February 13, 2010
Bay View News
The myth of the orphan – from Haiti to Hayward
by Lisa Gray-Garcia, aka Tiny
Orphan: a child deprived by death of one or usually both parents, one deprived of some protection or advantage.
Are these beautiful little girls in a make-shift camp in Port au Prince safe from “well meaning rescuers”? The photojournalist writes: “Many (Haitian children) live without a roof sufficient to keep dry when the rains come in March and hurricanes are expected from July. Many of the camps will be washed out, disease will spread and people will die.” Will this frightening future be the excuse for coercing their family to give them up “in the best interests of the children”?
In corners of streets and rooms,
on curbs, alleys, broken beds,
in someone’s ambivalent arms,
always in danger of harm,
never invited, belonging to no one,
language, culture, people stolen,
cared for by default, a price on my head.
I am the orphan,
used, pimped, dismantled,
in the shackles of un-love,
left for dead,
emotionally deconstructed,
always unprotected.
An unwanted child – unprotected, uncared for and, most terrifying, unloved – this was my poor broke-down mama of mixed race, Taina-Boricua, Roma and Irish descent. To the pedophiles, social workers, teachers and foster parents, she was only one thing, a colored child, without a parent who loved her, framed as a “burden to the state,” foster industry code used to solicit funding for her care. I reflected on my mama’s tragic story, which eventually led to her breakdown as an adult when I was 11 years old, as I was reading the crazy story of the “well-intentioned” U.S. missionaries facing charges in Haiti for child trafficking.
The herstory of repression of children and youth locally and globally begins with the racist, classist herstory of the orphan. For hundreds of years, from the Americas to Australia, missionaries targeted Native children as a key element of their assault on indigenous cultures, race and language. Stealing Native children who had parents to teach them the white man’s way and ultimately de-indigenize them at missionary and/or government run boarding schools became the template for the local and global orphanages that exist today in Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, India, Haiti and beyond.
The lines have always been blurred between colonizer-killer, caregiver and educator in the child stealing-fostering-adoption industry. In the days of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, a portion of the money made from that murderous project was used to build and fund the early orphanages in Liverpool, England. These homes were filled with impoverished children of Irish descent, whose parents were sold on a chance at hegemony, through formal education meted out to them as a form of charity and benefit.
Between 1854 and 1929 in the U.S. an estimated 200,000 children were “out-placed” during what is known today as the Orphan Train Movement. The orphan trains were filled with both abandoned children and children of poor families whose families had been “sold” on the idea that their children would attain a better life by being shipped out of the big cities back East to supposedly “healthy “ conditions which would be “in the best interests of the child,” a sentence that continues today to rationalize the seizure of poor children and children of color from their birth families into the ever-hungry jaws of our modern day foster care system.
The Children’s Aid Society that ran the orphan trains contracted with several private “handlers” who shipped the children to homes in the Midwest. Prospective families were required to go through a single interview with aid workers to qualify as a host home. After that original interview, the families and the children were never checked on again. There were countless stories of physical and sexual abuse, neglect, over-work and in some cases brutality of the “orphan” children reported later from those out-placements.
If there are no orphans, create them
Missionaries and philanthro-pimps of old almost always followed a certain pattern, which is consistent with most of today’s international orphanages: They spend countless resources to build the schools, boarding schools or orphanages with the intention of filling them with orphans, even if there are no orphans in the community. If there aren’t enough actual orphaned children, the churches, social workers and/or organizations will create them through a campaign of disinformation, based on an overall Western-held belief that people in poverty are inherently pathological and broken and therefore can’t care for their own children.
These babies live in the Foyer Coeur de Marie orphanage in Port au Prince. – Photo: Ben Gurr, The TimesHistorically, people from Western cultures swallow that kool-aid a little easier, albeit being left with a gnawing feeling that something went horribly wrong. Countless women in poverty and former teen mothers will tell you many years later how devastated they still feel about “giving up their children” but that everyone told them at the time it was in the best interests of their children.
