Baby died after agencies 'failed to see signs'
Manawatu Standard Last updated 12:00 13/02/2010 EYES: A rare photo of baby Cohen Parker appeared on his memorial service sheet.Relevant offers
Signals that baby Cohen Parker wasn't in an ideal foster home weren't picked up in the weeks before his death in Palmerston North last March.
His death was "a nightmare" for everyone involved in his short life, said coroner Tim Scott, delivering his decision yesterday after an inquest a week ago.
The 11-week-old boy, born five weeks premature, exposed to methadone during pregnancy and placed in state care after his birth, died from sudden infant death syndrome in his foster mother's bed.
Mr Scott said the deterioration of the foster mother's standards of housekeeping and breakdown of her marriage were clues she was under stress and perhaps not the best possible placement for Cohen.
"His mum and the rest of us were entitled to conclude that he would be kept safe.
"He was a child at risk and may well have succumbed to cot death in any event.
"But had any of the factors been recognised there is a real likelihood that he would not have suffered death at this time and would not have been in the care of [his foster mother]."
The names of his mother and foster mother have been permanently suppressed.
Mr Scott said it was regrettable the foster mother "deliberately withheld" information from foster care agency Open Home Foundation.
Her marriage was in trouble and she separated a month after Cohen was placed in her home.
It was highly unlikely an at-risk baby would have been placed in a family already under stress, he said.
Mr Scott was concerned that the foster mother had worked part-time despite the foundation's instructions that she should not do so.
He also found it "unusual" that she had approached a virtual stranger and suggested she could babysit although she hadn't been approved as a caregiver.
The fact that the foster mother's home had once been described as "clean and tidy" but had plunged into "a shambles" while Cohen was in her care should have alerted social workers that the woman was unable to manage.
On the morning of Cohen's death, the foster mother took him into her bed for comfort, and settled him in a way she believed dealt with the risks of roll-together or suffocation.
But she didn't clearly understand that bed-sharing was a risk factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Sids), the coroner said.
The Open Home Foundation has re-written its policy and manual to explain that risk in support of its rules that foster children should have their own beds at all times.
Ad Feedback Mr Scott extended sympathy to Child, Youth and Family and Open Home Foundation workers and the foster mother.
"People set out with the best of intentions to keep baby Cohen safe."
The baby's mother and family were due twice the sympathy.
"I can't begin to imagine the grief all of those people must feel."
He hoped there was some comfort in knowing that systems had been improved as a result of Cohen's death.
SAD REMINDER FOR GRANDMA
A little girl just starting to take her first steps provides a sad reminder for a grandmother of what Cohen Parker would be doing now, if he had not died in foster care last March.
The grandma, who can't be named to protect the identity of Cohen's mother, had only one, brief cuddle and chance to give her grandson his bottle when he was three-and-a-half weeks old.
"I wish I had been able to see him more often."
But the baby was placed in state care, separated from birth parents deemed incapable of looking after him, and entrusted to a foster mum.
"For us, 2009 should have been a good year.
"We were getting two new grandchildren in January, but it went downhill from there.
"At least my husband's granddaughter is doing well and is just about walking so she is a reminder of what Cohen should have been doing."
The woman said she didn't blame Cohen's foster mother or the people from the Open Home Foundation who had placed Cohen in her care.
"But I think now, it would have been better to have put him with someone who had a better knowledge of the needs of a premature, at-risk baby," she said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3324466/Baby-died-after-agencies-failed-to-see-signs
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
Saturday, February 13, 2010
New Foster Care Proposals
New Foster Care Proposals
Note from unhappygrammy-This sounds like a good idea. After all, foster strangers get monthy respid care, compliments of the state, when they want to get away from the kids. It's about time parents get some of the benefits before their children are stolen.
February 12, 2010
By Dan Corcoran
SALEM, Ore. -- State lawmakers are debating a new measure that would alter the way that Oregon foster kids find a place to stay, which will affect many local agencies.
Senate Bill 991 would pave the way for churches and other private organizations to sponsor what are called "safe families networks," which would operate like informal foster care run by voluteers.
The Senate is tackling the issue in Salem this week. If approved, the measure would allow for volunteers to help stressed out parents by taking their kids off their hands for a few days or months or for however long is needed. The parents would then be given the chance to take care of their issues before home life for kids spirals negatively out of control.
Some local organizations say with the right safeguards, these community groups could provide a vital resource for struggling kids.
"If there's a potential for a bill like this to come along and step in when a family is struggling and to assist them, I think it has a lot of potential," said Christy Obie-Barrett, Executive Director of A Family For Every Child.
Safe families networks like the one being debate by Oregon's Senate already exist in 11 other states including states with fewer kids in foster care.
Last year, more than 13,000 Oregon children spent at least one day in foster care. Critics say the democratic proposal is a crutch instead of fixing the larger issue of keeping Oregon's families intact. Supporters say the bigger benefit is keeping kids safe in the first place
http://kezi.com/page/162478
Note from unhappygrammy-This sounds like a good idea. After all, foster strangers get monthy respid care, compliments of the state, when they want to get away from the kids. It's about time parents get some of the benefits before their children are stolen.
February 12, 2010
By Dan Corcoran
SALEM, Ore. -- State lawmakers are debating a new measure that would alter the way that Oregon foster kids find a place to stay, which will affect many local agencies.
Senate Bill 991 would pave the way for churches and other private organizations to sponsor what are called "safe families networks," which would operate like informal foster care run by voluteers.
The Senate is tackling the issue in Salem this week. If approved, the measure would allow for volunteers to help stressed out parents by taking their kids off their hands for a few days or months or for however long is needed. The parents would then be given the chance to take care of their issues before home life for kids spirals negatively out of control.
Some local organizations say with the right safeguards, these community groups could provide a vital resource for struggling kids.
"If there's a potential for a bill like this to come along and step in when a family is struggling and to assist them, I think it has a lot of potential," said Christy Obie-Barrett, Executive Director of A Family For Every Child.
Safe families networks like the one being debate by Oregon's Senate already exist in 11 other states including states with fewer kids in foster care.
Last year, more than 13,000 Oregon children spent at least one day in foster care. Critics say the democratic proposal is a crutch instead of fixing the larger issue of keeping Oregon's families intact. Supporters say the bigger benefit is keeping kids safe in the first place
http://kezi.com/page/162478
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
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
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
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
Friday, February 12, 2010
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)