The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
needs to wither and die
By Roland Murphy
Originally published on LiveJournal, February 05, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC is reporting child abuse rates in the U.S. have dropped sharply. Now, I haven't read the actual report yet, but one likely cause is that efforts like those of the National Association to Protect Children have led to more appropriate penalties and longer incarceration for offenders in many states over the course of the study's timeline.
However, abuser-apologist group the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform wants to use the reduction as an excuse to gut investigation and prosecution of abusers. Executive Director Richard Wexler said, "The best use of scarce child welfare dollars is on prevention and family preservation — not on hiring more people to investigate less actual abuse." This when fewer than half of child abuse reports around the country are ever investigated at all.
These evil idiots are staunch advocates of "family preservation and reunification," and laud the "Alabama 'System of Care' " as a model, rather than a spectacular failure. They claim on their website, "The rate at which children are taken from their homes is among the lowest in the country, and re-abuse of children left in their own homes has been cut sharply."
What they don't tell you is that in instances where an abuse victim is reunited with the abuser, there's no incentive to report further attacks. They've already bucked up their courage once, split up the "family," been traumatized by investigations and trials, and ended up right back where they were. If someone locked you in a room and beat you or worse, you reported it, stood up at trial and then, rather than seeing justice served the judge ordered you to attend "therapy" sessions with the person who beat you until they got their pitch smooth enough that the judge decided you should go live with him again, how likely would you be to drop a dime on them again?
Imagine how terrifying and humiliating that would be. If you're reading this, you're almost certainly an adult. Imagine how many times greater that terror and humiliation would be if you were a small child.
Ten years minimum for a first offense of significant violence or any sexual abuse, followed by lifetime supervised probation and life without parole on any second attempt. That's a lot kinder than my primary inclination, but it's the bare minimum of justice for abused kids, not some softhearted and softheaded therapy and rehabilitation. You cannot rehabilitate evil, and any attempt only teaches the evil ones the means to better scam the system.
http://vachss.com/guest_dispatches/murphy.html
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
Friday, February 12, 2010
Lawmaker Orders In-Depth DCS Study
Video
•Lawmaker Wants Investigation Into DCS
Lawmaker Orders In-Depth DCS Study
Rep. Sherry Jones Not Confident Department Puts Kids First
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 7:36 pm CST February 11, 2010
PrintNASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Department of Children's Services insiders and a juvenile court judge have shared their concerns that the department is more concerned with quotas and mandates than the safety of children.
Video: Lawmaker Wants Investigation Into DCS
A state lawmaker and longtime member of the Children and Family Affairs Committee said she found the Channel 4 I-Team's investigation disturbing and consistent with her own investigations.
Rep. Sherry Jones has spent 16 years in the Legislature with an overarching mission: keeping Tennessee kids safe. She said she isn't confident that DCS policies are putting kids first.
Jones was the force behind the law that made DCS legally bound to put children's welfare of above all else. So when she hears DCS caseworkers complain about being ordered to find family members to take kids and avoid state custody at almost any cost, she is not surprised.
"We have heard because of the Brian A settlement, that there has been the word sent down that no children are to come in custody," said Jones.
Brian A is the federal settlement that limits the number of foster kids in the state of Tennessee to 20 kids per case manager.
DCS commissioner Viola Miller said it isn't Brian A driving relative placement; it's that relative placement is the best answer.
The relative, however, isn't always fit and able.
Mitchell Stone is a mentally retarded man now charged with the murder of a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old. His attorney said Stone even asked DCS workers if they thought he could really take care of the girls.
Shortly after DCS gave the kids to Stone, he left the kids home alone. A fire started, the two girls died and their deaths were ruled murders.
Former Juvenile Judge April Meldrum of Anderson County and Juvenile Judge Tim Brock of Coffee County have both questioned why DCS didn't provide court-ordered family services -- services that are supposed to keep families together and safe.
DCS said it is providing the services.
"Well, court-ordered services, if we don't provide them, a judge can hold us in contempt and probably should," said Miller.
Jones has ordered an in-depth study to determine county by county which services are provided by DCS and which are denied. She also questions caseloads and wonders how to convince DCS to allow case workers the appropriate amount of time to close cases.
"The department's coming from a place where they have always tried to hide things from us," she said. "They're trying to open up now and share a little bit more, but we aren't there as much as we need to be."
The I-Team has received more than 50 different complaints about DCS since its series aired, many from current or former employees.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22536295/detail.html
•Lawmaker Wants Investigation Into DCS
Lawmaker Orders In-Depth DCS Study
Rep. Sherry Jones Not Confident Department Puts Kids First
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 7:36 pm CST February 11, 2010
PrintNASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Department of Children's Services insiders and a juvenile court judge have shared their concerns that the department is more concerned with quotas and mandates than the safety of children.
Video: Lawmaker Wants Investigation Into DCS
A state lawmaker and longtime member of the Children and Family Affairs Committee said she found the Channel 4 I-Team's investigation disturbing and consistent with her own investigations.
Rep. Sherry Jones has spent 16 years in the Legislature with an overarching mission: keeping Tennessee kids safe. She said she isn't confident that DCS policies are putting kids first.
Jones was the force behind the law that made DCS legally bound to put children's welfare of above all else. So when she hears DCS caseworkers complain about being ordered to find family members to take kids and avoid state custody at almost any cost, she is not surprised.
"We have heard because of the Brian A settlement, that there has been the word sent down that no children are to come in custody," said Jones.
Brian A is the federal settlement that limits the number of foster kids in the state of Tennessee to 20 kids per case manager.
DCS commissioner Viola Miller said it isn't Brian A driving relative placement; it's that relative placement is the best answer.
The relative, however, isn't always fit and able.
Mitchell Stone is a mentally retarded man now charged with the murder of a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old. His attorney said Stone even asked DCS workers if they thought he could really take care of the girls.
Shortly after DCS gave the kids to Stone, he left the kids home alone. A fire started, the two girls died and their deaths were ruled murders.