The ‘best interests of the child’
Institutionally racist and classist U.S. adoption and foster care agencies, along with county-run child protective services agencies, are all established with a core mission that includes the goal to “protect” children in need, which is a good goal. But it becomes problematic when the concept of “in need” is judged through a Western, Eurocentric lens identifying what sanity, family and health is, thereby perpetuating what Black Psychology calls “a transubstantive error,” i.e., that your culture and worldview informs what you believe to be right and sane and healthy.
So if your culture has taught you that a two-parent household with both living under one roof is the model of stability and family health, you will view other family structures outside of that norm to be unhealthy and perhaps even aberrant and pathological. In tandem with Eurocentric cultural belief systems, a Eurocentric psychiatric and social work industry was established which promotes Eurocentric psychiatric models of sanity and pathology and provides the ammunition for Child Protective Services referrals, parental terminations and the criminalization of poor parents. In addition to parenting, that lens informs U.S. models of education, elder caregiving, housing, funding, service provision and policing.
So if you have a missionary, aid worker or social worker viewing a child being raised in a multi-generational community of caregivers, who have their children help the family to survive by working in different forms of labor, as well as learning through project-based elder-driven models of indigenous learning, that missionary might truly believe that the child is suffering or even being abused.
Imbued with this belief, missionaries and aid workers may actually believe they are “saving” the working child cared for by multiple community members in a village in Malawi, Nicaragua or Haiti. And like their Western counterparts in this process of seizure, the aid worker and missionary all use and abuse the phrase, “ in the best interests of the child.”
In a U.S. Child Protective Services (CPS) model, this phrase gets used to seize children from homes or from houseless parents just because the parents are poor or houseless or not following the Great White Way. In my family’s case, had I been “discovered” as not going to school, helping my disabled mama and working in underground economies, I would have been “out-placed” from our home by CPS. This “referral” also has a monetary incentive for the county and would have triggered a $12,500 pay-out to CPS.
Granted, there are serious cases of abuse of children by birth parents that warrant checking, temporary placement, support and community care-giving and, in the worst cases, the termination of parental rights, but the entire structure is rooted in a Western notion of proper parenting – beliefs that fuel the seizure of children from not only good parents in poverty, but families rich in culture, generations, community, eldership and beauty.
Seizing children and sending them to homes where they are essentially unprotected and their care is a crapshoot. If they are lucky, they are cared for and loved and, if unlucky, like my mama, subjected to torture, both sexually, physically and emotionally by over 22 foster homes before she was placed in an orphanage that funded itself through the labor of the children in residence.
Monetary incentive to seize children
The abuse of parents and families of color in poverty is so rampant by Child Protective Services agencies across the U.S. that it caused my Mama Dee to launch one of our most revolutionary and, to date, unfunded and unsupported media advocacy projects, called Courtwatch. As well as challenging the racist and classist biases of CPS and the foster care industry, Courtwatch promotes restoration, not separation, and has challenged all of these notions of “best interests.” Going even further, we ask why can’t the very poor family be offered the $12,500 paid in increments or with support to help them raise their own children.
People contact Courtwatch daily in serious trauma because their children have been seized by CPS agencies across the nation for the mere act of living in a shelter, not agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation and/or answering a social worker with an attitude. There are revolutionary organizations and Native peoples across the U.S. who have shown the correlations between CPS seizures and the enslavement of African peoples due to the unequal numbers of African and Native children seized for reasons related to poverty and racism and missionary beliefs of proper parenting.
Local to global
Within the context of the global orphan mythology, imperialism plays a large role in wide scale theft of children as it fits nicely with the colonization of people’s lands and resources, such as the seizure of mixed race children in the 1970s by Operation Babylift in Vietnam. “Well intentioned” social workers working for U.S. adoption agencies cajoled, demanded and ultimately lied to mothers in Vietnam to convince them to give up their babies so they could be shipped back to the U.S., where they would be “safe” from the horror of being a mixed race baby in Vietnam.
