Beach woman charged in death of 9-month-old foster son

Beach woman charged in death of 9-month-old foster son

Posted to: Crime News Virginia Beach

Kathleen Ganiere was charged after her 9-month-old foster son died after being found unresponsive in his crib.

Go to the Portsmouth crime database
By Cindy Clayton
Jen McCaffery
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 13, 2010
VIRGINIA BEACH

A woman has been charged with second-degree murder in the death of her 9-month-old foster son, who died Sunday after being found unresponsive in his crib, police said.

Paramedics were called to the Glenville Circle home of Kathleen S. Ganiere last Saturday, police wrote in a news release.

When they arrived, they found Braxton M. Taylor unresponsive in his crib.

The infant was taken to a hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters, where he died Sunday afternoon.

The medical examiner ruled that the baby died as a result of being shaken, police wrote.

Investigators arrested and charged Ganiere, 28, on Thursday, the news release said.

She is being held without bond.

"This is not a common occurrence," said Officer Margie Hobbs, a police spokeswoman.

Carissa Frasca Cuttrell, a city spokeswoman, would not comment on how long Ganiere had been a foster parent or whether she cared for other children.

"Anything related to this incident I'm not allowed to discuss because of state confidentiality laws," she said.

She said, however, that the city has a nine-week training program for foster parents, performs criminal background checks on them and provides a network of resources.

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2010/02/beach-woman-charged-death-9monthold-foster-son

Doctors may alter psychiatric diagnoses

The Seattle Times Company

Originally published Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Doctors may alter psychiatric diagnoses
The American Psychiatric Association is proposing major changes Wednesday to its diagnostic bible, the manual that doctors, insurers and scientists use in deciding what's officially a mental disorder and what symptoms to treat.

By LAURAN NEERGAARD

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Don't say "mental retardation" — the new term is "intellectual disability." No more diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome — call it a mild version of autism instead. And while "behavioral addictions" will be new to doctors' dictionaries, "Internet addiction" didn't make the cut.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is proposing major changes Wednesday to its diagnostic bible, the manual that doctors, insurers and scientists use in deciding what's officially a mental disorder and what symptoms to treat. In a new twist, it is seeking feedback via the Internet from both psychiatrists and the general public about whether the changes will be helpful before finalizing them.

The manual suggests some new diagnoses. So far, gambling is the lone identified behavioral addiction, but in the new category of learning disabilities are problems with both reading and math. Also new is binge eating, distinct from bulimia because the binge eaters don't purge.

Sure to generate debate, the draft also proposes diagnosing people as being at high risk of developing some serious mental disorders — such as dementia or schizophrenia — based on early symptoms, even though there's no way to know who will worsen into full-blown illness. It's a category the psychiatrist group's own leaders say must be used with caution because scientists don't yet have treatments to lower that risk but also don't want to miss people on the cusp of needing care.

Another change: The draft sets scales to estimate both adults and teens most at risk of suicide, stressing that suicide occurs with numerous mental illnesses, not just depression.

But overall the manual's biggest changes eliminate diagnoses that it contends are essentially subtypes of broader illnesses — and urge doctors to concentrate more on the severity of their patients' symptoms.

The psychiatric group expects that overarching change could actually lower the numbers of people thought to suffer from mental disorders.

"Is someone really a patient, or just meets some criteria like trouble sleeping?" said APA President Dr. Alan Schatzberg, a Stanford University psychiatry professor. "It's really important for us as a field to try not to overdiagnose."

The update of this manual called the DSM-5 — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition — is the first update since 1994, and brain research during that time period has soared.

That work is key to give scientists new insight into mental disorders with underlying causes that often are a mystery and that cannot be diagnosed with, say, a blood test or X-ray.

The draft manual, posted at www.DSM5.org, is up for public debate through April
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011027163_mental10.html

NH DHHS Frequently Asked Questions

NH DHHS website
Note from unhappygrammy-This page show's the way DCYF is supposed to practice, but they don't!

