State to cut child-care aid
Subsidy program short $9.5 million
By KAREN LANGLEY
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 03, 2010 - 7:36 am
The state plans to reduce child-care aid for 4,760 families in a move officials say will eliminate a $9.5 million shortfall projected for the subsidy program this year.
Families will be charged a greater portion of their child-care bills starting March 1, and families with multiple children in care will pay for each child. The plan modifies a redesign of the state's child-care subsidy program, unveiled in July, that advocates described as reflecting a family's ability to pay.
More than half the families that receive subsidized care have income under the federal poverty line, and those 2,700 families pay an average of $1.78 each week for care, according to a letter the commissioner of Health and Human Services wrote last week to the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee.
Under one plan being considered by state officials, those families would pay an average of $9.33 each week for every child in care. Another plan would increase that cost to $17 per child each week, said Maggie Bishop, the director of the Division for Children, Youth and Families. Officials are still deciding among four formulas to determine each family's share of child-care costs, Bishop said.
The department has not decided how long the change will last, but it will use the cuts to eliminate any deficit for the biennium, Bishop said.
Child-care providers and advocates warn that reducing subsidies will lead parents to a difficult choice: quitting jobs so they can watch their children or patching together an unregulated network of care from friends and family. Either option could lead to an increased need for social services later on, they say. When struggling parents hesitate to pull their child from care, centers must decide if they can reduce a family's fee, said Bobbie Gaudette, executive director of the White Birch Community Center, a nonprofit child-care center in Henniker.
The Bureau of Child Development has spent the past four months trying new ways to stay on budget after a year when unprecedented numbers of families have sought child-care assistance. The deficit projected for the child-care program this year has nearly doubled since July, despite a multi-pronged effort to cut costs. The department in October stopped accepting all but a few applicants for subsidies, and last month it halted cash awards for child-care centers that meet standards above basic licensing.
The number of children receiving aid grew 15 percent between February 2008 and August 2009, shortly before the department stopped accepting applications from families that do not receive cash welfare assistance, host foster children or are considered at risk by the state. While total enrollment has risen, the state has seen disproportionate increases in the most expensive types of care.
In his letter to legislators, Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas cited an increased number of infants, as well as longer average stays in the child-care system, as reasons the program's projected shortfall has grown to $9.5 million for this year, up from an estimate of $5 million in July. Children younger than 18 months accounted for nearly 25 percent of aid recipients in August, up from 10 percent 18 months earlier. The state calculates the cost of part-time care for an infant at nearly twice the cost of care for a school-age child.
When the department began wait-listing aid applicants in October, officials predicted the list would grow to 1,100 children by July. But applications continued to pour in more quickly than expected - about two children per business hour - and in late December officials said the list could include 3,000 children by the fiscal year's end. Still, the cut had not been enough to eliminate a deficit then projected at $6 million.
Department officials have met with child-care providers since early January to decide what cuts would fill the gap. One participant, the director of a nonprofit serving child-care providers and clients, said the group worked until members agreed their plan would cause the least possible harm.
"At the same time, that adjective still worked," said Jackie Cowell, executive director of Early Learning New Hampshire. "Even though there was the least 'harm,' it remained harmful."
Hooksett resident Jessica Hoag has already felt the impact of increased demand on the child-care program. When Hoag was a few days late submitting the renewal forms for her 6-year-old son's child-care subsidy in November, they lost their aid, she said. She and her son's father were no longer able to afford the full-time care Bruce received after kindergarten, and so Hoag had to stay home to watch him.
Bruce began behaving badly without the activities and socialization of child care, and Hoag lost so many business clients while running errands that she no longer works, even after Bruce qualified for part-time aid and returned to child care in January, she said.
"It kind of defeats the purpose," Hoag said. "We're supposed to get the help so we can work and be independent."
With their family now living on the money her son's father earns driving a taxi, Hoag said she will wait and see whether the cost change pushes child care out of reach.
"It depends how much more," she said. "There's a very fine line between what we can afford and what we can't."
Gaudette, of White Birch Community Center, said the impending cuts to state aid will not necessarily mean most subsidized families pay more for child care.
"I would venture to guess White Birch will probably excuse some of that co-pay," she said. "It puts White Birch in a fiscal position where we're subsidizing the child care again."
The center is already expecting a $22,000 cut in state revenue for 2010, and employees have not received raises since 2007, Gaudette said. She said the cuts in awards for centers and subsidies for parents will force some programs to close.
Decreased subsidies have prevented Above and Beyond Childcare in Hooksett from increasing its fees for several years, making it increasingly difficult to pay rising costs, said owner Rebecca Collins.
"It's hard to hit the parents twice," she said.
The Division for Children, Youth and Families plans to notify families and providers of the planned changes in the next few days.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/FRONTPAGE/2030306
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
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Foster Child's Death Under Investigation
Foster Child's Death Under Investigation
Posted: Feb 02, 2010 6:10 PM EST
(AP) NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Nashville police said a 12-week-old foster child died when he was taken off life support after suffering a severe head injury. They are investigating the death as a homicide.
According to police, Cherokeewolf William Diedrich died Tuesday at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. He was taken to the emergency room on Jan. 9 in extremely critical condition.
Police said the infant was born on Nov. 9 to a homeless woman and the Tennessee Department of Children's Services took custody of the child two days later. The child was placed in the Nashville home of Cheryl and Earl Green.
Rob Johnson, a spokesman for DCS, said that the birth mother as well as a guardian appointed by juvenile court agreed to end life support once doctors said he might not recover.
Police said no charges have been filed. An autopsy will likely be conducted on Wednesday.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11922125
Posted: Feb 02, 2010 6:10 PM EST
(AP) NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Nashville police said a 12-week-old foster child died when he was taken off life support after suffering a severe head injury. They are investigating the death as a homicide.