Former Juvenile Judge April Meldrum of Anderson County and Juvenile Judge Tim Brock of Coffee County have both questioned why DCS didn't provide court-ordered family services -- services that are supposed to keep families together and safe.
DCS said it is providing the services.
"Well, court-ordered services, if we don't provide them, a judge can hold us in contempt and probably should," said Miller.
Jones has ordered an in-depth study to determine county by county which services are provided by DCS and which are denied. She also questions caseloads and wonders how to convince DCS to allow case workers the appropriate amount of time to close cases.
"The department's coming from a place where they have always tried to hide things from us," she said. "They're trying to open up now and share a little bit more, but we aren't there as much as we need to be."
The I-Team has received more than 50 different complaints about DCS since its series aired, many from current or former employees.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22536295/detail.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Ex-Workers: Kids' Safety Not Focus Of DCS
Ex-Workers: Kids' Safety Not Focus Of DCS
Department Of Children's Safety Defends Policies
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 5:09 pm CST February 10, 2010
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- In the past year, at least eight children have died after the Department of Children's Services got involved in the cases.
Former DCS workers have come forward, claiming Tennessee's child welfare system is obsessed with quotas and mandates rather than the safety of children. But the head of DCS said children have never been safer.
Brian Bagby was a Department of Children's Services case manager in Coffee County. If there were an allegation of children at risk of harm -- physical abuse, drugs in the home, sex abuse, malnutrition, hygiene -- he would go in, assess and make recommendations.
Bagby said it's a job with priceless rewards.
"I do know that some children were severely neglected or abused, you see them a year later, and they are totally different," he said.
But Bagby quit DCS two months ago because he believes the department is more concerned with looking good than looking out for children.
"What about the kids, you know? We're not even focusing on the kids," said Bagby. "We're focusing on how to look good, how to make data look good."
Bagby isn't alone. Other case managers -- three former and current managers -- have talked to Channel 4 News about problems with DCS mandates.
Similar stories were heard from former juvenile court judge April Meldrum. Until recently, she heard hundreds of child welfare cases involving DCS, but the Anderson County judge resigned from the bench last month because she said DCS appeared unwilling to do what it takes to keep children safe.
"As you're faced with making a decision every day of deciding whether or not to remove a child from their parents, you would like to know that the agency to whom you're giving the child would do a better job," said Meldrum. "It's an untenable position to be in if you don't have that faith, and I no longer have that faith."
All DCS case workers are under federal order that each of them has no more than 20 children in state custody. That puts immense pressure on caseworkers to find a family member or a friend to take the kids.
Sometimes family members are not fit to take care of children.
"I have been told to place kids with people who are felons," said Bagby. "There has been several instances where children have been taken across state lines."
Channel 4 asked DCS Commissioner Viola Miller about these practices.
"You're going to have to give me specifics, and then I will be glad to look up those cases, because we are required, our folks are required to go to that home, walk through it, make sure there is plenty of food, no observable problems, and we run a criminal background check right then, at that moment, before we leave that child there," said Miller.
But the problem is secrecy. Even now, after quitting and going public, case manager Bagby is still limited and won't talk about specific cases.
DCS is a world full of secrets, even when children die.
Kayndace, 3, and Kelly, 1, were taken away from their mom, but they didn't go into state custody. They were taken to a relative: Kayndace's father, Mitchell Stone.
Stone was not related in any way to the 1-year-old. Nevertheless, he was given both children, even though Stone -- by his own family's admission and school records -- suffers from retardation.
"He's got a mind of a 2-year-old," said Stone's mother.
Mitchell Stone and his wife, Rose, left the children home alone in their McMinnville apartment. A fire started, and the children died.
Now the Stones are charged with murder. Their attorney said DCS is at least equally responsible.
"If someone would just come forward and say that, say, 'Maybe we screwed up with placing a child in this home,'" said the Stones' attorney, Larry Bryant.
At this point, DCS is not admitting involvement. But the department apparently was involved, because dozens of DCS documents were sealed by the courts in the case, and a DCS spokesman actually defended the caseworkers in news reports in July.
Former juvenile judge Meldrum said the problem is the state is too quick to find a relative and too loose in defining a relative.
"There have been many occasions where maybe the parents just know of someone that might be able to take their child, and because they're so concerned about the prospect of state custody, sometimes those children end up placed with strangers recommended by the very parents that lost custody in the first place," said Meldrum.
In August in Dyersburg, a man named Christopher Milburn lost custody of his 15-year-old daughter after she claimed abuse. The dad suggested she be placed with his friend on the same street.
Three days later, he went into his friend's house and killed his daughter, his friend and himself. Stevie Milburn, the soccer-loving teen who called on her own dad, died.
"Isn't that the saddest?" said Miller.
Why did DCS place a child with a non-relative three doors away from an abusive father?
"This was a good placement. This was a good choice," said Miller. "Nobody who knew this man could ever, ever imagine he would do this."
Bagby said terrible relative or friend placements make the news only when they end in death and that the majority of kids who move from bad parent to bad relative suffer in silence.
DCS said it remains committed to placing kids with people in their lives.
"The best practice is to find someone who already loves and cares about this child," said Miller. "Our option is stranger care. It's terribly traumatic to children. That's just the right thing to do."
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22513918/detail.html
Department Of Children's Safety Defends Policies
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 5:09 pm CST February 10, 2010
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- In the past year, at least eight children have died after the Department of Children's Services got involved in the cases.
Former DCS workers have come forward, claiming Tennessee's child welfare system is obsessed with quotas and mandates rather than the safety of children. But the head of DCS said children have never been safer.
Brian Bagby was a Department of Children's Services case manager in Coffee County. If there were an allegation of children at risk of harm -- physical abuse, drugs in the home, sex abuse, malnutrition, hygiene -- he would go in, assess and make recommendations.
Bagby said it's a job with priceless rewards.
"I do know that some children were severely neglected or abused, you see them a year later, and they are totally different," he said.
