November 9, 2009
Revenge of the Dirty Dozen: 12 Policies that Undermine Civil Society
by Katherine Bradley and Chuck Donovan
WebMemo #2690
Last April, The Heritage Foundation released a WebMemo titled "The Dirty Dozen: 12 New Policies That Undermine Civil Society."[1] Seven months later, many of these policies being advocated by Congress and the President have moved closer to becoming law.
In addition, several new issues have emerged that deserve illumination. Taken as a whole, these policies serve to undermine traditional families, devalue life and human dignity, and weaken civil society in American life.
National Policy
1.Massive Expansion of the Welfare State. Within his first two years in office, President Obama will have increased spending on means-tested programs for the poor by 30 percent, and over the next decade he will spend $10.3 trillion on welfare programs alone.[2] These are programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and Head Start that are targeted at low-income people. In addition to increased spending, the President and Congress are widening eligibility for the programs so that more people will qualify.
Government-sponsored welfare programs do little to actually help move families from a position of dependence to self-sufficiency. Of the 72 existing welfare programs, only one--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)--has been reformed to help move 2.6 million families off welfare and into real jobs. Congress should reform the other 71 programs along the lines of TANF and help people move toward self-sufficiency.
2.A Big Step toward National Same-Sex Marriage. The House of Representatives is on a trajectory to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA), just as it did in 2007. This legislation would disallow discrimination in hiring decisions based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."[3] ENDA would give special protected class status to sexual orientation and gender identity--just as is given to race, color, sex and religion.
Legislation like ENDA is a major precursor to legalizing same-sex marriage, as the history of the issue in several states shows. According to a recent Heritage Foundation paper, no state that has approved same-sex marriage has done so without first adopting ENDA-like legislation.[4] In Vermont, Massachusetts, and five other states, courts have used the non-discrimination law as part of their reasoning to strike down traditional marriage.[5]
3.Abstinence-Based Education at Risk. In the annual appropriations bill that funds health care and education, Congress has provided no funding for abstinence-based education and replaced it with a contraceptive-based sex education program. This was done at the President's request according to the FY 2010 budget he submitted to Congress.[6]
However, there is a glimmer of hope. The Senate health care bill was amended by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to restore $50 million in abstinence-based education funding. Reports show that abstinent teens are more likely to achieve academically, less likely to be depressed or suicidal, less likely to subsequently live in poverty, and less likely to bear children out of wedlock.[7] Further, a Zogby Poll found that 96 percent of parents said they want teenagers to be taught that abstinence is best.[8]
4.Expanding the Federal Government's Role in Education. A bill moving through the House of Representatives to reform America's higher education system includes the creation of a new $8 billion federal preschool program. The Early Learning Challenge Fund will provide funding for states to expand their government-subsidized preschool programs.
This is grossly unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars considering that more than 83 percent of all four-year-olds are currently enrolled in some form of early education or care program.[9] In addition, research and audit reports have found that two states that had instituted universal preschool (Oklahoma and Georgia) showed little to no improvement in test scores.[10]
5.Hate Crimes Expansion. The FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill recently signed into law by President Obama included language that expands the definition of a federal hate crime to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." It creates a new protected class of victims based on their sexual preferences. Among many concerns about this provision is that it could be used to prosecute religious groups or individuals based on their beliefs or speech.
Eroding Civil Society in the District of Columbia
6.Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Purposes. In 1998, voters in D.C. approved a ballot initiative that would allow for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then, Congress has annually blocked this initiative from taking effect.
While the Senate bill approved in committee maintains this ban, the House-passed appropriations bill would eliminate it and give D.C. the ability to legalize medical marijuana using taxpayer money.
7.Taxpayer-Funded Abortion. A measure known as the "Dornan Amendment" has long been included in the annual D.C. appropriations bill to ban taxpayer dollars (federal and local) from being used for abortion services. The House overturned this ban and would allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortions using "local" dollars, effectively creating public promotion of abortion in D.C. However, the Senate version approved in committee maintains the ban.