According to police, Cherokeewolf William Diedrich died Tuesday at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. He was taken to the emergency room on Jan. 9 in extremely critical condition.
Police said the infant was born on Nov. 9 to a homeless woman and the Tennessee Department of Children's Services took custody of the child two days later. The child was placed in the Nashville home of Cheryl and Earl Green.
Rob Johnson, a spokesman for DCS, said that the birth mother as well as a guardian appointed by juvenile court agreed to end life support once doctors said he might not recover.
Police said no charges have been filed. An autopsy will likely be conducted on Wednesday.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11922125
Conn. sets 1st site for open child welfare trials
Conn. sets 1st site for open child welfare trials
The Associated Press
February 2, 2010
HARTFORD, Conn.—Connecticut's judiciary is beginning a pilot program to increase the public's access to juvenile court proceedings.
A law enacted last year requires increased public access to trials in which a child is alleged to be uncared for, neglected, abused or is the subject of a petition that would end parental rights.
With exceptions such as evidence or allegations of sexual abuse of a child, trials for these types of cases are now presumed open. The law also allows a judge to deny or limit access in the interests of a child or safety, legal rights and privacy concerns.
The Child Protection Session at the Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse in Middletown will be the site of the pilot program set to begin Feb. 16.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2010/02/02/conn_sets_1st_site_for_open_child_welfare_trials/
The Associated Press
February 2, 2010
HARTFORD, Conn.—Connecticut's judiciary is beginning a pilot program to increase the public's access to juvenile court proceedings.
A law enacted last year requires increased public access to trials in which a child is alleged to be uncared for, neglected, abused or is the subject of a petition that would end parental rights.
With exceptions such as evidence or allegations of sexual abuse of a child, trials for these types of cases are now presumed open. The law also allows a judge to deny or limit access in the interests of a child or safety, legal rights and privacy concerns.
The Child Protection Session at the Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse in Middletown will be the site of the pilot program set to begin Feb. 16.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2010/02/02/conn_sets_1st_site_for_open_child_welfare_trials/
Child abuse drops sharply in U.S.
Study shows child abuse declines in US
(or could it be more than half the reports were false to begin with?)
By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer
Published: Wednesday, February 03, 2010
NEW YORK — A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.
An estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse in 2005-06, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993, the study found.
“It’s the first time since we started collecting data about these things that we’ve seen substantial declines over a long period, and that’s tremendously encouraging,” said professor David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, a leading researcher in the field of child abuse.
“It does suggest that the mobilization around this issue is helping and it’s a problem that is amenable to solutions,” he said.
The findings were contained in the fourth installment of the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, a congressionally mandated study that has been conducted periodically by the Department of Health and Human Services. The previous version was issued in 1996, based on 1993 data.
The new study is based on information from more than 10,700 “sentinels” — such as child welfare workers, police officers, teachers, health care professionals and day care workers — in 122 counties across the country. The detailed data collected from them was then used to make national estimates.
The number of sexually abused children decreased from 217,700 in 1993 to 135,300 in 2005-2006 — a 38 percent drop, the study shows. The number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and the number of emotionally abused children dropped by 27 percent.
The 455-page study shied away from trying to explain the trends, but other experts offered their theories.
“There’s much more public awareness and public intolerance around child abuse now,” said Linda Spears, the Child Welfare League of America’s vice president for public policy. “It was a hidden concern before — people were afraid to talk about it if it was in their family.”
She also noted the proliferation of programs designed to help abusers and potential abusers overcome their problems.
Finkelhor, whose own previous research detected a drop in abuse rates, said the study reveals “real, substantial declines” that cannot be dismissed on any technical grounds, such as changing definitions of abuse.
He suggested that the decline was a product of several coinciding trends, including a “troop surge” in the 1990s when more people were deployed in child protection services and the criminal justice system intensified its anti-abuse efforts with more arrests and prison sentences.
Finkelhor also suggested that the greatly expanded use of medications may have enabled many potential child abusers to treat the conditions that otherwise might have led them to molest or mistreat a child.
“There’s also been a general change in perceptions and norms about what one can get away with, so much more publicity about these things,” he said.
One curious aspect of the study was the manner of its release. Although HHS had launched the study in 2004 and invested several million dollars, it was posted a few days ago on the Internet with no fanfare — neither a press release nor a news conference. Finkelhor, noting that experts in the field had been impatiently awaiting the study, described this low-profile approach as “shocking.”
The findings might be disconcerting to some in the child-welfare field who base their funding pitches on the specter of ever-rising abuse rates, said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
“The best use of scarce child welfare dollars is on prevention and family preservation — not on hiring more people to investigate less actual abuse,” said Wexler.
The study found some dramatic differences in child abuse rates based on socio-economic factors. Poor children were three times more likely than other kids to experience abuse, and rates of abuse in African-American families were significantly higher than for whites and Hispanics.
Family structure also was a factor — for example, children whose single parent had a live-in partner faced an abuse rate 10 times that of a child living with two parents.
Richard Wexler wrote on Feb 3, 2010 1:04 PM:
" The main reason child abuse declined, as child abuse is defined in this study, (and most state laws), is because poverty declined. This study defines maltreatment in breathtakingly broad terms, including many definitions that confuse poverty itself with "neglect." Because poverty declined less in Black families, maltreatment declined less in those families.
In addition, things like sending a child to bed without supper, making the child do too many chores and even being "overprotective" can be considered maltreatment in this study.
The decline in maltreatment is real, since earlier studies used the same definitions, but the numbers in the study are grossly inflated.
The problem of child abuse is serious and real, but the solutions have been phony - and hyped numbers encourage phony solutions. We have a full analysis of this study on our website, http://www.nccpr.org
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org "
http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/02/03/news/national/free/id_388878.txt
(or could it be more than half the reports were false to begin with?)
By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer
Published: Wednesday, February 03, 2010
NEW YORK — A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.
An estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse in 2005-06, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993, the study found.