But Bagby quit DCS two months ago because he believes the department is more concerned with looking good than looking out for children.
"What about the kids, you know? We're not even focusing on the kids," said Bagby. "We're focusing on how to look good, how to make data look good."
Bagby isn't alone. Other case managers -- three former and current managers -- have talked to Channel 4 News about problems with DCS mandates.
Similar stories were heard from former juvenile court judge April Meldrum. Until recently, she heard hundreds of child welfare cases involving DCS, but the Anderson County judge resigned from the bench last month because she said DCS appeared unwilling to do what it takes to keep children safe.
"As you're faced with making a decision every day of deciding whether or not to remove a child from their parents, you would like to know that the agency to whom you're giving the child would do a better job," said Meldrum. "It's an untenable position to be in if you don't have that faith, and I no longer have that faith."
All DCS case workers are under federal order that each of them has no more than 20 children in state custody. That puts immense pressure on caseworkers to find a family member or a friend to take the kids.
Sometimes family members are not fit to take care of children.
"I have been told to place kids with people who are felons," said Bagby. "There has been several instances where children have been taken across state lines."
Channel 4 asked DCS Commissioner Viola Miller about these practices.
"You're going to have to give me specifics, and then I will be glad to look up those cases, because we are required, our folks are required to go to that home, walk through it, make sure there is plenty of food, no observable problems, and we run a criminal background check right then, at that moment, before we leave that child there," said Miller.
But the problem is secrecy. Even now, after quitting and going public, case manager Bagby is still limited and won't talk about specific cases.
DCS is a world full of secrets, even when children die.
Kayndace, 3, and Kelly, 1, were taken away from their mom, but they didn't go into state custody. They were taken to a relative: Kayndace's father, Mitchell Stone.
Stone was not related in any way to the 1-year-old. Nevertheless, he was given both children, even though Stone -- by his own family's admission and school records -- suffers from retardation.
"He's got a mind of a 2-year-old," said Stone's mother.
Mitchell Stone and his wife, Rose, left the children home alone in their McMinnville apartment. A fire started, and the children died.
Now the Stones are charged with murder. Their attorney said DCS is at least equally responsible.
"If someone would just come forward and say that, say, 'Maybe we screwed up with placing a child in this home,'" said the Stones' attorney, Larry Bryant.
At this point, DCS is not admitting involvement. But the department apparently was involved, because dozens of DCS documents were sealed by the courts in the case, and a DCS spokesman actually defended the caseworkers in news reports in July.
Former juvenile judge Meldrum said the problem is the state is too quick to find a relative and too loose in defining a relative.
"There have been many occasions where maybe the parents just know of someone that might be able to take their child, and because they're so concerned about the prospect of state custody, sometimes those children end up placed with strangers recommended by the very parents that lost custody in the first place," said Meldrum.
In August in Dyersburg, a man named Christopher Milburn lost custody of his 15-year-old daughter after she claimed abuse. The dad suggested she be placed with his friend on the same street.
Three days later, he went into his friend's house and killed his daughter, his friend and himself. Stevie Milburn, the soccer-loving teen who called on her own dad, died.
"Isn't that the saddest?" said Miller.
Why did DCS place a child with a non-relative three doors away from an abusive father?
"This was a good placement. This was a good choice," said Miller. "Nobody who knew this man could ever, ever imagine he would do this."
Bagby said terrible relative or friend placements make the news only when they end in death and that the majority of kids who move from bad parent to bad relative suffer in silence.
DCS said it remains committed to placing kids with people in their lives.
"The best practice is to find someone who already loves and cares about this child," said Miller. "Our option is stranger care. It's terribly traumatic to children. That's just the right thing to do."
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22513918/detail.html
Current, Former DCS Workers Say Kids At Risk Judge Quits Over Lack Of Faith In Department Of Children's Services
Homepage / Nashville News February 11, 2010
Current, Former DCS Workers Say Kids At Risk
Judge Quits Over Lack Of Faith In Department Of Children's Services
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 8:08 pm CST February 10, 2010
Tenn. -- More than a dozen current and former Department of Children's Services workers say children are at risk from the agency's focus on mandates and quotas.
April Meldrum is the new associate dean at the Duncan Law School in Knoxville. But just one month ago, she was a juvenile judge in Anderson County -- a judge who dealt every day with broken families, struggling families, foster families and the DCS.
Meldrum quit that judgeship because she said DCS would not help families.
"As you're faced with making a decision every day of deciding whether or not to remove a child from their parents, you would like to know that the agency to whom you're giving the child would do a better job than the parents from which you just removed the child," said Meldrum. "It's untenable to be in if you don't have that faith, and I no longer have that faith."
Meldrum said she constantly had to battle DCS to provide its basic services like drug and alcohol counseling, anger management and just helping with paying a utility bill for a month.
"It happens routinely that services are ordered, and they not provided. Time and time again the department would return without meeting their obligation," said Meldrum.
DCS Commissioner Viola Miller said those statements are not true, and DCS provides services that are court-ordered in a timely and even urgent manner.
"Do you know that almost nothing that says to me makes me angrier than that? Because I love our kids, and I love her families," said Miller.
In October, Coffee County Juvenile Court Judge Tim Brock was so mad at DCS that he ordered every DCS caseworker and manager in the county to appear before him and bring all their cases and explain why kids weren't being seen sometimes for months and why services he ordered weren't being provided.
This was all done in the secrecy of juvenile court, but it isn't a secret anymore because of Brian Bagby, who resigned from his position as a Coffee County DCS investigator. He felt DCS was concerned with numbers, not kids.
"I just felt like it wasn't worth the job anymore," said Bagby. "I just felt I wasn't doing anything for families. I kind of felt like I was actually harming families more than doing anything good for them."
Bagby isn't alone: Three former and current DCS workers have also made similar complaints to Channel 4, but chose not to appear on camera.
When case managers investigate complaints that children are being harmed in a home, a case is officially opened. As long as a case manager has any contact with the family, the case remains open.