8.Needle Exchange for Drug Addicts. The House-passed appropriations bill ends the policy barring D.C. from public distribution of free needles and syringes to drug users. The Senate language adopted in committee continues the ban.
Federal taxpayer dollars would be better spent on programs that help move addicts away from addiction and toward recovery rather than sustaining serious drug addiction.
9.Ending Parental School Choice for Low-Income Children. Both the House and Senate versions of the funding bills include language that would phase out the first federally funded K-12 school scholarship initiative. Since 2004, this program has served some 3,700 low-income students in D.C. with scholarships worth $7,500 to attend the school of their parents' choosing. A recent evaluation has shown a statistically significant increase in reading scores for scholarship students compared to their public school peers.[11]
Health Care Reform in the Wrong Direction
10.Federal Funding for Abortions in the Health Care Overhaul. While the health reform bill approved by the House on November 7 would restrict the use of federal taxpayer dollars for abortions, the Senate committees have thus far rejected amendments to codify the longstanding policy that federal funds cannot be used to perform elective abortions or to subsidize plans that provide such abortions.
For example, about 8 million federal employees now receive their health care through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. There are over 250 different health insurance carriers in FEHB, all of whom are prohibited from paying for elective abortions in these plans because they receive subsidies from the government.
11.Limiting Parental Rights and Expanding Family Planning. Initially jettisoned from the 2009 stimulus package because of negative attention, this provision has resurfaced as part of the health care reform bills under consideration by Congress.
The policy would allow states under Medicaid to disregard the family income of an applicant for family planning services. A child would be eligible for services under this section regardless of the family's income level, without notification of the parents. Further, the proposal would remove from current law the ability of states to offer coverage that excludes family planning services.
12.New Government Parenting Program. Tucked away in the mammoth health care reform bills is a little-known provision creating a specific funding stream for a new voluntary home visitation program. The program would send federally funded workers to the homes of low-income adults who are expectant parents or parents of young children and "educate" them with parenting skills.[12]
The ever-expanding reach of the federal government goes too far when it attempts to enter the homes of vulnerable families and teach them how to parent.
Small Pieces, Big Impact
With a flurry of activity surrounding the agenda coming from the White House and Congress, it is easy to overlook the smaller pieces of legislation that would have a big impact on American families and society.
Taken as a whole, the people and communities these policies claim to assist would rely less on strong neighborhood, faith-based, and private networks for support and more on costly and highly regulated federal projects, weakening the same virtues of civil society they purport to nurture.
Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow and Charles A. Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Jennifer A. Marshall, Katherine Bradley, "The Dirty Dozen: 12 New Policies That Undermine Civil Society," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2389, April 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm2389.cfm.
[2]Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, "Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor," Heritage Foundation Special Report No. SR-67, September 16, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare
/sr0067.cfm.
[3]The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, H.R. 3017, at http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bd3Q9h:
@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html (November 9, 2009).
[4]Thomas M. Messner, "ENDA and the Path to Same-Sex Marriage," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.2317, September 18, 2009 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bg2317.cfm.
[5]Ibid.
[6]FY 2010 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, p. 490, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/appendix.pdf (November 6, 2009).
[7]Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, "Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic Achievement," Heritage Foundation paper presented at the Ninth Annual Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference, August 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/whitepaper10272005-1.cfm.
[8] Robert Rector, Melissa Pardue, and Shannan Martin, "What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?" Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1722, January 28, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/
Abstinence/bg1722.cfm.
[9]Kristin Denton Flanagan and Cameron McPhee, "The Children Born in 2001 at Kindergarten Entry: First Findings from the Kindergarten Data Collections of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B)," Institute of Education Sciences, October 2009, at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010005 (November 3, 2009).
[10]Ibid.
[11]U.S. Department of Education, "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts after Three Years," March 2009, at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094051.pdf (April 7, 2009).
