families-it-happens-everyday/
** WARNING ** HOW CHILDREN ARE PLACED FOR ADOPTION When they have GOOD parents and Families. IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY.
By Sandra Ami
Sadly, there is a huge cover up, there is a small (and I do mean SMALL) amount of personnel who are claiming to correct the problems; I do also believe that it’s only a front to show people they are trying to do something, this is partially why:
Over and Over we hear of “no funds available” yet if the dollars where truly accounted for, one would find just the Children alone bring in TRILLIONS of dollars.
Again, as I have said, as the REALITY goes (and there is even more)… :
1) First a Child’s name and address come up to Social Services. It could be by anyone, and more often by doctors these days. Once Social Services has a name and address, they then start the process of stealing the child(ren) from the home. Usually in the Public Schools, as it’s easier to get cooperation from the staff when taking children, especially because they too are Govt. Employees.
2) They attempt to interview the parents and EACH WORD THE PARENTS SAY is used in creating the reports AGAINST THEM (and I can give several examples).
3) The SW goes back to the office and (through a pre-formatted form), types ALL THEY CAN negative about the parents, in the reports they will have compiled a list of things the parents have told them that they can use against them, the shock only comes after you appear in court when you realize you have told them things which can include but most definitely not limited to: if the parents drink Soda or Coffee; if the parent(s) were verbally or physically abused (explaining a pattern of abuse in the family to substantiate any claims the SW conjures up); If you dropped out of College- that too can be used against you; They want to know if your parents were divorced, that will be used about your mental stress or inability to connect as you had/have issues with the divorce that you have never dealt with; do you EVER drink alcoholic beverages (you will be deemed a drinker PERIOD); do you work? if you are a mother that stays home, they will report that the ’stress of being a full time mom’ even if you claim no stress; they will ask if you EVER argue with your spouse (if you are a single parent WATCH OUT) if you EVER argue, that will be held against you as STRESS giving you the INABILITY TO PARENT YOUR CHILD..The list goes on, and their lists in their reports go on. The idea is to put so many allegations against you that it is virtually impossible for you to defend. The things you find to be meaningless (which in actuality are) are in fact things they take advantage of and use against you. IF you take ANY prescription medications, you are automatically deemed, dependent or mentally ill. Therefore they then can recommend you for Mental Health Care, and Counseling which they get paid extra for (it’s all part of the payment plan from the govt.) It doesn’t matter if you have personal Health Care, because the do NOT allow you to use it, they put you on Govt. Health Care Plans so that they can control and monitor all your records, without you having access. Your children will ALSO be placed on these plans to prevent you from accessing your children’s records. AFTER the report is made against you, and the children have been taken, these children feed into the Mental Health (DHHS) industry as well, by placing them on drugs to calm them as they have been traumatized by their kidnapping from schools and are not able to see their parents or go home, but instead thrusted into a place with a group of strangers who, really don’t care about them, as they are just another kid being brought in for money. The child cries profusely, therefore it’s justified they need medication and Counseling (which is more funding, and deeming the child(ren) as “special needs” (more funding). They don’t tell you, that also one criteria for being a Special Needs child is simply being 6 yrs of age or older.
4) There is a TDM (Team Decision Meeting) with the parents to “determine where the children will be placed IF not with the parents” though they have NO INTENTION of placing the children with the parents OR any of those discussed in the TDM. The purpose of the TDM is basically to abide by the law in having one, there is absolutely no other purpose for it. Everything that is said in the TDM will NOT be placed in the reports as required by law. In fact, they can, do and have put into the report that, after the meeting “No FAMILY AVAILABLE” “REQUEST CONFIDENTIAL FOSTER CARE” even after you had discussed family and/or friends for placement, even if those family and friends were present in that meeting.
5) The case goes to court, and in ALMOST ALL cases, the parents are NEVER ALLOWED TO SPEAK, and in Orange County CA, the parents wait outside while the cases are being discussed, leaving NOTHING for the Court Record. The parents are SOMETIMES called in when the FINDINGS are decided upon outside of the parents presence. The parents are in that courtroom for a total of 20 seconds to state they were there and hear the findings read.