Case managers said cases often stay open for long periods of time because there are so many questions to ask, and they are getting pressure to hurry up and close the case as soon as possible.
"The department really wants you to get it closed within 30 days," said Bagby. "They really don't care what's going on, as long as the media isn't involved or a child doesn't die, they want you to close it."
Miller said there is pressure to close cases, not because it's costing DCS money but because kids are in imminent danger and deserve fast action.
"This is about kids' safety. We can't leave them hanging out there," said Miller.
But Bagby argued if there are 50 cases, that could be 150 kids. With interviews, court, counseling, psychological evaluations, Bagby said it ends up with a shoddy investigation.
"It just got to the point if you go to the house and nobody was on fire, nobody was bleeding and no broken arm, you (were told) just to talk to the family and kids for 10 to 15 minutes, get in the car and go to the next case," said Bagby.
Miller said DCS believes a case worker should be able to handle a constant load of 30 cases, and it's a well-documented standard that DCS is maintaining.
"We don't have a bunch of caseworkers with over 30 cases, and we'll be glad to show you that we have the data on that," said Miller.
But internal caseload summaries provided to Channel 4 by DCS insiders show some issues. In September 2009, for example, there were 75 case managers with more than 30 cases. This represents hundreds of Tennessee kids over the limit.
What Bagby and Meldrum are saying is even these case load numbers don't tell the story because it doesn't count the many cases being closed to quickly.
Bagby admits he was reprimanded by his bosses by DCS management. But he maintains that his supervisors at DCS required him to do things he thought were unsafe and eventually quit his job.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22524714/detail.html
Current, Former DCS Workers Say Kids At Risk
Judge Quits Over Lack Of Faith In Department Of Children's Services
Reported By Dennis Ferrier
UPDATED: 8:08 pm CST February 10, 2010
Tenn. -- More than a dozen current and former Department of Children's Services workers say children are at risk from the agency's focus on mandates and quotas.
April Meldrum is the new associate dean at the Duncan Law School in Knoxville. But just one month ago, she was a juvenile judge in Anderson County -- a judge who dealt every day with broken families, struggling families, foster families and the DCS.
Meldrum quit that judgeship because she said DCS would not help families.
"As you're faced with making a decision every day of deciding whether or not to remove a child from their parents, you would like to know that the agency to whom you're giving the child would do a better job than the parents from which you just removed the child," said Meldrum. "It's untenable to be in if you don't have that faith, and I no longer have that faith."
Meldrum said she constantly had to battle DCS to provide its basic services like drug and alcohol counseling, anger management and just helping with paying a utility bill for a month.
"It happens routinely that services are ordered, and they not provided. Time and time again the department would return without meeting their obligation," said Meldrum.
DCS Commissioner Viola Miller said those statements are not true, and DCS provides services that are court-ordered in a timely and even urgent manner.
"Do you know that almost nothing that says to me makes me angrier than that? Because I love our kids, and I love her families," said Miller.
In October, Coffee County Juvenile Court Judge Tim Brock was so mad at DCS that he ordered every DCS caseworker and manager in the county to appear before him and bring all their cases and explain why kids weren't being seen sometimes for months and why services he ordered weren't being provided.
This was all done in the secrecy of juvenile court, but it isn't a secret anymore because of Brian Bagby, who resigned from his position as a Coffee County DCS investigator. He felt DCS was concerned with numbers, not kids.
"I just felt like it wasn't worth the job anymore," said Bagby. "I just felt I wasn't doing anything for families. I kind of felt like I was actually harming families more than doing anything good for them."
Bagby isn't alone: Three former and current DCS workers have also made similar complaints to Channel 4, but chose not to appear on camera.
When case managers investigate complaints that children are being harmed in a home, a case is officially opened. As long as a case manager has any contact with the family, the case remains open.
Case managers said cases often stay open for long periods of time because there are so many questions to ask, and they are getting pressure to hurry up and close the case as soon as possible.
"The department really wants you to get it closed within 30 days," said Bagby. "They really don't care what's going on, as long as the media isn't involved or a child doesn't die, they want you to close it."
Miller said there is pressure to close cases, not because it's costing DCS money but because kids are in imminent danger and deserve fast action.
"This is about kids' safety. We can't leave them hanging out there," said Miller.
But Bagby argued if there are 50 cases, that could be 150 kids. With interviews, court, counseling, psychological evaluations, Bagby said it ends up with a shoddy investigation.
"It just got to the point if you go to the house and nobody was on fire, nobody was bleeding and no broken arm, you (were told) just to talk to the family and kids for 10 to 15 minutes, get in the car and go to the next case," said Bagby.
Miller said DCS believes a case worker should be able to handle a constant load of 30 cases, and it's a well-documented standard that DCS is maintaining.
"We don't have a bunch of caseworkers with over 30 cases, and we'll be glad to show you that we have the data on that," said Miller.
But internal caseload summaries provided to Channel 4 by DCS insiders show some issues. In September 2009, for example, there were 75 case managers with more than 30 cases. This represents hundreds of Tennessee kids over the limit.
What Bagby and Meldrum are saying is even these case load numbers don't tell the story because it doesn't count the many cases being closed to quickly.
Bagby admits he was reprimanded by his bosses by DCS management. But he maintains that his supervisors at DCS required him to do things he thought were unsafe and eventually quit his job.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/22524714/detail.html
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/the-child-status-protection-act-136407.php
The Child Status Protection Act
Although President Bush signed into law the Child Status Protection Act ("CSPA") in 2002, many questions remain unanswered as to who will actually benefit from the law ...
February 10, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The Child Status Protection Act
Although President Bush signed into law the Child Status Protection Act ("CSPA") in 2002, many questions remain unanswered as to who will actually benefit from the law and what actions green card applicants must undertake to ensure that benefits are not lost. In an effort to answer some of these questions, the INS Office of the Commissioner issued a memorandum providing some initial guidance to regional INS offices in the adjudication of benefits under CSPA.