Horrific images depicted in the documentary “Daughter of Danang” showed countless Vietnamese mothers screaming, crying , holding their hearts and their babies as “nice” female social workers led their children to holding camps and off to the arms of waiting white parents in the U.S.
Which brings us back to the theft of the Haitian children. The trafficking of children for non-profit profit is common in the 21st century. If you have children in your program, it increases your chances of garnering donations, and almost every tale of “child-saving” begins with a “school.” Many of the international orphanages and homes led by people from the region where they are based – or led by grassroots revolutionary folks and/or religious groups who practice forms of liberation theology – are beautiful, revolutionary places that work to help families and children.
But unfortunately, many are run by closet pedophiles seeking to abuse and/or use unprotected children, by NGOs or by U.S.-based missionaries using children to garner profit. I was recently told the tale of a missionary group who set up shop in a small village in Nicaragua. This group spent several thousand dollars and a huge amount of local resources building a state of the art school.
This girl is one of the children the now notorious Baptist missionaries had tried to sneak out of Haiti. After the group built it and tried to get students to enroll, no one in the community could afford the tuition. So with the mystical gift of institutional education as their carrot and rationale, the missionaries offered free tuition to the local families if they would send their children to come and live at the school. The local families agreed, seeing this as a good deal. Suddenly, this town had hundreds of “orphans” and the missionaries were seen as providing them with benevolent care, board and education.
Finally, a proper investigation
More groups of NGOs and aid organizations in Zimbabwe, Haiti and beyond have been snagged in the last 10 years for egregious money-making schemes, sexual and physical abuse scandals and on and on. That is why I was quietly cheering as the aid workers were charged and arrested and properly investigated on the international stage. Both the government and the community were stopping these people from stealing the children of Haiti, many of whom had living parents, to fill their “school” in the Dominican Republic.
How swiftly they had moved, like thieves in the night, to seize these children. But the global attention Haiti received because of the earthquake actually worked against them, causing peoples from across the globe to think twice about their country’s “orphans.”
Finally, many indigenous cultures across the globe have different ways of loving and caring for their children and elders which are rarely understood by Western aid workers. Their ways are not rooted in Western psychology or Christian morality, but rather they are rooted in eldership, respect, humility and interdependence.
Beliefs like the Malawi people practice, that all people are related to each other, and if I know you, I am responsible for your care. Notions and beliefs and values and dreams and poetry and love that we in the West can learn a lot from, beliefs that really are in the best interests of ALL peoples.
Tiny – or Lisa Gray-Garcia – who describes herself as “poverty scholar, daughter of Dee and welfareQUEEN,” is the consummate organizer and co-founder with her mother of POOR Magazine and its many offspring and author of “Criminal of Poverty: Growing Up Homeless in America,” published by City Lights. She can be reached at deeandtiny@poormagazine.org.
http://www.sfbayview.com/2010/the-myth-of-the-orphan-%e2%80%93-from-haiti-to-hayward/
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
Monday, February 15, 2010
Trial set for Feb. 23 in case of seriously abused teen
Trial set for Feb. 23 in case of seriously abused teen
A trial date has been set for a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of an abused girl found in a coma with burn marks and maggot-infested wounds.
Unless a settlement is reached, the nonjury trial is scheduled to be heard by Hilo Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura at 9 a.m. Feb. 23, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported.
The lawsuit was filed by the victim's grandfather against the girl's former caregiver, Hyacinth Poouahi, who a year ago was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for abusing the girl. The victim was 9 when the abuse began in Poouahi's Ainaloa home in late 2004.
Other defendants include the girl's biological mother, Crystal McGrath, who left the girl in Poouahi's care, and the state departments of Education and Human Services.
The girl was in a coma for several weeks in a Honolulu hospital after her Feb. 7, 2005, rescue by fire department paramedics. Today, at age 15, she is severely speech- and hearing-impaired, blind in one eye, walks with a limp and has facial disfigurement.