6) The parents are told “if you plea guilty, they will allow your children to come home (or with a family member) if you do not plead your child will go into a foster home where he/she is 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE”. Parents then substantiate all the claims, even though they are all false and grossly exaggerated, by pleading to protect their children from harm or death. Only to find.. they lied, and your child IS PLACED IN A FOSTER HOME, and NOT sent home with you. You can complain as much as you like, and tell anyone they lied to you, however it was all only words and not in writing, therefore none of what they said matters ((((( THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I TELL PARENTS TO ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN in a Journal.. RECORD EVERYTHING digital recorder if possible, and ALWAYS COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL when you can )))
But remember, in these “secret courts” no one is allowed Cameras or any recording devices what so ever, UNLESS YOU ARE THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS adopting the child (your child).
7) Now that they have to show that they have TRIED to “RE-UNIFY” the parents, because it’s the law, they will then put the parents through a battery of “services” telling the parents “if you take (ie.) Parenting classes, abuse classes, counseling etc. AND TAKE MEDICATIONS (in most cases) WE WILL GIVE YOU YOUR CHILDREN BACK UPON COMPLETION” these services must be facilitated by the Social Worker, and they fail to tell you they WONT START THESE SERVICES in most cases until it’s too late for you to complete them in time for the TERMINATION of Parental Rights Hearing. They also fail to tell you that IF you should miss even ONE of your appointments that you have FAILED to comply with the Re-Unification process. AND YOUR CHILD IS ADOPTED..
They put the parents through these “services” because (and ONLY because) it brings their Organization more Federal Funding and PRIVATE Non Profit Grants.
The courts, in most cases, provide your child with their own attorney called The Guardian et Lidem or GAL, with whom generally never meet the child.
Each parent is given their own attorney (so they can not form an alliance, while they are being plotted against one another with accusations). Each parent is told they will be able to get the child(ren) if they side with the Social Worker against the other, which actually only to substantiates their case for ADOPTION, however the parents comply to protect their children. (IF you admit your wife/husband is ___ then you will be able to take the children home.. the same is told to the other parent). The parents are desperate to protect the child and get them out of the Children’s home or Foster Home. The parents are also told they are not allowed to discuss the case with ANYONE but their attorneys, not even each other. They are told this from the first day of court. THE SECRETS BEGIN to protect THE GUILTY.
Parents want to tell everyone, they want to scream at the top of their lungs for help.. yet.. even if they do mention it to anyone, the first responses are “you must have done something wrong, they are after all protecting children.. they are CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES” and no one will listen. While Social Services laughs knowing their marketing scheme has worked and people BELIEVE they are there to Protect children.. but little do people know, CPS is FOR REVENUE CORP. ((Many of the Judges, Social Workers and others involved, have started their own Foundations that get funds and Grants when children are taken.. Judges profit off the adoptions they order, Judges, DHHS workers and others involved in this process are on the Board of Directors for agencies such as United Way and other Foundations.
Child Protective Services does Fund Raisers for Untied Way and other Foundations, Untied Way then gives Grants to CASA (the child avocacy hired by the courts to be suposedly unbias on the Child’s behalf after they have been taken) CASA gives grants to Child Protective Services, and CASA (in CA) is in the State Building right next door to the head Child Protective Services office. )
Once 12 months has gone by, there is a REVIEW hearing, the children are STILL NOT HOME, as they have promised over and over and over each month that “if” you do ___, the children will most likely come home after the next hearing.. the next hearing has come and gone, and the parents are told they must do ___ now, all creating more services and more money prolonging the case as much as possible till the 18 mos has run out.. the 18 month hearing.. is THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS hearing.. The law states they must place the child in a PERMANENT HOME.. and you have a good chance betting it wont be that of the parents, or any other family member..