The CSPA was designed primarily to prevent the problem of "age-out," where alien children have been denied benefits through direct and derivative immigrant visa petitions because they reached the age of 21 while their application was pending. Since the Immigration and Nationality Act defines "Child" as an unmarried son or daughter under the age of 21, such alien beneficiaries would lose entitlement to green cards in many cases due to INS and State Department processing delays, even though they may have submitted timely applications for benefits.
The problems inherent in the "age-out" rule resulted in immigration attorneys having to file lawsuits in the US District Court to compel speedy INS action on such cases, and persistent telephone prodding at the Embassies around the world to ensure that aging out alien beneficiaries would be issued visas in time to arrive in the United States prior to their 21st birthdays. The CSPA will largely do away with the need for attorneys to file expensive lawsuits, stay up all night on the telephone or perform any other such miracle work.
The CSPA changes the definition of "Immediate Relative," as it pertains to children of United States citizens, to mean an unmarried son or daughter of a United States Citizen, under the age of 21 at the time the I-130 immigrant visa petition was filed. Additionally, if a green card holding parent filed an I-130 for an unmarried son and became a Naturalized United States citizen before the child reached the age of 21, the child remains eligible for permanent resident status even if the child is admitted as a permanent resident after the age of 21.
For most other family preference petitions filed on behalf of alien relatives and their children, the INS will look to the date on which the petition's priority date becomes available to "lock in" the child's age for the purposes of obtaining permanent resident status. The child's "age" is determined by subtracting the time the Petition was pending from the child's age on the date the priority date becomes available.
Therefore, if a green card holding parent filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of a 18 year old child in 1998, and the priority date becomes available and the INS approves the petition in 2002, the child's age for the purposes of adjustment of status is still 18: Even though he was 22 years old when the INS approved the petition and the priority date became current, the Petition had been pending for four years. In these circumstances, the beneficiary must file for his green card within one year of the date on which the visa becomes available, or he will lose benefits under the CSPA.
The CSPA also solves the problem many Filipinos confront when a green card holding Petitioner desires to file for naturalization, but has "second preference" petitions pending for single sons or daughters over the age of twenty one. For the Philippines, the wait for "First Preference" single sons and daughters of United States citizens over the age of twenty-one, is several years longer than under the second preference.
Many Beneficiaries of visa petitions have suffered extended delays over the past ten years when their green card holding parent naturalized, sometimes following the misguided advice of friends or "consultants" believing that the Petitioner's naturalization would hasten the process. Other Petitioners who understood the problem were prevented from filing for naturalization for fear that their sons and daughters would be forced to wait many more years before they could immigrate. Under the CSPA, any beneficiary whose Petition would have changed categories from second to first preference because of the Petitioner's naturalization may choose to maintain the second preference category for the petition, to avoid the unfair result outlined above.
The CSPA is a highly technical law that will undoubtedly give rise to differing interpretations between immigration attorneys and even the State Department and INS. Pending new regulations to implement the law, INS and State Department memoranda will fill in any interpretive gaps for the time being. Any Petitioner or beneficiary who believes he or his family may be affected by these important changes should bring his questions to a qualified immigration attorney who can clearly explain his rights under the CSPA.
Article provided by Hanlon Law Group, P.C.
Visit us at www.visaandgreencard.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com
# # #
Although President Bush signed into law the Child Status Protection Act ("CSPA") in 2002, many questions remain unanswered as to who will actually benefit from the law ...
February 10, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The Child Status Protection Act
Although President Bush signed into law the Child Status Protection Act ("CSPA") in 2002, many questions remain unanswered as to who will actually benefit from the law and what actions green card applicants must undertake to ensure that benefits are not lost. In an effort to answer some of these questions, the INS Office of the Commissioner issued a memorandum providing some initial guidance to regional INS offices in the adjudication of benefits under CSPA.
The CSPA was designed primarily to prevent the problem of "age-out," where alien children have been denied benefits through direct and derivative immigrant visa petitions because they reached the age of 21 while their application was pending. Since the Immigration and Nationality Act defines "Child" as an unmarried son or daughter under the age of 21, such alien beneficiaries would lose entitlement to green cards in many cases due to INS and State Department processing delays, even though they may have submitted timely applications for benefits.
The problems inherent in the "age-out" rule resulted in immigration attorneys having to file lawsuits in the US District Court to compel speedy INS action on such cases, and persistent telephone prodding at the Embassies around the world to ensure that aging out alien beneficiaries would be issued visas in time to arrive in the United States prior to their 21st birthdays. The CSPA will largely do away with the need for attorneys to file expensive lawsuits, stay up all night on the telephone or perform any other such miracle work.
The CSPA changes the definition of "Immediate Relative," as it pertains to children of United States citizens, to mean an unmarried son or daughter of a United States Citizen, under the age of 21 at the time the I-130 immigrant visa petition was filed. Additionally, if a green card holding parent filed an I-130 for an unmarried son and became a Naturalized United States citizen before the child reached the age of 21, the child remains eligible for permanent resident status even if the child is admitted as a permanent resident after the age of 21.
For most other family preference petitions filed on behalf of alien relatives and their children, the INS will look to the date on which the petition's priority date becomes available to "lock in" the child's age for the purposes of obtaining permanent resident status. The child's "age" is determined by subtracting the time the Petition was pending from the child's age on the date the priority date becomes available.
Therefore, if a green card holding parent filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of a 18 year old child in 1998, and the priority date becomes available and the INS approves the petition in 2002, the child's age for the purposes of adjustment of status is still 18: Even though he was 22 years old when the INS approved the petition and the priority date became current, the Petition had been pending for four years. In these circumstances, the beneficiary must file for his green card within one year of the date on which the visa becomes available, or he will lose benefits under the CSPA.
The CSPA also solves the problem many Filipinos confront when a green card holding Petitioner desires to file for naturalization, but has "second preference" petitions pending for single sons or daughters over the age of twenty one. For the Philippines, the wait for "First Preference" single sons and daughters of United States citizens over the age of twenty-one, is several years longer than under the second preference.