[12]Lindsey Burke, "Stealth Agenda in Health Care Bill: Early Childhood Home Visitation," The Foundry, July 17, 2009, at http://blog.heritage.org
/2009/07/17/stealth-agenda-in-health-care-bill-early-childhood-home-visitation.
Error in custom ColdFusion module
(/customcf/20090416-Print-WebMemo.cfm)
Element RENDERFORPRINT is undefined in URL.
Sign Up For Our Mailing Lists
First Name Last Name Email
Recent Heritage Studies
Impact of Child Care Tax Credit Increase on Families and Economy by Curtis S. Dubay and Chuck Donovan
February 04, 2010
Marriage, Parentage, and the Constitution of the Family by Chuck Donovan
January 27, 2010
The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage by Robert Rector
January 20, 2010
Contact An Expert
MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:
Phone: 202.675.1761
Fax: 202.544.6979
Print Interview Requests:
Jim Weidman
Director, Editorial Services
202.608.6145
Jim.Weidman@heritage.org
Opinion Editorial Requests:
Paul Gallagher
Manager, Editorial Services
202.608.6151
Paul.Gallagher@heritage.org
Radio/TV Interview Requests:
Matt Streit
Director
202.608.6156
Matt.Streit@heritage.org
Elizabeth F. Lincicome
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6157
Elizabeth.Lincicome@heritage.org
Israel Ortega
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6176
Israel.Ortega@heritage.org
Audrey Jones
Media Associate
202.608.6159
Audrey.Jones@heritage.org
Asia-Pacific Media Requests:
Nick Zahn
Asia Communications Associate
202.608.6150
Nick.Zahn@heritage.org
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/wm2690.cfm#_ftn12
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
Advocacy group sues over psychiatric medication
Advocacy group sues over psychiatric medicationBy: The Associated Press | 11 Feb 2010
| 05:42 PM ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska - More than two dozen Alaska child psychiatrists, agencies and companies have been sued by a mental health advocacy group that contends doctors over-prescribed medication for children and committed Medicaid fraud.
The lawsuit was filed last spring in U.S. District Court in Alaska by the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights but only unsealed last month, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
The group, led by Anchorage attorney Jim Gottstein, alleges the defendants followed drug company marketing to the point where there was reckless disregard for the health of their child patients. It also contends drugs were especially over-prescribed to children from low-income families and that state officials were complacent in the matter.
The doctors prescribed common psychiatric drugs for untested purposes, thereby committing Medicaid fraud, according to the lawsuit.
Some of the defendants said Gottstein's advocacy group doesn't understand the science behind their actions.
"I'm disappointed that one side of the information is reflected," said Yvonne Chase, president and CEO of Denali Family Services, which serves the mentally ill poor and is among the defendants. "We are all interested in the safety of our clients."
Gottstein's group was selective in its use of data, and that just as much research, if not more, says the opposite, Chase said.
Gottstein said his group wants to stop over-dispensing of medicines that affect the brain.
"All they (the psychiatrists) do is prescribe drugs," Gottstein told the newspaper. "It used to be that they actually tried to work with the children and find out what's going on with their lives. Now they are just pill pushers."
Dr. Ronald Martino, a Fairbanks psychiatrist and neurologist who is among the defendants, called it "a pretty extreme complaint."
"It really reflects an extreme and distorted view of the world. It's 50 years behind the times when they try to paint psychiatry as a specialty that is coercive in some way or using dangerous medications irresponsibly," he said.
Greg Wilkinson, spokesman for the state Department of Health and Social Services, which oversees several of the state agencies being sued, declined to comment.
Gottstein's organization contends that nine out of 10 children who see a child psychiatrist receive medication while fewer than 10 percent of the medications are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for psychiatric use in that population.
The lawsuit alleges the doctors prescribe the common psychiatric drugs for untested purposes, thereby committing Medicaid fraud because Medicaid is only supposed to reimburse costs for the drugs' designated purposes.