(In over 70% of the cases, the children should NEVER have been taken in the first place.. as said by former L.A. Director of Child and Family Services, as well as SOME honest Social Workers and others within the system brave enough to place their jobs in jeopardy to make such statements)
They also fail to tell the parents that it will be likely that the Gay/Lesbian social worker will be or has placed your child with a Gay/Lesbian couple who wishes to Adopt. ((YOUR CHILD)) (boys are often placed with Gay men, and girls with Lesbian couples)
Remember.. in “THE OC” (Orange County, CA) there are between 3000 and 5000 children taken each MONTH, those numbers are higher in San Diego County and Los Angeles County, I’ve been told by a head of the Appealate courts… So.. that’s Souther California alone.. it’s safe to say that an estimated amount of children is in the 10’s of thousands EACH MONTH.. One portion of one state. Other states are equally as bad and it’s argued could be even worse. States I know about that are horrible for these practices and make huge profits off the abduction of children are: CA, OR, FL, NH, CO, TX, TN, KS, KY, NY, NC, NJ, VA, GA; These are just a few, that I have personally found to be so brazen. If you live in another state, don’t think that you are immune from it.
It doesn’t matter who you are, or what you do, they can still take your child. Attorneys have had their own children taken, when they have tried to defend the parents in these courts. Neighbors and Family members have also been threatened by the Social Workers that their children will also be taken if they don’t give information to them about the ones in question.
The threats are in abundance. After all .. who are you going to plea to, for the safe return of your child(ren)? The only people you can, are those who Kidnapped them in the first place.
(Keep in mind.. that Doctors are contracted with Social Services, and will lose their contracts if they do not substantiate the claims made against a parent, MANY social workers and people in positions connected are even adopting children.
MANDATED reporters ; nurses, teachers, doctors, councilors, school personnel etc. are all threated with their licenses if they do not substantiate claims, or turn parents in. Many of these professionals are using CPS to retaliate against parents who they do not get along with. Doctors are calling CPS if a parents gets a second opinion, teacher are calling if parents don’t like the teacher, nurses are if there are conflicts with the nurses.. these Mandated Reporters are nothing more than SCOUTS for CPS, to obtain children for Federal and State Funds and Grants from both as well as Non Profits, such as United Way and others. There is so much more..
I was personally told, by a government official, “CPS MUST obtain more and more children each month in order to justify their Budget”
I’ve been told that Social Workers have a quota to fill each month, for children being placed up for adoption. Where are all these children going to come from? Ask yourself, do you really believe there are THAT many parents who abuse or neglect their children?
Social Services (CPS, DCFS and by other names) claim most of their cases are “Neglect” cases. Neglect is defind broadly from a simple sunburn, to a missed doctor’s visit. Neglect can be an unbathed child, or toys left out in plain view. Neglect can be anything the Social Worker wants to define it as.
AND most Social Workers don’t even carry a license in any field of Social Work.
YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH.. YOUR CHILD ”’CAN”’ BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN FUNDING.
http://amiablyme.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/warnging-how-children-are-placed-for-adoption-when-they-have-good-parents-and-families-it-happens-everyday/
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Ind. Law - More on "Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights"
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Ind. Law - More on "Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights"
Updating this ILB entry from Jan. 19, 2010, about SB 59 (which passed third reading in the Senate Jan. 25th with a vote of Yeas 44 and Nays 6), here is a letter published in the Jan. 30th Terre Haute Trib-Star, headlined "Intrusive expansion of visitation litigation", written by Karen A. Wyle, a Bloomington attorney:
Most Hoosiers have no idea that in Indiana, widowed, divorced and single parents can be sued for grandparent visitation. If such parents make the difficult decision that contact with a grandparent is bad for their child or even dangerous, a trial judge can overrule this decision. Now, bills are racing through the Indiana House and Senate that would undermine the parental authority of parents in intact families and subject them to the same litigation.