Many Beneficiaries of visa petitions have suffered extended delays over the past ten years when their green card holding parent naturalized, sometimes following the misguided advice of friends or "consultants" believing that the Petitioner's naturalization would hasten the process. Other Petitioners who understood the problem were prevented from filing for naturalization for fear that their sons and daughters would be forced to wait many more years before they could immigrate. Under the CSPA, any beneficiary whose Petition would have changed categories from second to first preference because of the Petitioner's naturalization may choose to maintain the second preference category for the petition, to avoid the unfair result outlined above.
The CSPA is a highly technical law that will undoubtedly give rise to differing interpretations between immigration attorneys and even the State Department and INS. Pending new regulations to implement the law, INS and State Department memoranda will fill in any interpretive gaps for the time being. Any Petitioner or beneficiary who believes he or his family may be affected by these important changes should bring his questions to a qualified immigration attorney who can clearly explain his rights under the CSPA.
Article provided by Hanlon Law Group, P.C.
Visit us at www.visaandgreencard.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com
# # #
Open Message to Our Federal Government Pertaining to the Federal Funding Paid to DCYF/CPS to Steal Our Children
The families in New Hampshire are requesting an audit of DHHS/DCYF in New Hampshire, but maybe it's time a Federal Audit took place also. Not just in NH, but nationwide.
It's quite obvious our federal government is unaware just why there are so many children in foster care. A full investigation into DCYF/CPS practices is long overdue. Children are being stolen from their innocent families for federal funding. DCYF/CPS has to be forging paperwork submitted to the government. Children are not supposed to be removed until services are given. This doesn't happen. Children are supposed to be placed with family member's before foster care. This doesn't happen either. If it did, DCYF would lose money. DCYF tell's the court there were no relatives willing to take the child, even when relatives plead to raise the child.DCYF is mandated to activly seek relatives, but they don't. When relatives call DCYF and ask for placement, they're told,"Relative placement is NOT an option. The child is being placed in foster care, period."
Every child stolen by DCYF, is supposedly in imminent danger. What is considered imminent danger? How many children has DCYF stolen for anticipated "Neglect in the Future"? How many psychic's is DCYF allowed to hire in order to make such an assumption? Do you even have any idea of the fraud and deceitful practices being used in order to obtain Federal funding? Are you even aware the courts are helping DCYF with the deceit. What is this, one huge payoff for the state?
Are you aware that every parent who goes for a Parental Rights Termination trial in NH loses? Are you aware no matter how much proof of innocence there is, the termination is planned months in advance, even when the parent has jumped through all hoops plus more? The parent is told well in advance their rights ARE being terminated. No if's and's or but's about it.
Are you also aware TPR's in NH are NEVER reversed by the Supreme Court? Are you also aware the NH probate Courts terminate the rights of fictitious men? Men that mother's never claimed to be the childs father? Could the reason be that it's easier to terminate a mother's rights if the real father doesn't know what's going on? And when he does, he's denied paternity testing and custody of his child just so DCYF can make more money off the illegally adopted child? Compliments of our own Federal Government.Then the Judge lies and states he never got an affidavit from the mother stating the fathers name, yet a copy of the affidavit was in an objection filed by the Attorney Generals office months earler? Then another fictitious mans rights are terminated, even though DCYF has all information, but terminates a man's rights with the same name, but eleven years younger. When their told of their screw up, the caseworker states, oh well, no big deal. It doesn't matter." It most certainly does matter. The children were ILLEGALLY adopted!
Why is DCYF/CPS receiving federal money for families torn apart? Why are they being paid for destroying families? Our federal government should only be giving federal funding for each family kept together. Not for each family torn apart.
It's quite obvious our federal government is unaware just why there are so many children in foster care. A full investigation into DCYF/CPS practices is long overdue. Children are being stolen from their innocent families for federal funding. DCYF/CPS has to be forging paperwork submitted to the government. Children are not supposed to be removed until services are given. This doesn't happen. Children are supposed to be placed with family member's before foster care. This doesn't happen either. If it did, DCYF would lose money. DCYF tell's the court there were no relatives willing to take the child, even when relatives plead to raise the child.DCYF is mandated to activly seek relatives, but they don't. When relatives call DCYF and ask for placement, they're told,"Relative placement is NOT an option. The child is being placed in foster care, period."
Every child stolen by DCYF, is supposedly in imminent danger. What is considered imminent danger? How many children has DCYF stolen for anticipated "Neglect in the Future"? How many psychic's is DCYF allowed to hire in order to make such an assumption? Do you even have any idea of the fraud and deceitful practices being used in order to obtain Federal funding? Are you even aware the courts are helping DCYF with the deceit. What is this, one huge payoff for the state?
Are you aware that every parent who goes for a Parental Rights Termination trial in NH loses? Are you aware no matter how much proof of innocence there is, the termination is planned months in advance, even when the parent has jumped through all hoops plus more? The parent is told well in advance their rights ARE being terminated. No if's and's or but's about it.
Are you also aware TPR's in NH are NEVER reversed by the Supreme Court? Are you also aware the NH probate Courts terminate the rights of fictitious men? Men that mother's never claimed to be the childs father? Could the reason be that it's easier to terminate a mother's rights if the real father doesn't know what's going on? And when he does, he's denied paternity testing and custody of his child just so DCYF can make more money off the illegally adopted child? Compliments of our own Federal Government.Then the Judge lies and states he never got an affidavit from the mother stating the fathers name, yet a copy of the affidavit was in an objection filed by the Attorney Generals office months earler? Then another fictitious mans rights are terminated, even though DCYF has all information, but terminates a man's rights with the same name, but eleven years younger. When their told of their screw up, the caseworker states, oh well, no big deal. It doesn't matter." It most certainly does matter. The children were ILLEGALLY adopted!
Why is DCYF/CPS receiving federal money for families torn apart? Why are they being paid for destroying families? Our federal government should only be giving federal funding for each family kept together. Not for each family torn apart.