The girl also was tortured psychologically, being forced to eat cockroaches, and breakfast cereal mixed with chili peppers.
Among the allegations is that people at Keonepoko Elementary School knew of the abuse as early as December 2004 but failed to notify either police or the Child Protective Service. Honolulu attorney Arthur Park, who represents the girl's grandfather, Bienvenido Cabanting, has asked Nakamura for a pretrial ruling against the DOE for breaching its duty of care.
Nakamura took Park's request under advisement.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20102150324
A trial date has been set for a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of an abused girl found in a coma with burn marks and maggot-infested wounds.
Unless a settlement is reached, the nonjury trial is scheduled to be heard by Hilo Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura at 9 a.m. Feb. 23, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported.
The lawsuit was filed by the victim's grandfather against the girl's former caregiver, Hyacinth Poouahi, who a year ago was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for abusing the girl. The victim was 9 when the abuse began in Poouahi's Ainaloa home in late 2004.
Other defendants include the girl's biological mother, Crystal McGrath, who left the girl in Poouahi's care, and the state departments of Education and Human Services.
The girl was in a coma for several weeks in a Honolulu hospital after her Feb. 7, 2005, rescue by fire department paramedics. Today, at age 15, she is severely speech- and hearing-impaired, blind in one eye, walks with a limp and has facial disfigurement.
The girl also was tortured psychologically, being forced to eat cockroaches, and breakfast cereal mixed with chili peppers.
Among the allegations is that people at Keonepoko Elementary School knew of the abuse as early as December 2004 but failed to notify either police or the Child Protective Service. Honolulu attorney Arthur Park, who represents the girl's grandfather, Bienvenido Cabanting, has asked Nakamura for a pretrial ruling against the DOE for breaching its duty of care.
Nakamura took Park's request under advisement.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20102150324
Parents' lawsuit seeks change to Child Protective Services practice
Parents' lawsuit seeks change to Child Protective Services practice
By John Sullivan
Times Herald-Record
Posted: February 15, 2010 - 2:00 AM
It's an embarrassing topic few parents would want to talk about: their involvement in an investigation by Child Protective Services.
Two-thirds of all 160,000 child abuse investigations in 2007 resulted in unsubstantiated claims. And some reports to the state's child abuse hot line are outright lies, say counselors who work with families and children.
Still, child abuse investigators march on, required by law to get to the bottom of an allegation within 24 hours of receiving a call, including from anonymous tipsters. Most are handled swiftly — usually in less than six hours — and with kid gloves, according to educators and counselors who work with CPS investigators. But when the allegations involve the parents of the child, the emotional toll can be great.
"I've never met a parent who has been involved with a CPS investigation who hasn't been upset," said Stanley Goldstein, a Scotchtown psychologist who works with parents and children.
One such case arises out of Goshen, where a couple's kindergarten-aged daughter was questioned by CPS workers at school after a caller to the state's child abuse hot line alleged that one of her parents sexually abused her. The caller based the allegations on information from an unnamed third-party source, according to a lawsuit filed by the parents. The allegations were declared unfounded after a CPS investigation.
The couple contend the questioning of their child at school violated family-rights laws. Though the law requires CPS workers to acquire a court order to talk to a child if the parents refuse to allow it, it does not prevent schools from allowing CPS workers to question the child without parental consent. The plaintiffs are asking for a change in this CPS investigation practice, as well as millions of dollars in damages.
"We're not saying that they shouldn't interview kids," said Marie Condoluci, attorney for the plaintiffs. "All we are saying is that they should have the same reasonable cause before interviewing the child at school."
Officials resist the idea.
"We're not going to leave it up to the parents to determine whether a child investigation goes on or not," said Ed Borges, spokesman for the state's Office of Children & Family Services. "The law says it's our responsibility to make sure that the child is safe."
jsullivan@th-record.com
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100215/NEWS/2150312
By John Sullivan
Times Herald-Record
Posted: February 15, 2010 - 2:00 AM
It's an embarrassing topic few parents would want to talk about: their involvement in an investigation by Child Protective Services.