Grandparent visitation litigation is almost always a tragic and counterproductive mistake, with the child the principal victim. Litigation generally puts an end to any possibility of future improvement in relations between parent and grandparent. By so doing, it further reduces the chances of a healthy and beneficial relationship between grandparent and grandchild. If the grandparent wins visitation, the child will be in an ongoing emotional crossfire. The litigation itself places enormous emotional stress on the custodial family, and consumes financial resources that would otherwise have benefitted, even fed and clothed, the child at its center.
The proponents of these bills, HB 1055 and SB 59, express concern about grandparents and great-grandparents who step in to care for their grandchildren when the parents are unable to do so, only to be kept away from the children when the parents take up their role again. These concerns can be addressed through guardianship proceedings or statutes concerning de facto parenthood, or, where the parents are arguably unfit, via Child Protective Services. These bills reach far further.
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville, repeatedly recognized by the Indiana Court of Appeals, held that a parent’s fundamental constitutional right to raise his or her child includes the right to make decisions about contact between children and their grandparents (or other nonparents). Courts must, in any grandparent visitation dispute, start out by presuming that the parent’s decision to deny grandparent visitation was in the child’s best interests. Only if that presumption is decisively rebutted, by specific facts rather than generalizations about grandparental affection, may the court override the parent’s decision.
Our current grandparent visitation statute, I.C. 31-17-5, unfortunately makes no mention of these binding constitutional principles. The proposed bills not only would not correct this situation, but would greatly expand the scope of nonparent visitation litigation. Intact families who have not in any way involved the judicial system in their family lives could be thrust into the purgatory of visitation litigation.
The situations most often thought to require such intervention — where a single, divorced or widowed parent is unwilling to let the child continue a relationship with the parents of the noncustodial parent — would no longer be a prerequisite for a family’s being dragged into court.
Please — call or e-mail your state representative and senator immediately and tell them to oppose these bills. Contact Gov. Daniels and urge him to veto the bills if he receives them. Please do what you can to stop this well-intentioned, but harmful and intrusive expansion of nonparent visitation litigation.
Note that HB 1055 paased the House on Jan. 28, with a vote of 63-33.
Here are a number of other ILB entries mentioning grandparents visitation.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 31, 2010 08:17 AM
Posted to Indiana Law
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2010/01/ind_law_more_on_233.html
Ind. Law - More on "Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights"
Updating this ILB entry from Jan. 19, 2010, about SB 59 (which passed third reading in the Senate Jan. 25th with a vote of Yeas 44 and Nays 6), here is a letter published in the Jan. 30th Terre Haute Trib-Star, headlined "Intrusive expansion of visitation litigation", written by Karen A. Wyle, a Bloomington attorney:
Most Hoosiers have no idea that in Indiana, widowed, divorced and single parents can be sued for grandparent visitation. If such parents make the difficult decision that contact with a grandparent is bad for their child or even dangerous, a trial judge can overrule this decision. Now, bills are racing through the Indiana House and Senate that would undermine the parental authority of parents in intact families and subject them to the same litigation.
Grandparent visitation litigation is almost always a tragic and counterproductive mistake, with the child the principal victim. Litigation generally puts an end to any possibility of future improvement in relations between parent and grandparent. By so doing, it further reduces the chances of a healthy and beneficial relationship between grandparent and grandchild. If the grandparent wins visitation, the child will be in an ongoing emotional crossfire. The litigation itself places enormous emotional stress on the custodial family, and consumes financial resources that would otherwise have benefitted, even fed and clothed, the child at its center.
The proponents of these bills, HB 1055 and SB 59, express concern about grandparents and great-grandparents who step in to care for their grandchildren when the parents are unable to do so, only to be kept away from the children when the parents take up their role again. These concerns can be addressed through guardianship proceedings or statutes concerning de facto parenthood, or, where the parents are arguably unfit, via Child Protective Services. These bills reach far further.
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville, repeatedly recognized by the Indiana Court of Appeals, held that a parent’s fundamental constitutional right to raise his or her child includes the right to make decisions about contact between children and their grandparents (or other nonparents). Courts must, in any grandparent visitation dispute, start out by presuming that the parent’s decision to deny grandparent visitation was in the child’s best interests. Only if that presumption is decisively rebutted, by specific facts rather than generalizations about grandparental affection, may the court override the parent’s decision.
