What Is a Foster Care Subsidy?
By Carrie Craft, About.com Guide
Foster Care Placement
Subsidy, by definition, is a financial grant provided by the government. Foster care subsidy is a predetermined amount of money sent by the government to the foster parents on a monthly basis for the care of the foster children that have been placed within the foster home.
Where Does the Money Come From?
Within the United States the money comes from each individual state's budget that has been set aside for the use of foster care. County and federal monies may also make up the foster care budget.
How Is the Foster Care Subsidy Amount Determined?
Each state or agency has a predetermined subsidy amount based on the state's budget. A foster family may receive a larger subsidy depending on the needs of the child. A change such as this may occur based on the child's:
•age
•medical needs
•behaviors
Again, each state and agency is different.
What Is the Proper Use of the Foster Care Subsidy?
•clothing for the foster children
•food (foster children can also be a part of the free lunch program at your local school)
•transportation
•recreation
•Some school fees - such as for sports, art classes, lab fees or other extra curricular activities
•hygiene/personal care products
•anything the child stands in need of
Remember, if an item was bought specifically for a child, than that item becomes the property of the child and should leave with the child when he/she moves. When purchasing larger items, for the child's bedroom, for example, make sure the child understands whether the item is his/her property or that of the foster family and will remain once the child moves. This will alleviate any misunderstandings or problems when the child is ready to move home or to an another foster home or adoptive placement.
Do Agencies Track the Usage of the Foster Care Subsidy?
Some agencies do require that foster parents track the use of the foster care subsidy. Other agencies require that a dollar amount go directly to the personal care of the child, such as diapers, clothing, or recreation. Receipts or a budget may be a monthly requirement for some agencies in order to prove that the foster children are being taken care of properly with the subsidy.
Do Some People Misuse the Foster Care Subsidy?
Before becoming a foster parent you must prove that you are financially fit and can take care of your family without the foster care subsidy. If you are unable to care for your own family without the aid of the subsidy, you can not become a licensed foster parent. However, some people do become foster parents for the monthly subsidy. Agencies do their best to keep this from happening.
Foster Care Subsidy Is NOT:
•A great way to supplement your income.
•A home business.
•A way to pay off your mortgage.
•A way to buy a jet ski or motorcycle.
•A way to send your kids to college.
•A way for your kids to fall into the Gap, Abercrombie, or Hollister (fill in your child's favorite brand here.).
Foster Care is a wonderful experience and can add much to your life, it shouldn't, however, add to your pocket book.
http://adoption.about.com/od/financialmatters/a/whatsubsidy.htm
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
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Kids on ADHD drugs `poor at school'
Kids on ADHD drugs `poor at school'
Stephen Lunn, Social affairs writer From: The Australian February 17, 2010 12:00AM
CHILDREN with ADHD who use prescription drugs to manage their condition are 10 times more likely to perform poorly at school than ADHD kids who avoid medication, a new report reveals.
The report also finds stimulant drugs such as Ritalin and dexamphetamine make no significant difference to the level of depression, self-perception and social functioning of a 14-year-old with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Those consistently using medication had significantly higher blood pressure at age 14 than children who had never taken drugs, a side-effect that could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke even into adulthood.
The report's co-author, Lou Landau, said the world-first study into the long-term effects of stimulant medication on children with ADHD, to be published today, showed "drugs over the long term don't have an impact on improving performance".
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageReview of 'tainted' ADHD guidelines
The Australian, 23 Nov 2009
Reader's Comments: ADHD guidelines pulled after drug scandal
NEWS.com.au, School student hands out Ritalin
Daily Telegraph, 13 Oct 2009
We're turning our kids psychotic
Courier Mail, 13 Oct 2009
Nothing fishy about Omega-3 oil and ADHD
"They don't improve outcomes for those with ADHD, they make no difference to levels of depression, social functioning and self-perception, and for those on medication it is 10 times as likely that classroom performance will be below average," he said.
Professor Landau, principal medical adviser to the West Australian Department of Health, which funded the research, said that was not to say drugs should never be used to treat ADHD. "There may be some children for whom the need to manage the condition in the short term will outweigh the long-term effects."
The report is groundbreaking because it uses data from the Raine Study, which has been tracking the progress of more than 2800 families for two decades. Parents of the 131 children diagnosed with ADHD under the study have been providing information since the children were born. The outcomes were measured when the children were 14 years old.
West Australian Mental Health Minister Graham Jacobs said he was cautious about the study because of its relatively small sample size, but it "did call into question the anecdotal evidence from when I was a country GP that medication improved a child's concentration so they learned better".
"I think parents are starting to look at the issue more closely," he said. "In WA, we were one of the higher ADHD medication prescribers, but it started to change in the last 12 to 18 months."
West Australian Labor MP Martin Whitely, a longtime campaigner against ADHD medication, welcomed the report. "The ADHD industry's claim that without medication ADHD children risk academic failure has been shown to be complete bull," he said. "It's not just that ADHD drugs don't improve long-term school performance, they drag kids down. Parents will be furious they've been conned into giving their children taxpayer-subsidised amphetamines. No responsible parent would knowingly increase their child's chances of academic failure."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kids-on-adhd-drugs-poor-at-school/story-e6frg6nf-1225831116701
Stephen Lunn, Social affairs writer From: The Australian February 17, 2010 12:00AM
CHILDREN with ADHD who use prescription drugs to manage their condition are 10 times more likely to perform poorly at school than ADHD kids who avoid medication, a new report reveals.
The report also finds stimulant drugs such as Ritalin and dexamphetamine make no significant difference to the level of depression, self-perception and social functioning of a 14-year-old with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Those consistently using medication had significantly higher blood pressure at age 14 than children who had never taken drugs, a side-effect that could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke even into adulthood.