Two-thirds of all 160,000 child abuse investigations in 2007 resulted in unsubstantiated claims. And some reports to the state's child abuse hot line are outright lies, say counselors who work with families and children.
Still, child abuse investigators march on, required by law to get to the bottom of an allegation within 24 hours of receiving a call, including from anonymous tipsters. Most are handled swiftly — usually in less than six hours — and with kid gloves, according to educators and counselors who work with CPS investigators. But when the allegations involve the parents of the child, the emotional toll can be great.
"I've never met a parent who has been involved with a CPS investigation who hasn't been upset," said Stanley Goldstein, a Scotchtown psychologist who works with parents and children.
One such case arises out of Goshen, where a couple's kindergarten-aged daughter was questioned by CPS workers at school after a caller to the state's child abuse hot line alleged that one of her parents sexually abused her. The caller based the allegations on information from an unnamed third-party source, according to a lawsuit filed by the parents. The allegations were declared unfounded after a CPS investigation.
The couple contend the questioning of their child at school violated family-rights laws. Though the law requires CPS workers to acquire a court order to talk to a child if the parents refuse to allow it, it does not prevent schools from allowing CPS workers to question the child without parental consent. The plaintiffs are asking for a change in this CPS investigation practice, as well as millions of dollars in damages.
"We're not saying that they shouldn't interview kids," said Marie Condoluci, attorney for the plaintiffs. "All we are saying is that they should have the same reasonable cause before interviewing the child at school."
Officials resist the idea.
"We're not going to leave it up to the parents to determine whether a child investigation goes on or not," said Ed Borges, spokesman for the state's Office of Children & Family Services. "The law says it's our responsibility to make sure that the child is safe."
jsullivan@th-record.com
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100215/NEWS/2150312
Tiger Woods & Family Terrorized by CPS aka Child Protective Services
Tiger Woods & Family Terrorized by CPS aka Child Protective Services
CPS loves to throw their weight around, especially when the world is watching and they can, with the help of lowlife legal analysts or lawyers like Gloria Aldred, feign concern for the children. What CPS really wants to do is set a precedent.
CPS wants you to get used to the idea that every time anyone has any kind of dispute, that they should step in and do an “investigation.” Now, think about all the times when you were a kid and your parents, or your friends’ parents, quarrelled or just had a loud disagreement. This is the kind of thing that today could result in the brutal, ruthless, tragic “removal” (i.e., state sanctioned kidnapping) and the destruction of a family. When CPS moves in for the kill, they don’t care about the children’s feelings. They brings SWAT teams and tasers, and the with the fallout. This is the kind of trauma which babies, children and families never heal from, even if they are re-united.
Never believe it can’t happen to you. If CPS can bully a man and his family that are as rich and powerful as Tiger Woods’ and his family, what do you think they will do to you? Don’t wait to find out. Learn your rights, and fight back.
CPS AND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8×11.pdf
WHAT TO DO IF CPS INVESTIGATES YOU:
http://www.fightcps.com/articles/whattodo.html
IF YOU ARE TIGER WOODS OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY, YOU WILL PROBABLY KNOW BY NOW THE TERROR CPS INSPIRES AND THE ABUSE OF DUE PROCESS THEY REPRESENT. PLEASE HELP FIGHT AGAINST THIS HORRIBLE INJUSTICE, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BECAUSE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS, AND / OR LYING, PERJURING SOCIAL WORKERS.
http://www.tigerwoodsgirlfriend.ws/tiger-woods-son/tiger-woods-family-terrorized-by-cps-aka-child-protective-services-avi
CPS loves to throw their weight around, especially when the world is watching and they can, with the help of lowlife legal analysts or lawyers like Gloria Aldred, feign concern for the children. What CPS really wants to do is set a precedent.