“It’s the first time since we started collecting data about these things that we’ve seen substantial declines over a long period, and that’s tremendously encouraging,” said professor David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, a leading researcher in the field of child abuse.
“It does suggest that the mobilization around this issue is helping and it’s a problem that is amenable to solutions,” he said.
The findings were contained in the fourth installment of the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, a congressionally mandated study that has been conducted periodically by the Department of Health and Human Services. The previous version was issued in 1996, based on 1993 data.
The new study is based on information from more than 10,700 “sentinels” — such as child welfare workers, police officers, teachers, health care professionals and day care workers — in 122 counties across the country. The detailed data collected from them was then used to make national estimates.
The number of sexually abused children decreased from 217,700 in 1993 to 135,300 in 2005-2006 — a 38 percent drop, the study shows. The number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and the number of emotionally abused children dropped by 27 percent.
The 455-page study shied away from trying to explain the trends, but other experts offered their theories.
“There’s much more public awareness and public intolerance around child abuse now,” said Linda Spears, the Child Welfare League of America’s vice president for public policy. “It was a hidden concern before — people were afraid to talk about it if it was in their family.”
She also noted the proliferation of programs designed to help abusers and potential abusers overcome their problems.
Finkelhor, whose own previous research detected a drop in abuse rates, said the study reveals “real, substantial declines” that cannot be dismissed on any technical grounds, such as changing definitions of abuse.
He suggested that the decline was a product of several coinciding trends, including a “troop surge” in the 1990s when more people were deployed in child protection services and the criminal justice system intensified its anti-abuse efforts with more arrests and prison sentences.
Finkelhor also suggested that the greatly expanded use of medications may have enabled many potential child abusers to treat the conditions that otherwise might have led them to molest or mistreat a child.
“There’s also been a general change in perceptions and norms about what one can get away with, so much more publicity about these things,” he said.
One curious aspect of the study was the manner of its release. Although HHS had launched the study in 2004 and invested several million dollars, it was posted a few days ago on the Internet with no fanfare — neither a press release nor a news conference. Finkelhor, noting that experts in the field had been impatiently awaiting the study, described this low-profile approach as “shocking.”
The findings might be disconcerting to some in the child-welfare field who base their funding pitches on the specter of ever-rising abuse rates, said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
“The best use of scarce child welfare dollars is on prevention and family preservation — not on hiring more people to investigate less actual abuse,” said Wexler.
The study found some dramatic differences in child abuse rates based on socio-economic factors. Poor children were three times more likely than other kids to experience abuse, and rates of abuse in African-American families were significantly higher than for whites and Hispanics.
Family structure also was a factor — for example, children whose single parent had a live-in partner faced an abuse rate 10 times that of a child living with two parents.
Richard Wexler wrote on Feb 3, 2010 1:04 PM:
" The main reason child abuse declined, as child abuse is defined in this study, (and most state laws), is because poverty declined. This study defines maltreatment in breathtakingly broad terms, including many definitions that confuse poverty itself with "neglect." Because poverty declined less in Black families, maltreatment declined less in those families.
In addition, things like sending a child to bed without supper, making the child do too many chores and even being "overprotective" can be considered maltreatment in this study.
The decline in maltreatment is real, since earlier studies used the same definitions, but the numbers in the study are grossly inflated.
The problem of child abuse is serious and real, but the solutions have been phony - and hyped numbers encourage phony solutions. We have a full analysis of this study on our website, http://www.nccpr.org
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org "
http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/02/03/news/national/free/id_388878.txt
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Whores of the State: Child Protective Services Target Rural Families
Whores of the State: Child Protective Services Target Rural Families
Sun, 06/28/2009 - 01:47 | RFD America
They’re coming for our children. Organizations with benevolent names like “Child Welfare League of America” threaten the well-being of rural families and the foundations of America’s rural heritage. Consider some of the statements by the National Advisory Committee on Rural Social Services:
Problems faced by rural children and families. Poverty has been and continues to be one of the greatest predictors of maltreatment. Children whose families earned less than $15,000 per year were 22 times as likely to be designated as suffering abuse or neglect compared with children from families with an annual income exceeding $30,000. Poverty is traditionally and consistently higher in rural communities. ~The Welfare of Rural Children~
Controlling urban and suburban families is easy enough; they are under constant surveillance. But rural people are different, and despite the anthems of “diversity” being sung across the land, that tolerance of culture doesn’t apply to rural Americans. If you have children and live in the country, you’re almost certain to be a target of investigation by county social workers.
Who is at risk
If you meet any of the criteria below, you run a high risk of a visit from a social worker:
You receive any kind of government assistance.Remember, Sally Social Worker believes that if your income falls below the ideal you are most likely a child abuser.
You practice a religion that isn’t approved by the Government.
You homeschool your children. In a ruling from the California Supreme Court, Judge Croskey calls parents who teach at home “uncredentialed parents,” implying that the State can educate children better than parents. Of course, the Judge didn’t let the fact that 30% of American teenagers don’t graduate from high school influence his decision. Frankly, it doesn’t seem like the so-called credentialed professionals are doing that great of a job.
You spank your children.Spanking is considered abuse by social workers. In fact, any sort of physical behavior reinforcement is considered child abuse, up to and including restraining a child. One family tells of trying to restrain their 14-year-old daughter when she tried to leave with a 21-year-old man. They were charged with felony child abuse. Social workers claimed the parents should have called the police. The police would have used physical force to restrain the child if she was being uncooperative. The police can even use force to subdue an unruly child. When the mother asked why the State (the police) has a right to a greater degree of physical contact with a child than the parent does, the social worker answered, “because we do.”
You smoke or consume alcohol. Forget that both of these activities are legal for adults to engage in. If you do it around your kids, and they talk about it to a teacher, you’re going to hear about it.You raise animals for food. This can be extremely problematic if you send your kids to public school. Consider this: a new teacher in a rural community where most of the students lived on family farms told her second-grade class that milking cows was animal abuse and was something only mean people did. The lesson then focused on how mean people hurt children, too. Several families reported their children were told to contact police if their parents were mean people.