DCYF
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What services are available to families in need?
2. What are prevention services?
3. What is reimbursement and who must pay?
4. How is DCYF held accountable?
5. How do I object to a DCYF decision or file a complaint about DCYF?
6. What is the difference between the Staff Development and Training Bureau, the Staff Development Partnership and the Education and Training Partnership?
7. How does the DCYF define domestic violence?
8. What services can DCYF provide to victims of domestic violence who have been referred for child protective services?
9. How is a teen referred to the Adolescent Program for independent living services?
10. What life and skills training is available for foster parents and group home staff to help teens transition to adult life?


Questions & Answers:
1. What services are available to families in need?
DCYF staff refer some families to prevention services to prevent child abuse and neglect. Other familes may receive voluntary services, short-term child placement and referrals to the local Family Resource and Support agency. If the family becomes involved in the court system, DCYF staff may recommend a wide range of community-based services including child care, family counseling, home-based services, parent aid and transportation. The services are subject to reimbursement.

2. What are prevention services?
To keep children safe from harm, child abuse and neglect, prevention services are provided to families who may be concerned that they are at risk of having a child placed out of the home due to abuse or neglect. These services are provided through community based programs and include family support programs, mediation, adolescent pregnancy programs, early intervention education, after school programs, court diversion and mentoring. The services are subject to reimbursement.

3. What is reimbursement and who must pay?
Parents and others chargeable by law for a minor's support and necessities will usually be required to reimburse the government for all or part of the cost of services, programs and placements provided to the child and the family, based on the family's ability to pay.

4. How is DCYF held accountable?
DCYF operates within a system of checks and balances. Federal and State reviews, legislative committees, judges, reviews by the DHHS Office of the Commissioner, the DCYF Advisory Board, court appointed special advocates, the Family Empowerment Council, and agencies within communities are involved in on-going review of DCYF's performance.

5. How do I object to a DCYF decision or file a complaint about DCYF?Back to top
Report your concern to the Child Protective Service Worker or his or her Supervisor in a DHHS District Office. An additional contact is the Program Manager in each DHHS District Office. These staff review case records and can best research the facts. Request a meeting in which you can voice your specific concerns and work toward mediating an outcome. Your concern may also be referred to the DHHS Ombudsman's Office for review.

6. What is the difference between the Staff Development and Training Bureau, the Staff Development Partnership and the Education and Training Partnership?Back to top
The Staff Development and Training Bureau is a bureau within the Division for Children, Youth and Families responsible for DCYF training. The Bureau maintains two contracts with agencies to assist in providing these services:

The Northeastern Family Institute (NFI), Staff Development Partnership provides all internal training for DCYF staff of which select trainings are open to outside agency staff, service providers, residential care providers, foster and adoptive parents and other interested persons.
The College for Lifelong Learning (CLL) Education and Training Partnership provides foster parent training and caregiver on-going training.


7. How does the DCYF define domestic violence?Back to top
Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior used by one person to gain power and control over another person that may include physical violence, sexual, emotional or psychological intimidation, verbal abuse, stalking or economic control. Any family member that is referred for DCYF child protective services, regardless of age, can receive services.

8. What services can DCYF provide to victims of domestic violence who have been referred for child protective services?
A Child Protective Service Worker (CPSW) can refer a victim to a local crisis center or to a domestic violence advocate. Throughout this process the CPSW works to maintain the victim's safety. The advocate may provide many of the support services including safety planning, emotional support, and community referrals such as pro-bono legal assistance. All contacts between clients and advocates are confidential.

9. How is a teen referred to the Adolescent Program for independent living services?
A Child Protective Service Worker (CPSW) or a Juvenile Probation and Parole Officer (JPPO) must make the referral.