CPS wants you to get used to the idea that every time anyone has any kind of dispute, that they should step in and do an “investigation.” Now, think about all the times when you were a kid and your parents, or your friends’ parents, quarrelled or just had a loud disagreement. This is the kind of thing that today could result in the brutal, ruthless, tragic “removal” (i.e., state sanctioned kidnapping) and the destruction of a family. When CPS moves in for the kill, they don’t care about the children’s feelings. They brings SWAT teams and tasers, and the with the fallout. This is the kind of trauma which babies, children and families never heal from, even if they are re-united.
Never believe it can’t happen to you. If CPS can bully a man and his family that are as rich and powerful as Tiger Woods’ and his family, what do you think they will do to you? Don’t wait to find out. Learn your rights, and fight back.
CPS AND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8×11.pdf
WHAT TO DO IF CPS INVESTIGATES YOU:
http://www.fightcps.com/articles/whattodo.html
IF YOU ARE TIGER WOODS OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY, YOU WILL PROBABLY KNOW BY NOW THE TERROR CPS INSPIRES AND THE ABUSE OF DUE PROCESS THEY REPRESENT. PLEASE HELP FIGHT AGAINST THIS HORRIBLE INJUSTICE, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BECAUSE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS, AND / OR LYING, PERJURING SOCIAL WORKERS.
http://www.tigerwoodsgirlfriend.ws/tiger-woods-son/tiger-woods-family-terrorized-by-cps-aka-child-protective-services-avi
The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent
The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent
Posted: 14 Feb 2010 09:05 PM PST
From Brenda Alexanders Blog-CPS-A System Out of Control
http://cpsasystemoutofcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/02/constitutional-right-to-be-parent.html
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
"Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody." May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: 'The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.' Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child. Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
Posted: 14 Feb 2010 09:05 PM PST
From Brenda Alexanders Blog-CPS-A System Out of Control
http://cpsasystemoutofcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/02/constitutional-right-to-be-parent.html
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
"Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody." May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: 'The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.' Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child. Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
State Considers Bill Treating Fetus As Person Opponents Say Bill Has Abortion Implications
State Considers Bill Treating Fetus As Person
Opponents Say Bill Has Abortion Implications
POSTED: 10:46 am EST February 15, 2010
CONCORD, N.H. -- The New Hampshire House will vote Wednesday whether to allow prosecutors to charge people who kill a fetus with murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Opponents said the bill is an attempt to define an unborn child in statute.
Supporters said it has nothing to do with abortion and is in response to a 2006 case in which a speeding driver slammed his car into a cab, killing a passenger. The cab driver was pregnant and delivered a baby who wasn't breathing but was kept alive temporarily on life support.
The state Supreme Court threw out the driver's conviction in the baby's death because state law does not consider a fetus a person unless the baby shows evidence of life.
Tell Us More: E-mail WMUR your tips and story ideas.
http://www.wmur.com/politics/22568593/detail.html?treets=man&tid=26511201650813&tml=man_12pm&tmi=man_12pm_1_11000102152010&ts=H
Opponents Say Bill Has Abortion Implications
POSTED: 10:46 am EST February 15, 2010
CONCORD, N.H. -- The New Hampshire House will vote Wednesday whether to allow prosecutors to charge people who kill a fetus with murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Opponents said the bill is an attempt to define an unborn child in statute.
Supporters said it has nothing to do with abortion and is in response to a 2006 case in which a speeding driver slammed his car into a cab, killing a passenger. The cab driver was pregnant and delivered a baby who wasn't breathing but was kept alive temporarily on life support.
The state Supreme Court threw out the driver's conviction in the baby's death because state law does not consider a fetus a person unless the baby shows evidence of life.
Tell Us More: E-mail WMUR your tips and story ideas.
http://www.wmur.com/politics/22568593/detail.html?treets=man&tid=26511201650813&tml=man_12pm&tmi=man_12pm_1_11000102152010&ts=H
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Who's looking out for next Amariana ?(Dead Foster child)
Foster child Amariana Crenshaw died in Tracy Dossman's care.