Profane Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights. Second Edition
When Sally Social Worker comes knocking
Here are a few suggestions from www.FightCPS.com:
Record and Document Everything
Don’t Invite The CPS Worker Inside – You are under no obligation to let that person into your house. The only exception would be if the CPS agent shows up with a law enforcement officer bearing a search warrant.
Don’t Trust The CPS Agents. Say as little as possible.
Don’t allow them to interview your child.
As with any other threat to your family, have a plan to deal with these people when they show up. The founder of FightCPS.com is a former social worker. Vistit the site to get detailed instruction on what to do before the social workers show up and what to do when they leave.
http://rfdamerica.com/content/whores-state-child-protective-services-target-rural-families
Sun, 06/28/2009 - 01:47 | RFD America
They’re coming for our children. Organizations with benevolent names like “Child Welfare League of America” threaten the well-being of rural families and the foundations of America’s rural heritage. Consider some of the statements by the National Advisory Committee on Rural Social Services:
Problems faced by rural children and families. Poverty has been and continues to be one of the greatest predictors of maltreatment. Children whose families earned less than $15,000 per year were 22 times as likely to be designated as suffering abuse or neglect compared with children from families with an annual income exceeding $30,000. Poverty is traditionally and consistently higher in rural communities. ~The Welfare of Rural Children~
Controlling urban and suburban families is easy enough; they are under constant surveillance. But rural people are different, and despite the anthems of “diversity” being sung across the land, that tolerance of culture doesn’t apply to rural Americans. If you have children and live in the country, you’re almost certain to be a target of investigation by county social workers.
Who is at risk
If you meet any of the criteria below, you run a high risk of a visit from a social worker:
You receive any kind of government assistance.Remember, Sally Social Worker believes that if your income falls below the ideal you are most likely a child abuser.
You practice a religion that isn’t approved by the Government.
You homeschool your children. In a ruling from the California Supreme Court, Judge Croskey calls parents who teach at home “uncredentialed parents,” implying that the State can educate children better than parents. Of course, the Judge didn’t let the fact that 30% of American teenagers don’t graduate from high school influence his decision. Frankly, it doesn’t seem like the so-called credentialed professionals are doing that great of a job.
You spank your children.Spanking is considered abuse by social workers. In fact, any sort of physical behavior reinforcement is considered child abuse, up to and including restraining a child. One family tells of trying to restrain their 14-year-old daughter when she tried to leave with a 21-year-old man. They were charged with felony child abuse. Social workers claimed the parents should have called the police. The police would have used physical force to restrain the child if she was being uncooperative. The police can even use force to subdue an unruly child. When the mother asked why the State (the police) has a right to a greater degree of physical contact with a child than the parent does, the social worker answered, “because we do.”
You smoke or consume alcohol. Forget that both of these activities are legal for adults to engage in. If you do it around your kids, and they talk about it to a teacher, you’re going to hear about it.You raise animals for food. This can be extremely problematic if you send your kids to public school. Consider this: a new teacher in a rural community where most of the students lived on family farms told her second-grade class that milking cows was animal abuse and was something only mean people did. The lesson then focused on how mean people hurt children, too. Several families reported their children were told to contact police if their parents were mean people.
Profane Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights. Second Edition
When Sally Social Worker comes knocking
Here are a few suggestions from www.FightCPS.com:
Record and Document Everything
Don’t Invite The CPS Worker Inside – You are under no obligation to let that person into your house. The only exception would be if the CPS agent shows up with a law enforcement officer bearing a search warrant.
Don’t Trust The CPS Agents. Say as little as possible.
Don’t allow them to interview your child.
As with any other threat to your family, have a plan to deal with these people when they show up. The founder of FightCPS.com is a former social worker. Vistit the site to get detailed instruction on what to do before the social workers show up and what to do when they leave.
http://rfdamerica.com/content/whores-state-child-protective-services-target-rural-families
Public employees' immunity limited
Public employees' immunity limited
Friday, January 29, 2010 3:11 AM
By Randy Ludlow
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Public employees who act recklessly are not protected by their employers' cloak of immunity and can be sued personally for damages, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
A lawyer who regularly defends local governments said he fears that the ruling will prompt a flurry of lawsuits against public employees.
The ruling ended appeals in a wrongful-death lawsuit in which the estate of a woman killed in a 2003 crash with a drunken driver sued two Circleville police officers and a dispatcher, accusing them of reckless conduct.
Attorneys for the police employees had argued that they could not be sued because a 1988 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, based on events that occurred in 1981, largely shielded public employees from personal liability.
However, the justices found that state lawmakers ended that blanket protection in 1985 by passing a law granting immunity from lawsuits to government entities and their employees, except those who act maliciously or recklessly. Yesterday's decision was the first to block reliance on the 1988 ruling.
"If the Supreme Court held otherwise, it truly would have immunized public employees from reckless and wanton misconduct. It's obviously an important decision," said Rex Elliott, the Columbus lawyer who filed the suit against the Circleville officers.
Although Circleville cannot be sued directly, the city would be on the hook for damages if jurors found that its employees' conduct was reckless, Elliott said.
Organizations representing Ohio police, county commissioners, school boards, townships, children services, mental health, and job and family services employees all had asked the court to rule in favor of the Circleville officers.
"Employees are going to be subject to a lot more lawsuits any time someone believes they have not done everything they could to protect the public," said Mark Landes, the Columbus lawyer representing most of the groups.
"I don't think the taxpayers believe that every time someone is hurt, that the public's coffers should be open to them. This opens the coffers wider than they were yesterday. It gets to be a failure-to-protect-the-world kind of claim."
The attorneys for the Circleville employees declined to comment on the court's ruling.