10. What life and skills training is available for foster parents and group home staff to help teens transition to adult life?Back to top
The "NH TRAILS" (Teen Responsibilities Around Independent Living Services) training is offered regularly in each region of NH by trainers from the NH University System's College for Lifelong Learning to residential staff, foster parents, mentors, employment advocates and other providers. The goal of the training is to teach providers to help youth learn the skills they need to succeed in adulthood and be able to reach their full potential.

http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/DCYF/FAQs/default.htm#4

Adoption Benefits Increased for Children Adopted in 2009

note grom unhappygrammy-This doesn't count how much money these people are paid monthly (until the child is eighteen or 21) plus all the benefits received, compliments of our government, for children adopted through DCYF/CPS. Huge money market for the State.

Adoption Benefits Increased

For 2009, the maximum adoption credit has increased to $12,150. Also, the maximum exclusion from income for benefits under your employer's adoption assistance program has increased to $12,150. These amounts are phased out if your modified AGI is between $182,180 and $222,180. You cannot claim the credit or exclusion if your modified AGI is $222,180 or more.


http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=177982,00.html






Page Last Reviewed or Updated: November 26, 2009

Beware Child Protective Services: What Victims, Advocates and Mandated Reporters Need to Know

Beware Child Protective Services:
What Victims, Advocates, and
Mandated Reporters Need to Know

Introduction
Part 1 - Key Facts About Child Protective Services
Part 2 - Tips for Avoiding the Abuses of Child Protective Services for non-offending parents, advocates, and mandated reporters
Links - About Child Protective Services
Note: Throughout this text the terms Child Protective Services (CPS) and Child Welfare Agencies are used interchangeably.


Introduction

Probably no other public agency leaves victims and advocates more perplexed than Child Protective Services. On the one hand, people think of CPS with appreciation as they envision a selfless agency rescuing innocent children from horrific conditions. Indeed, CPS workers across the country do this routinely. The gratitude is deserved.

At the same time, the agency seems to be perpetually marred by a steady drumbeat of nightmare stories about CPS emanating from the very families CPS is supposed to serve. This text deals with just one of these problems; the CPS practice of removing or threatening to remove children from the nonviolent, non-offending parent in cases of family violence. This guide explains why this happens with such frequency, how to help prevent it from happening in your case, and what to do about it if you're already caught in its grip. (Since the non-offending, nonviolent parent in these cases is usually the mother, we often refer to this parent as 'the mother', though there are certainly cases where the non-offending parent is the father.)

The Situation as it Usually Unfolds

In brief, the particular problem we cover usually unfolds like this. A mother herself seeks help from CPS or becomes involved with CPS through someone else's report of suspected child abuse. Her child has been physically or sexually abused by a family member, usually by a male family member, or there are concerns the child is living in a home where there is domestic violence. At first, the mother naturally anticipates that CPS will try to help her and her child, and try to punish and stop the perpetrator. So these mothers are stunned when suddenly the CPS/juvenile court system turns its sights on her, even though everyone agrees she didn't perpetrate the abuse or violence.

Suddenly she is the one under investigation, and the perpetrator is seeming to be all but ignored. And worse, CPS is threatening to take her child from her, or has already done so without warning or notice, and is threatening to keep the child, right at the time that mother and child need each other most. She feels the system turn hostile toward her. Did she, the non-offending parent, protect the child from the violent parent? Did she protect the child from molestation? Did she protect the child from being exposed to domestic violence in the home? Well, no, obviously she did not, or could not, or, in the case of molestation, often didn't know about it.

Instead of being treated more as a co-victim of a violent perpetrator, with help and guidance provided according to the mother's expressed needs, she is treated more as a co-perpetrator, with CPS establishing mandated controls over virtually any which aspect of her life CPS chooses, all under threat of losing her child. In addition to court dates at which it is her behavior that's in question, CPS gives her a mandated, often overwhelming set of programs and goals she must comply with to the satisfaction of the CPS/juvenile court system, in order to - maybe - get the child back - and maybe not. She is also held accountable for maintaining a cooperative attitude throughout, even though she is, in fact, in a profoundly adversarial relationship with CPS (which is why she's given an attorney at court time). At the same time, she begins to realize that the CPS/juvenile court system isn't pushing to hold the perpetrator accountable for his violence, nor is CPS even invested with the power to do so.