A CPS Nightmare
A CPS Nightmare
February 11th, 2010 — 12:23 pm — by Matt Brown The prosecutor scratched the charges because my client was not guilty of the crime. This wasn’t one of those maybe-she-did-it-but-we-can’t-prove-it cases. The sum of information available about what happened should have made it obvious to anyone with half a brain that my client did nothing wrong. She did not assault her daughter.
My client’s innocence notwithstanding, some of the folks over at Arizona Child Protective Services, either lacking half a brain or bored with nothing to do, decided to meddle. “We just want to get your client’s side of things,” they said. I found out about the meeting exactly one business day before it was set to happen.
I don’t represent people in dependencies. I attended the meeting with CPS because I never trust the government to respect my clients’ rights. The handful of lawyers I asked about CPS matters said it was unusual for attorneys to go to those meetings, but my innocent client in a den of wolves less than a day after her criminal case went away seemed like a recipe for a set-up. I wanted to be there to make sure they didn’t put words in her mouth that might resurrect the criminal case.
The meeting was conducted by a woman who proclaimed herself the “facilitator.” She used the term “facilitator” with the kind of frequency I commonly encounter when a person using a word doesn’t quite know what it means and thinks repeating it will make him or her appear smart. She also said things like “matter-of-factly” and “irregardlessly.”
My client, my client’s mother, the assigned CPS caseworker, and I were all in attendance. We each filled out little name cards. The back of the cards featured a list of ground rules. The last one was “no blaming or shaming.” The hearing had very specific rules and a set order. Every document, every meeting, every location, and every concept seemed to have an acronym. This was a TDM where a TCN might issue, attended by the CFT at CPS.
The facilitator, who at times did a fair job of pretending to be impartial, generally undertook the role of grand inquisitress with zeal that would make Mike Nifong blush. When she first started attacking my client, no one seemed to notice my comment that it sounded an awful lot to me like some prohibited “blaming or shaming” was taking place. I don’t think the facilitator thought the back of the name cards applied to her.
My client, a wonderful person I believe to be an excellent mother, explained all she had done for her daughter. She had a steady job, a safe home, and clearly cared about both of her children. I was impressed when she explained the lengths she went to in order to get services for that daughter. Her description of the bureaucratic runaround she got dealing with insurance was met with disbelief by the facilitator and the case worker though. They couldn’t imagine anyone would have trouble dealing with the health care system. When I told them I’ve struggled assisting clients to get similar services set up, it was obvious they thought I was lying. Not their flawless, well-oiled machine!
The facilitator clearly didn’t listen to anything my client said. My client said she’d do anything for her kids, and the facilitator responded with “so you’re unwilling and unable to care for them?” “No,” my client said, “I will do anything.” The caseworker and facilitator stared at my client like she just said “take my kids, I don’t care and won’t do anything to help them.” It was like watching two different conversations.
When it suited the facilitator’s preconceptions, she mixed up the facts. She exaggerated the length of CPS’s involvement, the amount of time it took my client to get services for her daughter, the number of days of notice they’d given, and the severity of the alleged conduct underlying the scratched criminal charges. She was wholly incapable of wrapping her head around the fact my client did not assault her daughter. The caseworker claimed she saw choke marks on my client’s daughter, which the facilitator agreed proved my client assaulted her. I found that very strange considering that the alleged assault was supposedly just three punches.
The facilitator kept telling me, “we have a lower standard here.” Neither she nor the caseworker read the police reports. They didn’t interview the other adult who witnessed what happened. They didn’t talk to the prosecutor. They thought lower standard meant no standard. They assumed my client was guilty and that the charges were dropped for some reason having nothing to do with innocence. They wouldn’t listen to anything to the contrary.
When my client admitted she was open to getting help dealing with her daughter’s issues, the facilitator said CPS couldn’t do anything she couldn’t do herself. I asked the facilitator why CPS would need to take the kids if my client could do everything they could, and I got the kind of reaction I used to get when I said a familiar word more than once to my dog; a look hinting at partial understanding, head cocked to one side.
I’ve never been in a room with people who resented me more. Over and over again, they said the same thing: “maybe we could have done X, but you said you had a lawyer.” It was always followed by a spiteful glance. The caseworker claimed she didn’t interview the person who witnessed what happened between my client and her daughter because my client hired a lawyer. To be clear, my client and the witness are two different people. I guess hiring a lawyer stops CPS from figuring out what happened.
After what I can honestly say was the most farcical proceeding I’ve ever witnessed, the facilitator and caseworker decided to take both of my client’s children away. In a meeting they said lawyers never attended (and which most lawyers told me they never attended), CPS decided to take not just the child involved in the criminal case, but the child who had nothing to do with anything. It was based almost entirely on an incident that occurred in front of an independent witness CPS didn’t interview and that was described in a police report CPS didn’t read. I explained the facts and made arguments, but they just didn’t care.
I occasionally appear in front of some bad judges in criminal matters, but I’ve never encountered anything like that. In what might be the most frustrating decision of all, they decided they couldn’t place the children with the other adult who witnessed what happened because “she failed to protect the child” during the alleged abuse. That’s the same alleged abuse that by all accounts but one never happened, and which CPS never properly researched
As my client cried her eyes out, the facilitator handed her a pamphlet entitled “Icebreakers” to help her prepare for when she next gets to see her children. The facilitator described CPS’s programs to my client as if she expected my client to give her a hug and thank her. The facilitator and caseworker then decided that my client’s visitation should be at the discretion of CPS; no set hours, just left to the discretion of some bureaucrats. I was disgusted.