The Circleville lawsuit says that, after 57-year-old Cornelius Copley was arrested on a drunken-driving charge on July 4, 2003, police returned his car despite knowing they were required to impound it. Police also knew that the five-time DUI offender's driver's license was suspended, the suit says.
On July 6, 2003, Copley was driving drunk the wrong way on Rt. 23 in Ross County when his car collided head-on with a car driven by Jill Graves, 23, of Chillicothe. Both Copley, of Circleville, and Graves died in the crash.
The justices' 6-1 opinion upheld appellate and trial court rulings, clearing the way for the lawsuit to go to trial in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court more than six years after it was filed.
rludlow@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/29/copy/immunity.ART_ART_01-29-10_B1_13GEIK6.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
Friday, January 29, 2010 3:11 AM
By Randy Ludlow
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Public employees who act recklessly are not protected by their employers' cloak of immunity and can be sued personally for damages, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
A lawyer who regularly defends local governments said he fears that the ruling will prompt a flurry of lawsuits against public employees.
The ruling ended appeals in a wrongful-death lawsuit in which the estate of a woman killed in a 2003 crash with a drunken driver sued two Circleville police officers and a dispatcher, accusing them of reckless conduct.
Attorneys for the police employees had argued that they could not be sued because a 1988 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, based on events that occurred in 1981, largely shielded public employees from personal liability.
However, the justices found that state lawmakers ended that blanket protection in 1985 by passing a law granting immunity from lawsuits to government entities and their employees, except those who act maliciously or recklessly. Yesterday's decision was the first to block reliance on the 1988 ruling.
"If the Supreme Court held otherwise, it truly would have immunized public employees from reckless and wanton misconduct. It's obviously an important decision," said Rex Elliott, the Columbus lawyer who filed the suit against the Circleville officers.
Although Circleville cannot be sued directly, the city would be on the hook for damages if jurors found that its employees' conduct was reckless, Elliott said.
Organizations representing Ohio police, county commissioners, school boards, townships, children services, mental health, and job and family services employees all had asked the court to rule in favor of the Circleville officers.
"Employees are going to be subject to a lot more lawsuits any time someone believes they have not done everything they could to protect the public," said Mark Landes, the Columbus lawyer representing most of the groups.
"I don't think the taxpayers believe that every time someone is hurt, that the public's coffers should be open to them. This opens the coffers wider than they were yesterday. It gets to be a failure-to-protect-the-world kind of claim."
The attorneys for the Circleville employees declined to comment on the court's ruling.
The Circleville lawsuit says that, after 57-year-old Cornelius Copley was arrested on a drunken-driving charge on July 4, 2003, police returned his car despite knowing they were required to impound it. Police also knew that the five-time DUI offender's driver's license was suspended, the suit says.
On July 6, 2003, Copley was driving drunk the wrong way on Rt. 23 in Ross County when his car collided head-on with a car driven by Jill Graves, 23, of Chillicothe. Both Copley, of Circleville, and Graves died in the crash.
The justices' 6-1 opinion upheld appellate and trial court rulings, clearing the way for the lawsuit to go to trial in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court more than six years after it was filed.
rludlow@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/29/copy/immunity.ART_ART_01-29-10_B1_13GEIK6.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
Monday, February 1, 2010
EXPOSED! What CPS Thinks is in the Best interest of the Child?
January 31, 2010 yvonnemason
Warning! Traumatic Topic:. EXPOSED! What CPS Thinks is in the Best interest of the Child?
Posted by innerpeace5 on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:22:22 AM
CPS (DHHS) HAS TO BE STOPPED FAST
Statement of Vera Hassner Sharav and John H. Noble Jr., Ph.D.,
Alliance for Human Research Protection, New York, New York
On March 10, 2004, The ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) filed a complaint with both the Food and Drug Administration and the federal Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) when we learned that 36 Phase I and Phase II AIDS drug experiments had been conducted on infants and children who were under the guardianship of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). The children were living at Incarnation Children’s Center, a foster care facility under contract with ACS and the Catholic Archdiocese. We had reason to believe that the experiments were unethical, illegal, and coercive–and that federal regulations have been violated. ******We did not know at the time that children in foster care nationwide were subjected to research exploitation at prestigious medical research institutions.*******
Historically such children have been abused and exploited in medical experiments—for that reason, federal regulations were enacted to restrict the use of foster care children in research. The Associated Press confirms that for more than two decades, government officials colluded with hospitals and researchers to facilitate the enrollment ofchildren who were in the care of the state for experimental drug trials. Nationwide, an estimated 698 to 1,388 foster children were used to test experimental AIDS drugs–at least 465 of those children were in the care of NYC’s ACS—almost all were children of color. How ironic it is that children, who were placed by the courts into the protective custody of foster care agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Homes Act of 1997, should end up further victimized by their caretakers.
These children were exposed to pain, risks, and potentially harmful experimental drugs—the children suffered, some died. In some cases the children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in other cases infants were merely “presumed” to be HIV-infected.The Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56) prohibits subjecting children who are wards of the state to experiments involving ***greater than minimal risk***:
(A) Children who are wards of the State or any other agency, institution, or entity can be included in research approved under 6.406or 46.407 only if such research is:1) related to their status as wards; or
2) conducted in schools, camps, hospitals, institutions, or similar setting in which the majority of children involved as subjects are not wards.
(b) If the research is approved under paragraph (a) of this section,the IRB shall require appointment of an advocate for each child who is a ward, in addition to any other individual acting on behalf of the child as guardian or in loco parentis.