Our current grandparent visitation statute, I.C. 31-17-5, unfortunately makes no mention of these binding constitutional principles. The proposed bills not only would not correct this situation, but would greatly expand the scope of nonparent visitation litigation. Intact families who have not in any way involved the judicial system in their family lives could be thrust into the purgatory of visitation litigation.
The situations most often thought to require such intervention — where a single, divorced or widowed parent is unwilling to let the child continue a relationship with the parents of the noncustodial parent — would no longer be a prerequisite for a family’s being dragged into court.
Please — call or e-mail your state representative and senator immediately and tell them to oppose these bills. Contact Gov. Daniels and urge him to veto the bills if he receives them. Please do what you can to stop this well-intentioned, but harmful and intrusive expansion of nonparent visitation litigation.
Note that HB 1055 paased the House on Jan. 28, with a vote of 63-33.
Here are a number of other ILB entries mentioning grandparents visitation.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 31, 2010 08:17 AM
Posted to Indiana Law
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2010/01/ind_law_more_on_233.html
United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw
United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw
Author Yvonne Mason
In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among “the basic civil rights of man.”Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.
Assembled here are a majority of those cases defining or reaffirming these fundamental rights. Links are provided to each case on the FindLaw Internet Legal Resources service. Each is in hypertext format, with links to related opinions of the court contained in the ruling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
___ US ___, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State’s authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake.
Santosky v Kramer
455 US 745 (1982)
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
Lassiter v Department of Social Services
452 US 18 (1981)
The Court’s decisions have by now made plain that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest that “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.
Quilloin v Walcott
434 US 246 (1978)
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”
Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families
431 US 816 (1977)
In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions.
Moore v East Cleveland
431 US 494 (1977)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.
Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
Stanley v Illinois
405 US 645 (1972)
The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment.
Wisconsin v Yoder
406 US 205 (1972)
In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private schooling of their children, the Court held: “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”
Loving v Virginia
388 US 1 (1967)
In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Griswold v Connecticut
381 US 479 (1965)
The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all governmental invasions “of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as creating a “right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.” Reaffirming the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v Nebraska.
Prince v Massachusetts
321 US 158 (1944)
It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
Skinner v Oklahoma
316 US 535 (1942)
“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Pierce v Society of Sisters
268 US 510 (1925)
The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education. “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Meyer v Nebraska
262 US 390 (1923)
“No state … shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/united-states-supreme-court-parental-rights-caselaw/
Author Yvonne Mason
In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among “the basic civil rights of man.”Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.
Assembled here are a majority of those cases defining or reaffirming these fundamental rights. Links are provided to each case on the FindLaw Internet Legal Resources service. Each is in hypertext format, with links to related opinions of the court contained in the ruling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
___ US ___, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State’s authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake.
Santosky v Kramer
455 US 745 (1982)
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
Lassiter v Department of Social Services
452 US 18 (1981)
The Court’s decisions have by now made plain that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest that “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.
Quilloin v Walcott
434 US 246 (1978)
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”
Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families
431 US 816 (1977)
In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions.
Moore v East Cleveland
431 US 494 (1977)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.
Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
Stanley v Illinois
405 US 645 (1972)
The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment.
Wisconsin v Yoder
406 US 205 (1972)
In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private schooling of their children, the Court held: “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”
Loving v Virginia
388 US 1 (1967)
In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Griswold v Connecticut
381 US 479 (1965)
The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all governmental invasions “of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as creating a “right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.” Reaffirming the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v Nebraska.
Prince v Massachusetts
321 US 158 (1944)
It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
Skinner v Oklahoma
316 US 535 (1942)
“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Pierce v Society of Sisters
268 US 510 (1925)
The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education. “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Meyer v Nebraska
262 US 390 (1923)
“No state … shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/united-states-supreme-court-parental-rights-caselaw/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)