Most mothers say they would rather be threatened with jail than to be threatened with the loss of her child. Yet as invasive, terrifying, and awesome as this governmental threat is, virtually all the decisions as to her fitness, compliance, and fate are being decided at the lowest judicial standard of evidence, 51% of the evidence, the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard. This is a far cry from the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard the government must reach before sentencing someone to jail for even the briefest time.

The level of proof against her that CPS is required to put forth is so minimal that it provides the mother little protection against any abusive, prejudiced, or discriminatory exercise of power by CPS. The low evidence burden on CPS also makes it nearly impossible for the mother to defend herself, especially against such vague accusations as 'failure to protect', or that 'she knew or should have known', things which don't even constitute a crime in the criminal system. And to top off the injustices, an all too common requirement on her must-do list is that she and/or the child must partake in family conferencing or a family reunification plan in which one or both must meet, mediate, or co-counsel with the perpetrator - the very same perpetrator from whom the mother has been accused of 'failure to protect' the child.

The Dawn of Recognition

Unfortunately, such stories are not the result of occasional human errors that are bound to occur in any public agency. They are, instead, inevitable and frequent outcomes stemming from the flawed founding premises and the weak legal underpinnings of the CPS/juvenile court system. The structure of the system drives toward these injustices no matter how well intentioned individual CPS workers may be. Nor is this to say that children should never be removed from the non-offending parent. There are circumstances in which they should. The problem is that the system is so arbitrary, sexist, secret, and outdated, that it tends toward abusive or mistaken results.

In the last decade, there has been growing recognition and discussion of the CPS problem as it pertains to the non-offending parent. In 1999, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges put together the Greenbook Initiative, a set of 67 recommendations aimed at remedying precisely this set of problems. But though the Greenbook gives long overdue recognition to the issue, the recommendations don't call for installing any firm checks on the system, as will be discussed in more detail in a later section.

And in 2004, in New York state, there was a landmark settlement in a class action lawsuit against that state's child welfare agencies. The lawsuit, Nicholson v. Scoppetta, had been brought by mothers who had their children removed for no other reason than that the mothers, victims of domestic violence, had failed to protect their children from 'exposure' to the domestic violence. The 2004 lawsuit agreement and an earlier injunction prohibited child welfare agencies from using this reason alone to remove children from non-offending parents.

Though the lawsuit put CPS agencies around the country on notice of their wrongdoing and harm done in these cases, to date it has brought only modest change in practice. The vague laws and weak evidence standards governing CPS means that CPS workers need only adjust the language used in their justification for removing a child, offer the usual scant proof, and many juvenile courts continue removing children in these situations as before.

Perhaps the brightest spot on the horizon is the year 2005 resolution passed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in support of presumptively open hearings with discretion of courts to close. Since their founding, most CPS/juvenile court proceedings have been operating in secret, completely off the public record. This secrecy has mushroomed the system's tendency toward abuse. The judges' 2005 resolution in support of open hearings is not yet law, but it's a promising step. It's highly unlikely any of the system's abuses will be corrected until this essential public airing and public scrutiny of the system's proceedings is firmly set into law and practice.

The Oppressive Swath of Danger and Damage

The harm of the widespread CPS practice of removing or threatening to remove children from non-offending parents extends far beyond the dangers and injustices to individual mothers and children. The harm extends to nearly every poor, immigrant, or minority race mother who is trying to deal with family violence. Most have heard first hand stories of CPS removing children from other mothers in their neighborhoods. As a result, they become reluctant to seek help for their own situations for fear that the same thing might happen to them.

Though we include a fair amount of information about the structure and history of CPS, the purpose of this guide isn't to do policy analysis nor to make recommendations for change. The purpose of this guide is to give family violence victims, advocates, and mandated reporters information and tips that can help you, as best as possible, to understand and avoid the pitfalls and abuses of the CPS/Juvenile Court system as they pertain to the non-offending parent.

***
To read the entire article, please go to:
http://www.justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html

Revenge of the Dirty Dozen: 12 Policies that Undermine Civil Society

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

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