Tracy Dossman
Foster child Amariana Crenshaw died in Tracy Dossman's care.
More Information
Special Report: Read The Bee's investigative report 'Who killed Amariana?'
Popular Comment
“Interesting - from what I know about CPS they can take someone's kid away armed with nothing more than an anonymous allegation and ask questions later, yet when presented with evidence of abuse and neglect by a pivately certified foster care provider they suddenly have no authority. Heaven help any kids who get pulled into this system - especially by mistake. Kids seem like they're better off with parents with drug problems and anger issues than with this woman.”
Buzz up!Published: Sunday, Feb. 14, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 6E
The unsolved death of Amariana Crenshaw raises many disturbing questions. Here is one of the most immediate: Why is Tracy Dossman, Amariana's foster mother, still caring for five other children, even during renewed investigations by police and state and county child welfare officials?
The official answer: She hasn't been charged with a crime.
The state Department of Social Services says that until it completes the inquiry it reopened after a series of stories in The Bee, and unless it then finds Dossman in "noncompliance," it won't move to decertify her as a foster parent. Only then would the department require the private agency that certifies Dossman to remove the other children.
"We're not there yet," says DSS spokeswoman Lizelda Lopez, who said it's not clear when a decision will come.
Here's the troubling part: When a foster parent is certified by a nonprofit agency, there's no provision under state law to suspend a certification during an investigation, even when there are serious doubts about the parent's fitness. There should be.
DSS already has such authority if a foster parent is directly licensed by the state or a county. That distinction makes no sense, especially when the private foster family agencies place the more needy children.
While it's an imperfect analogy, think of situations where police officers are put on administrative leave after shooting someone. Such suspensions are routine procedure, even if there's no proof of wrongdoing.
This is only one issue facing the state's sprawling foster care system, which includes about 22,000 providers and is responsible for about 70,000 children. Leaders of this system face numerous trade-offs and hard decisions. When there is a death or serious injury in a home, officials must determine whether there's any imminent danger, then weigh what's in the best interest of each child: Would it be more nurturing in a new home? Or would it be more traumatic to start over with a new parent?
At the same time, years of budget cuts have hollowed out the system so that there is far less supervision of foster parents. While the state investigates complaints, county social workers monitor the children, and counties contract with private agencies to check and certify foster parents. It's a multi-layered system that can lead to lack of communication and accountability.
All those considerations come into play in Dossman's case.
She became Amariana's foster mother when the girl was 2. Amariana was 4½ in January 2008 when she was found in Doss-man's rental home near South Natomas, burned beyond recognition. Dossman was cleared as a suspect within 24 hours and the children were returned to her. Although officials still harbored some concern about their welfare, they say they didn't have sufficient cause to suspend Dossman as a foster parent.
That isn't the case now.
The series of stories by The Bee's Marjie Lundstrom has uncovered strong evidence that Amariana may have been abused or severely neglected for some time, and might have been killed before her body was burned by at least one Molotov cocktail.
According to medical records obtained by The Bee, Amariana was reportedly hurt at least 11 times in Dossman's care, including unusually similar cuts and bruises on her face. When she died, she weighed only 29 pounds and had gained only 1 pound in three years. Twice, state regulators found the refrigerator locked in the home.
Several people close to Dossman have been in trouble with the law.
A foster parent to nearly 50 kids since at least 2003, Dossman has jumped from one private agency to another – getting certified by six in all since 1995.
After the series, Sacramento police pledged anew to find Amariana's killer, and DSS and Sacramento County's Child Protective Services both said they were taking another look at the case.
We may never know everything that happened leading up to the discovery of Amariana's charred remains inside the house on Sweet Pea Way. But we know that this tragic case gives officials the opportunity to take a hard look at how to fix problems with the foster care system.
Finding a reasonable way to suspend foster parents while they're under investigation for serious wrongdoing – and thus safeguard the children – would be a good place to start.