The advocate shall be an individual who has the background and experience to act in, and agrees to act in, the best interests of the child for the duration of the child’s participation in the research and who is not associated in any way (*** except ***in the role as advocate or ***member of the IR ***with the research, ****the investigator(s)****, or ****the guardian organization.*** The Phase I and Phase II experimental drug and vaccine trials in question were unrelated to their status as wards–the NYC- ACS enrollment guidelines applied to foster care children only. The ACS guidelines falsely stated that the trials posed “minimal risk,” and the guidelines clearly focused on facilitating rapid enrollment of as many foster children as possible—rather than ensuring that the trials were in the ****children’s best interest****: [Attached]
“ACS will review clinical trial protocols for HIV-infected children as soon as such protocols become available, before a specific hospital decides to participate in the study. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and pediatric AIDS specialists throughout New York State will make S aware of protocols as soon as they are in final form, before hospitals are ready to enroll children. This procedure will expedite ACS’ decision-making even before physicians are ready to start treating children in the protocols.”
The Associated Press confirmed our suspicion that most of the children in the care of ACS did not have a personal advocate—as required under federal regulations. Indeed, of the 465 NYC children in the experiments, only 142 had an advocate. Furthermore, ACS even waived the requirement for *****individual consent***** for these children—encouraging them to be herded en masse into drug trials as if they were animals. Phase I and Phase II drug experiments involve the highest level of risk, uncertainty, and discomfort—the safety and toxicity of drugs as well as maximum dose tolerance are tested in these trials. Experiments at that testing stage are unlikely to have any direct benefit for the children in whom the drugs are tested. In some trials children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in some cases infants merely presumed to be HIV-infected:
#292: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Safety and Immunogenicity of a Seve n Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Presumed HIV-Infected Infants
#345 A Study of Ritonavir (an Anti-HIV Drug) in HIV-Positive Infants and Children, last amendment 3/13/2000.“Replacement infants…are either presumed HIV infected or have already been shown to be HIV-infected…”Infants and children were exposed to experimental HIV vaccines—which have never been successful:
#218 A Placebo-Controlled, Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of Recombinant Envelope Proteins of HIV-1gp160 and gp120 in Children >=1 Month Old with Asymptomatic HIV Infection.Although more than 4 AIDS drugs had never been tested in children, foster care children were exposed to an 8 drug cocktail “some at higher than usual doses” (which was reduced to 7 drugs because of “significant toxicity” 11/9/ 2001).
#1007 ******Multi-Drug****** Antiretroviral Therapy for Heavily Pretreated Pediatric AIDS Patients: A Phase I Proof of Concept Trial Among the drugs tested in foster care children, is Nevirapine, a drug whose safety has been the center of controversy. [AP] Because Nevirapine confers resistance following even a single (low) dose, its manufacturer cautions that its use should be restricted to “previously untreated women with HIV infection who present at labor” for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Yet, 4 to 17 year old children in foster care were exposed to Nevirapine. A Phase I trial of a Glaxo Wellcome drug, Valacyclovir hydrochloride was terminated in 1997—
Why? Typically, trials terminated at such an early stage show unacceptable levels of toxicity.The Associated Press reported: “Some foster children died during studies, *****but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.” ******It is not for those city agencies to decide the cause of death. ACS Commissioner, John B. Mattingly, testified before a City Council General Welfare Committee, that he knows of just 19 children—out of 465—who remain within the NYC foster care system.
In addition, a series of recent investigative media reports from Texas,Florida, Ohio, New York, California, Illinois, raise concerns that over 50% of all children in foster care are currently being prescribed untested, experimental combinations of powerful, mind altering, psychotropic drugs—including antipsychotics (e.g., Risperdal, Zyprexa),anticonvulsants (e.g., Depakote, Neurontin), antidepressants (Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Celexa and others), tranquilizers (Klonopin, Xanax),stimulants (Ritalin, Adderall), as well as heavily sedating drugs such as the anti-hypertensive medication clonidine. These prescribing patterns are essentially uncontrolled experimental drug trials. [See: The Columbus Dispatch series by Encarnacion Pyle. Forced medication, straitjackets, Sunday, April ,2005 ://www.dispatch.com/reports-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/04/24/20050424-A1-00.html
Clinical trials approved by the FDA study only a *single* drug given in tightly controlled dosages. Combinations of two and three or more different psychotropic drugs have simply never been studied in a rigorous and responsible manner.
Furthermore, the foster parents and social workers who are mostly entrusted with supervising these children have less than rudimentary knowledge about these drugs’ adverse effects, and even less skills in monitoring these children to avoid dangerous drug reactions. This is of course less than the protection afforded subjects in ordinary clinical trials.
It is worth repeating:
none of these idiosyncratic drug combinations — called polypharmacy–have never been studied by any responsible government or otheragency, and the children receiving them may be considered guinea pigs in a gigantic uncontrolled medical experiment.
How can the Congress fail to take strong corrective action?
The public has a right to know:
How many children in foster care have been enrolled in clinical trials?
What happened to foster children who were used as human guinea pigs?
What adverse effects did the children suffer during and after participation?
How many children died during the experiments?
A question has been raised about the size of the cemetery plot in which children in ACS custody are buried: Were any children buried in mass graves?
What were the specific sources of funding for these Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Did the foster care agencies or foster families receive payment, fees, or other rewards for enrollment of the children in these trials?
How much money was paid to the researchers and articipating hospitals?
What happened in 2001 that the AIDS drug trials in foster children were stopped?
What other drug trials are being conducted on foster children?
The other questions we pose below suggest that there may have been a breakdown in the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related federal law governing the protection of children in foster care. Our questions, by extension, suggest that the Council onAccreditation of Family and Children Services (COA), and one of its two founding organizations, the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), may not be meeting their obligations. Child protection falls within the purview of the juvenile and family court system, which remands abused and neglected children into the care of public and private, non-profit foster care agencies.
In our view, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to these vulnerable children. The Congress may want to consider a dual approach in dealing with the issues at hand. Child welfare laws operate by regulating the care-givers. Child abuse reporting laws, for example, require health, school, and social service personnel to report suspected child abuse. If such laws were to define “suspected child abuse” to include enrollment of foster children in Type I and Type II clinical trials, in violation of the protections afforded by 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56), there would be many more eyes watching to protect children from overreaching biomedical researchers who, history has shown, have abused their authority to exploit children in foster care.