However, doctors can prescribe drugs as they see fit, and many have turned to "off-label" drugs to treat serious mental conditions in children, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Martino said it's well within the standard of care to prescribe drugs for reasons other than the labeled purposes. For example, many seizure medicines are useful in psychiatric disorders, he said.
State Medicaid pharmacist Chad Hope said the state doesn't know why a doctor prescribes a medicine because the diagnosis information is not included in the claims. The state pays whether the drug is on or off label because it doesn't know, he said.
The lawsuit was filed under the federal False Claims Act, which authorizes private parties to bring fraud actions on behalf of the federal government and keep a percentage if they win. Such cases are often under seal for several months to give federal investigators time to see if the government wants to join the lawsuit.
Alaska U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said the government has declined to intervene in this case.
The suit seeks $5,500 for every false prescription written, a potentially huge sum.
Information from: Anchorage Daily News, http://www.adn.com
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35356131
| 05:42 PM ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska - More than two dozen Alaska child psychiatrists, agencies and companies have been sued by a mental health advocacy group that contends doctors over-prescribed medication for children and committed Medicaid fraud.
The lawsuit was filed last spring in U.S. District Court in Alaska by the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights but only unsealed last month, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
The group, led by Anchorage attorney Jim Gottstein, alleges the defendants followed drug company marketing to the point where there was reckless disregard for the health of their child patients. It also contends drugs were especially over-prescribed to children from low-income families and that state officials were complacent in the matter.
The doctors prescribed common psychiatric drugs for untested purposes, thereby committing Medicaid fraud, according to the lawsuit.
Some of the defendants said Gottstein's advocacy group doesn't understand the science behind their actions.
"I'm disappointed that one side of the information is reflected," said Yvonne Chase, president and CEO of Denali Family Services, which serves the mentally ill poor and is among the defendants. "We are all interested in the safety of our clients."
Gottstein's group was selective in its use of data, and that just as much research, if not more, says the opposite, Chase said.
Gottstein said his group wants to stop over-dispensing of medicines that affect the brain.
"All they (the psychiatrists) do is prescribe drugs," Gottstein told the newspaper. "It used to be that they actually tried to work with the children and find out what's going on with their lives. Now they are just pill pushers."
Dr. Ronald Martino, a Fairbanks psychiatrist and neurologist who is among the defendants, called it "a pretty extreme complaint."
"It really reflects an extreme and distorted view of the world. It's 50 years behind the times when they try to paint psychiatry as a specialty that is coercive in some way or using dangerous medications irresponsibly," he said.
Greg Wilkinson, spokesman for the state Department of Health and Social Services, which oversees several of the state agencies being sued, declined to comment.
Gottstein's organization contends that nine out of 10 children who see a child psychiatrist receive medication while fewer than 10 percent of the medications are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for psychiatric use in that population.
The lawsuit alleges the doctors prescribe the common psychiatric drugs for untested purposes, thereby committing Medicaid fraud because Medicaid is only supposed to reimburse costs for the drugs' designated purposes.
However, doctors can prescribe drugs as they see fit, and many have turned to "off-label" drugs to treat serious mental conditions in children, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Martino said it's well within the standard of care to prescribe drugs for reasons other than the labeled purposes. For example, many seizure medicines are useful in psychiatric disorders, he said.
State Medicaid pharmacist Chad Hope said the state doesn't know why a doctor prescribes a medicine because the diagnosis information is not included in the claims. The state pays whether the drug is on or off label because it doesn't know, he said.
The lawsuit was filed under the federal False Claims Act, which authorizes private parties to bring fraud actions on behalf of the federal government and keep a percentage if they win. Such cases are often under seal for several months to give federal investigators time to see if the government wants to join the lawsuit.
Alaska U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said the government has declined to intervene in this case.
The suit seeks $5,500 for every false prescription written, a potentially huge sum.
Information from: Anchorage Daily News, http://www.adn.com
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35356131
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform needs to wither and die
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
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
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
# # #
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)