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/2534212.html
Tracy Dossman
Foster child Amariana Crenshaw died in Tracy Dossman's care.
More Information
Special Report: Read The Bee's investigative report 'Who killed Amariana?'
Popular Comment
“Interesting - from what I know about CPS they can take someone's kid away armed with nothing more than an anonymous allegation and ask questions later, yet when presented with evidence of abuse and neglect by a pivately certified foster care provider they suddenly have no authority. Heaven help any kids who get pulled into this system - especially by mistake. Kids seem like they're better off with parents with drug problems and anger issues than with this woman.”
Buzz up!Published: Sunday, Feb. 14, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 6E
The unsolved death of Amariana Crenshaw raises many disturbing questions. Here is one of the most immediate: Why is Tracy Dossman, Amariana's foster mother, still caring for five other children, even during renewed investigations by police and state and county child welfare officials?
The official answer: She hasn't been charged with a crime.
The state Department of Social Services says that until it completes the inquiry it reopened after a series of stories in The Bee, and unless it then finds Dossman in "noncompliance," it won't move to decertify her as a foster parent. Only then would the department require the private agency that certifies Dossman to remove the other children.
"We're not there yet," says DSS spokeswoman Lizelda Lopez, who said it's not clear when a decision will come.
Here's the troubling part: When a foster parent is certified by a nonprofit agency, there's no provision under state law to suspend a certification during an investigation, even when there are serious doubts about the parent's fitness. There should be.
DSS already has such authority if a foster parent is directly licensed by the state or a county. That distinction makes no sense, especially when the private foster family agencies place the more needy children.
While it's an imperfect analogy, think of situations where police officers are put on administrative leave after shooting someone. Such suspensions are routine procedure, even if there's no proof of wrongdoing.
This is only one issue facing the state's sprawling foster care system, which includes about 22,000 providers and is responsible for about 70,000 children. Leaders of this system face numerous trade-offs and hard decisions. When there is a death or serious injury in a home, officials must determine whether there's any imminent danger, then weigh what's in the best interest of each child: Would it be more nurturing in a new home? Or would it be more traumatic to start over with a new parent?
At the same time, years of budget cuts have hollowed out the system so that there is far less supervision of foster parents. While the state investigates complaints, county social workers monitor the children, and counties contract with private agencies to check and certify foster parents. It's a multi-layered system that can lead to lack of communication and accountability.
All those considerations come into play in Dossman's case.
She became Amariana's foster mother when the girl was 2. Amariana was 4½ in January 2008 when she was found in Doss-man's rental home near South Natomas, burned beyond recognition. Dossman was cleared as a suspect within 24 hours and the children were returned to her. Although officials still harbored some concern about their welfare, they say they didn't have sufficient cause to suspend Dossman as a foster parent.
That isn't the case now.
The series of stories by The Bee's Marjie Lundstrom has uncovered strong evidence that Amariana may have been abused or severely neglected for some time, and might have been killed before her body was burned by at least one Molotov cocktail.
According to medical records obtained by The Bee, Amariana was reportedly hurt at least 11 times in Dossman's care, including unusually similar cuts and bruises on her face. When she died, she weighed only 29 pounds and had gained only 1 pound in three years. Twice, state regulators found the refrigerator locked in the home.
Several people close to Dossman have been in trouble with the law.
A foster parent to nearly 50 kids since at least 2003, Dossman has jumped from one private agency to another – getting certified by six in all since 1995.
After the series, Sacramento police pledged anew to find Amariana's killer, and DSS and Sacramento County's Child Protective Services both said they were taking another look at the case.
We may never know everything that happened leading up to the discovery of Amariana's charred remains inside the house on Sweet Pea Way. But we know that this tragic case gives officials the opportunity to take a hard look at how to fix problems with the foster care system.
Finding a reasonable way to suspend foster parents while they're under investigation for serious wrongdoing – and thus safeguard the children – would be a good place to start.
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/2534212.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)