Were there violations of the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related child welfare legislation by officials of the foster care agencies that permitted enrollment of foster children in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Should not the supervising foster parents and/or social workers have reported suspected child abuse in these high risk, Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of experimental drugs and vaccines?
What training, if any, is provided to supervising foster parents and/or social workers about the conditions that must be satisfied by reference to 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 in order to justify enrollment of foster children in ANY biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk?
Is there a need for new federal legislation that would amend the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 to expressly define children in foster care a “protected class,” whose enrollment in ANY biomedical research would trigger appointment of an independent research ombudsman under the supervision of the juvenile or family court that remanded the foster child into state custody?
Finally, if, as we argue, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to children whom the courts remand to the protective custody of state and private, non-profit foster care agencies,then the Congress might wish to consider amending the existing requirement for the appointment of a child advocate by the IRB pursuant to 45 CFR 46.4.09 and 21 CFR 50.56 to require instead that the child advocate be appointed by and be held accountable to the court of original jurisdiction for foster children who may be subjected to biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk. The courts, we believe, are the last recourse that foster children have to protect them from the predatory practices of those who would exploit and take advantage of their vulnerability.
We should remind ourselves that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.
http://pas.blogtownhall.com/2010/01/26/warning!_traumatic_topic_exposed!_what_cps_thinks_is_in_the_best_interest_of_the_child.thtml
yvonne mason
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/warning-traumatic-topic-exposed-what-cps-thinks-is-in-the-best-interest-of-the-child/
Warning! Traumatic Topic:. EXPOSED! What CPS Thinks is in the Best interest of the Child?
Posted by innerpeace5 on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:22:22 AM
CPS (DHHS) HAS TO BE STOPPED FAST
Statement of Vera Hassner Sharav and John H. Noble Jr., Ph.D.,
Alliance for Human Research Protection, New York, New York
On March 10, 2004, The ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) filed a complaint with both the Food and Drug Administration and the federal Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) when we learned that 36 Phase I and Phase II AIDS drug experiments had been conducted on infants and children who were under the guardianship of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). The children were living at Incarnation Children’s Center, a foster care facility under contract with ACS and the Catholic Archdiocese. We had reason to believe that the experiments were unethical, illegal, and coercive–and that federal regulations have been violated. ******We did not know at the time that children in foster care nationwide were subjected to research exploitation at prestigious medical research institutions.*******
Historically such children have been abused and exploited in medical experiments—for that reason, federal regulations were enacted to restrict the use of foster care children in research. The Associated Press confirms that for more than two decades, government officials colluded with hospitals and researchers to facilitate the enrollment ofchildren who were in the care of the state for experimental drug trials. Nationwide, an estimated 698 to 1,388 foster children were used to test experimental AIDS drugs–at least 465 of those children were in the care of NYC’s ACS—almost all were children of color. How ironic it is that children, who were placed by the courts into the protective custody of foster care agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Homes Act of 1997, should end up further victimized by their caretakers.
These children were exposed to pain, risks, and potentially harmful experimental drugs—the children suffered, some died. In some cases the children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in other cases infants were merely “presumed” to be HIV-infected.The Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56) prohibits subjecting children who are wards of the state to experiments involving ***greater than minimal risk***:
(A) Children who are wards of the State or any other agency, institution, or entity can be included in research approved under 6.406or 46.407 only if such research is:1) related to their status as wards; or
2) conducted in schools, camps, hospitals, institutions, or similar setting in which the majority of children involved as subjects are not wards.
(b) If the research is approved under paragraph (a) of this section,the IRB shall require appointment of an advocate for each child who is a ward, in addition to any other individual acting on behalf of the child as guardian or in loco parentis.
The advocate shall be an individual who has the background and experience to act in, and agrees to act in, the best interests of the child for the duration of the child’s participation in the research and who is not associated in any way (*** except ***in the role as advocate or ***member of the IR ***with the research, ****the investigator(s)****, or ****the guardian organization.*** The Phase I and Phase II experimental drug and vaccine trials in question were unrelated to their status as wards–the NYC- ACS enrollment guidelines applied to foster care children only. The ACS guidelines falsely stated that the trials posed “minimal risk,” and the guidelines clearly focused on facilitating rapid enrollment of as many foster children as possible—rather than ensuring that the trials were in the ****children’s best interest****: [Attached]
“ACS will review clinical trial protocols for HIV-infected children as soon as such protocols become available, before a specific hospital decides to participate in the study. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and pediatric AIDS specialists throughout New York State will make S aware of protocols as soon as they are in final form, before hospitals are ready to enroll children. This procedure will expedite ACS’ decision-making even before physicians are ready to start treating children in the protocols.”
The Associated Press confirmed our suspicion that most of the children in the care of ACS did not have a personal advocate—as required under federal regulations. Indeed, of the 465 NYC children in the experiments, only 142 had an advocate. Furthermore, ACS even waived the requirement for *****individual consent***** for these children—encouraging them to be herded en masse into drug trials as if they were animals. Phase I and Phase II drug experiments involve the highest level of risk, uncertainty, and discomfort—the safety and toxicity of drugs as well as maximum dose tolerance are tested in these trials. Experiments at that testing stage are unlikely to have any direct benefit for the children in whom the drugs are tested. In some trials children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in some cases infants merely presumed to be HIV-infected:
#292: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Safety and Immunogenicity of a Seve n Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Presumed HIV-Infected Infants
#345 A Study of Ritonavir (an Anti-HIV Drug) in HIV-Positive Infants and Children, last amendment 3/13/2000.“Replacement infants…are either presumed HIV infected or have already been shown to be HIV-infected…”Infants and children were exposed to experimental HIV vaccines—which have never been successful:
#218 A Placebo-Controlled, Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of Recombinant Envelope Proteins of HIV-1gp160 and gp120 in Children >=1 Month Old with Asymptomatic HIV Infection.Although more than 4 AIDS drugs had never been tested in children, foster care children were exposed to an 8 drug cocktail “some at higher than usual doses” (which was reduced to 7 drugs because of “significant toxicity” 11/9/ 2001).