My client is now in the hands of a very capable lawyer who does dependencies. Personally, I’m still in shock. I can’t believe what I saw. I can’t believe CPS can take kids based on nothing, can’t believe the facilitator and the caseworker could do something like that to a family, and can’t believe that any human being could be so willing to make a life-changing decision so callously. It’s the kind of thing I’m going to have nightmares about for years to come.
http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2010/02/11/a-cps-nightmare/
February 11th, 2010 — 12:23 pm — by Matt Brown The prosecutor scratched the charges because my client was not guilty of the crime. This wasn’t one of those maybe-she-did-it-but-we-can’t-prove-it cases. The sum of information available about what happened should have made it obvious to anyone with half a brain that my client did nothing wrong. She did not assault her daughter.
My client’s innocence notwithstanding, some of the folks over at Arizona Child Protective Services, either lacking half a brain or bored with nothing to do, decided to meddle. “We just want to get your client’s side of things,” they said. I found out about the meeting exactly one business day before it was set to happen.
I don’t represent people in dependencies. I attended the meeting with CPS because I never trust the government to respect my clients’ rights. The handful of lawyers I asked about CPS matters said it was unusual for attorneys to go to those meetings, but my innocent client in a den of wolves less than a day after her criminal case went away seemed like a recipe for a set-up. I wanted to be there to make sure they didn’t put words in her mouth that might resurrect the criminal case.
The meeting was conducted by a woman who proclaimed herself the “facilitator.” She used the term “facilitator” with the kind of frequency I commonly encounter when a person using a word doesn’t quite know what it means and thinks repeating it will make him or her appear smart. She also said things like “matter-of-factly” and “irregardlessly.”
My client, my client’s mother, the assigned CPS caseworker, and I were all in attendance. We each filled out little name cards. The back of the cards featured a list of ground rules. The last one was “no blaming or shaming.” The hearing had very specific rules and a set order. Every document, every meeting, every location, and every concept seemed to have an acronym. This was a TDM where a TCN might issue, attended by the CFT at CPS.
The facilitator, who at times did a fair job of pretending to be impartial, generally undertook the role of grand inquisitress with zeal that would make Mike Nifong blush. When she first started attacking my client, no one seemed to notice my comment that it sounded an awful lot to me like some prohibited “blaming or shaming” was taking place. I don’t think the facilitator thought the back of the name cards applied to her.
My client, a wonderful person I believe to be an excellent mother, explained all she had done for her daughter. She had a steady job, a safe home, and clearly cared about both of her children. I was impressed when she explained the lengths she went to in order to get services for that daughter. Her description of the bureaucratic runaround she got dealing with insurance was met with disbelief by the facilitator and the case worker though. They couldn’t imagine anyone would have trouble dealing with the health care system. When I told them I’ve struggled assisting clients to get similar services set up, it was obvious they thought I was lying. Not their flawless, well-oiled machine!
The facilitator clearly didn’t listen to anything my client said. My client said she’d do anything for her kids, and the facilitator responded with “so you’re unwilling and unable to care for them?” “No,” my client said, “I will do anything.” The caseworker and facilitator stared at my client like she just said “take my kids, I don’t care and won’t do anything to help them.” It was like watching two different conversations.
When it suited the facilitator’s preconceptions, she mixed up the facts. She exaggerated the length of CPS’s involvement, the amount of time it took my client to get services for her daughter, the number of days of notice they’d given, and the severity of the alleged conduct underlying the scratched criminal charges. She was wholly incapable of wrapping her head around the fact my client did not assault her daughter. The caseworker claimed she saw choke marks on my client’s daughter, which the facilitator agreed proved my client assaulted her. I found that very strange considering that the alleged assault was supposedly just three punches.
The facilitator kept telling me, “we have a lower standard here.” Neither she nor the caseworker read the police reports. They didn’t interview the other adult who witnessed what happened. They didn’t talk to the prosecutor. They thought lower standard meant no standard. They assumed my client was guilty and that the charges were dropped for some reason having nothing to do with innocence. They wouldn’t listen to anything to the contrary.
When my client admitted she was open to getting help dealing with her daughter’s issues, the facilitator said CPS couldn’t do anything she couldn’t do herself. I asked the facilitator why CPS would need to take the kids if my client could do everything they could, and I got the kind of reaction I used to get when I said a familiar word more than once to my dog; a look hinting at partial understanding, head cocked to one side.
I’ve never been in a room with people who resented me more. Over and over again, they said the same thing: “maybe we could have done X, but you said you had a lawyer.” It was always followed by a spiteful glance. The caseworker claimed she didn’t interview the person who witnessed what happened between my client and her daughter because my client hired a lawyer. To be clear, my client and the witness are two different people. I guess hiring a lawyer stops CPS from figuring out what happened.
After what I can honestly say was the most farcical proceeding I’ve ever witnessed, the facilitator and caseworker decided to take both of my client’s children away. In a meeting they said lawyers never attended (and which most lawyers told me they never attended), CPS decided to take not just the child involved in the criminal case, but the child who had nothing to do with anything. It was based almost entirely on an incident that occurred in front of an independent witness CPS didn’t interview and that was described in a police report CPS didn’t read. I explained the facts and made arguments, but they just didn’t care.
I occasionally appear in front of some bad judges in criminal matters, but I’ve never encountered anything like that. In what might be the most frustrating decision of all, they decided they couldn’t place the children with the other adult who witnessed what happened because “she failed to protect the child” during the alleged abuse. That’s the same alleged abuse that by all accounts but one never happened, and which CPS never properly researched
As my client cried her eyes out, the facilitator handed her a pamphlet entitled “Icebreakers” to help her prepare for when she next gets to see her children. The facilitator described CPS’s programs to my client as if she expected my client to give her a hug and thank her. The facilitator and caseworker then decided that my client’s visitation should be at the discretion of CPS; no set hours, just left to the discretion of some bureaucrats. I was disgusted.
My client is now in the hands of a very capable lawyer who does dependencies. Personally, I’m still in shock. I can’t believe what I saw. I can’t believe CPS can take kids based on nothing, can’t believe the facilitator and the caseworker could do something like that to a family, and can’t believe that any human being could be so willing to make a life-changing decision so callously. It’s the kind of thing I’m going to have nightmares about for years to come.
http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2010/02/11/a-cps-nightmare/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)