#1007 ******Multi-Drug****** Antiretroviral Therapy for Heavily Pretreated Pediatric AIDS Patients: A Phase I Proof of Concept Trial Among the drugs tested in foster care children, is Nevirapine, a drug whose safety has been the center of controversy. [AP] Because Nevirapine confers resistance following even a single (low) dose, its manufacturer cautions that its use should be restricted to “previously untreated women with HIV infection who present at labor” for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Yet, 4 to 17 year old children in foster care were exposed to Nevirapine. A Phase I trial of a Glaxo Wellcome drug, Valacyclovir hydrochloride was terminated in 1997—
Why? Typically, trials terminated at such an early stage show unacceptable levels of toxicity.The Associated Press reported: “Some foster children died during studies, *****but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.” ******It is not for those city agencies to decide the cause of death. ACS Commissioner, John B. Mattingly, testified before a City Council General Welfare Committee, that he knows of just 19 children—out of 465—who remain within the NYC foster care system.
In addition, a series of recent investigative media reports from Texas,Florida, Ohio, New York, California, Illinois, raise concerns that over 50% of all children in foster care are currently being prescribed untested, experimental combinations of powerful, mind altering, psychotropic drugs—including antipsychotics (e.g., Risperdal, Zyprexa),anticonvulsants (e.g., Depakote, Neurontin), antidepressants (Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Celexa and others), tranquilizers (Klonopin, Xanax),stimulants (Ritalin, Adderall), as well as heavily sedating drugs such as the anti-hypertensive medication clonidine. These prescribing patterns are essentially uncontrolled experimental drug trials. [See: The Columbus Dispatch series by Encarnacion Pyle. Forced medication, straitjackets, Sunday, April ,2005 ://www.dispatch.com/reports-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/04/24/20050424-A1-00.html
Clinical trials approved by the FDA study only a *single* drug given in tightly controlled dosages. Combinations of two and three or more different psychotropic drugs have simply never been studied in a rigorous and responsible manner.
Furthermore, the foster parents and social workers who are mostly entrusted with supervising these children have less than rudimentary knowledge about these drugs’ adverse effects, and even less skills in monitoring these children to avoid dangerous drug reactions. This is of course less than the protection afforded subjects in ordinary clinical trials.
It is worth repeating:
none of these idiosyncratic drug combinations — called polypharmacy–have never been studied by any responsible government or otheragency, and the children receiving them may be considered guinea pigs in a gigantic uncontrolled medical experiment.
How can the Congress fail to take strong corrective action?
The public has a right to know:
How many children in foster care have been enrolled in clinical trials?
What happened to foster children who were used as human guinea pigs?
What adverse effects did the children suffer during and after participation?
How many children died during the experiments?
A question has been raised about the size of the cemetery plot in which children in ACS custody are buried: Were any children buried in mass graves?
What were the specific sources of funding for these Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Did the foster care agencies or foster families receive payment, fees, or other rewards for enrollment of the children in these trials?
How much money was paid to the researchers and articipating hospitals?
What happened in 2001 that the AIDS drug trials in foster children were stopped?
What other drug trials are being conducted on foster children?
The other questions we pose below suggest that there may have been a breakdown in the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related federal law governing the protection of children in foster care. Our questions, by extension, suggest that the Council onAccreditation of Family and Children Services (COA), and one of its two founding organizations, the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), may not be meeting their obligations. Child protection falls within the purview of the juvenile and family court system, which remands abused and neglected children into the care of public and private, non-profit foster care agencies.
In our view, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to these vulnerable children. The Congress may want to consider a dual approach in dealing with the issues at hand. Child welfare laws operate by regulating the care-givers. Child abuse reporting laws, for example, require health, school, and social service personnel to report suspected child abuse. If such laws were to define “suspected child abuse” to include enrollment of foster children in Type I and Type II clinical trials, in violation of the protections afforded by 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56), there would be many more eyes watching to protect children from overreaching biomedical researchers who, history has shown, have abused their authority to exploit children in foster care.
Were there violations of the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related child welfare legislation by officials of the foster care agencies that permitted enrollment of foster children in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Should not the supervising foster parents and/or social workers have reported suspected child abuse in these high risk, Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of experimental drugs and vaccines?
What training, if any, is provided to supervising foster parents and/or social workers about the conditions that must be satisfied by reference to 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 in order to justify enrollment of foster children in ANY biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk?
Is there a need for new federal legislation that would amend the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 to expressly define children in foster care a “protected class,” whose enrollment in ANY biomedical research would trigger appointment of an independent research ombudsman under the supervision of the juvenile or family court that remanded the foster child into state custody?
Finally, if, as we argue, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to children whom the courts remand to the protective custody of state and private, non-profit foster care agencies,then the Congress might wish to consider amending the existing requirement for the appointment of a child advocate by the IRB pursuant to 45 CFR 46.4.09 and 21 CFR 50.56 to require instead that the child advocate be appointed by and be held accountable to the court of original jurisdiction for foster children who may be subjected to biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk. The courts, we believe, are the last recourse that foster children have to protect them from the predatory practices of those who would exploit and take advantage of their vulnerability.
We should remind ourselves that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.
http://pas.blogtownhall.com/2010/01/26/warning!_traumatic_topic_exposed!_what_cps_thinks_is_in_the_best_interest_of_the_child.thtml
yvonne mason
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/warning-traumatic-topic-exposed-what-cps-thinks-is-in-the-best-interest-of-the-child/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)