The report's co-author, Lou Landau, said the world-first study into the long-term effects of stimulant medication on children with ADHD, to be published today, showed "drugs over the long term don't have an impact on improving performance".
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageReview of 'tainted' ADHD guidelines
The Australian, 23 Nov 2009
Reader's Comments: ADHD guidelines pulled after drug scandal
NEWS.com.au, School student hands out Ritalin
Daily Telegraph, 13 Oct 2009
We're turning our kids psychotic
Courier Mail, 13 Oct 2009
Nothing fishy about Omega-3 oil and ADHD
"They don't improve outcomes for those with ADHD, they make no difference to levels of depression, social functioning and self-perception, and for those on medication it is 10 times as likely that classroom performance will be below average," he said.
Professor Landau, principal medical adviser to the West Australian Department of Health, which funded the research, said that was not to say drugs should never be used to treat ADHD. "There may be some children for whom the need to manage the condition in the short term will outweigh the long-term effects."
The report is groundbreaking because it uses data from the Raine Study, which has been tracking the progress of more than 2800 families for two decades. Parents of the 131 children diagnosed with ADHD under the study have been providing information since the children were born. The outcomes were measured when the children were 14 years old.
West Australian Mental Health Minister Graham Jacobs said he was cautious about the study because of its relatively small sample size, but it "did call into question the anecdotal evidence from when I was a country GP that medication improved a child's concentration so they learned better".
"I think parents are starting to look at the issue more closely," he said. "In WA, we were one of the higher ADHD medication prescribers, but it started to change in the last 12 to 18 months."
West Australian Labor MP Martin Whitely, a longtime campaigner against ADHD medication, welcomed the report. "The ADHD industry's claim that without medication ADHD children risk academic failure has been shown to be complete bull," he said. "It's not just that ADHD drugs don't improve long-term school performance, they drag kids down. Parents will be furious they've been conned into giving their children taxpayer-subsidised amphetamines. No responsible parent would knowingly increase their child's chances of academic failure."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kids-on-adhd-drugs-poor-at-school/story-e6frg6nf-1225831116701
DCYF counselor arraigned on drug charge
DCYF counselor arraigned on drug charge
Counselor Arraigned
WARWICK, R.I. -- A Rhode Island state probation officer is being held without bail for allegedly selling heroin. 0 Ratings | 154 Video Views
Post a Comment or Rate this Video
The Associated Press
Published: February 11, 2010
Updated: February 11, 2010
WARWICK, R.I.—A Rhode Island state probation officer for juveniles has been ordered held without bail on charges that he sold heroin to an undercover officer.
Michael Ayer, of Stoughton, Mass., was arraigned Thursday in Kent County District. Ayer is a probation officer for the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families.
State Police say he was using a state-registered vehicle and his state cell phone to do the sales.
It was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer.
He faces a bail hearing on Feb. 25.
http://www2.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/dcyf_counselor_arraigned_on_drug_charge/31294/
Counselor Arraigned
WARWICK, R.I. -- A Rhode Island state probation officer is being held without bail for allegedly selling heroin. 0 Ratings | 154 Video Views
Post a Comment or Rate this Video
The Associated Press
Published: February 11, 2010
Updated: February 11, 2010
WARWICK, R.I.—A Rhode Island state probation officer for juveniles has been ordered held without bail on charges that he sold heroin to an undercover officer.
Michael Ayer, of Stoughton, Mass., was arraigned Thursday in Kent County District. Ayer is a probation officer for the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families.
State Police say he was using a state-registered vehicle and his state cell phone to do the sales.
It was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer.
He faces a bail hearing on Feb. 25.
http://www2.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/dcyf_counselor_arraigned_on_drug_charge/31294/
Recession hikes state social services spending
Note from unhappygrammy-With so many children stolen from their parents in NH and placed in foster care, no wonder the state doesn't have enough money! Services to families before child removal would save a bundle. A real no-brainer, but trying telling that to the state. In order to save money, they need to fix the DCYF problem!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 06:22AM
Recession hikes state social services spending
CONCORD MONITOR - The Department of Health and Human Services has serious money problems - and they won't go away until the department changes the way it does business, said HHS Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas.
"Short term, all we can do is cut," Toumpas told the Monitor editorial board. "Long term, we need to fundamentally change what we're doing."
The problem is that the number of people using the department's services is rising. And the department, already the state's largest, can't count on any extra money from the state.
"Our planning assumption is we won't get any additional funds," Toumpas said.
In fiscal year 2010, which ends in June, the department is predicting a $43.2 million deficit - $35.5 million due to program shortfalls and $7.7 million due to budget reductions made by the Legislature last June. In 2011, the department is predicting a $50 million deficit - $37.5 million from program shortfalls and $12.5 million from legislative budget reductions. (The department's total budget is about $2 billion.)
As a result of the budget crisis, Toumpas has started an ambitious process of restructuring the way the department delivers services. His goal, he said, is to create a system that focuses on the clients, not on the agencies providing the services.
What that could mean is that HHS would determine what batch of services it needs to provide to a group of people in a particular area - for example, to children in the North Country. The department would then contract with a single agency, and it would be up to that lead agency to work with other groups in the area to develop those services.
The lead agency could be a hospital, a Community Action Program, a county or any other entity. Ultimately, that would reduce some of the approximately 4,000 contracts that the department has with outside agencies.
Toumpas said he does not plan to go to individual agencies and force them to merge. But he does want to stop the situation where the department is paying hundreds of independent organizations - all with their own boards, directors and buildings - to perform similar services. Consolidating services through one agency, he said, could also help clients who will no longer have to visit different agencies for each service.
"It's like a contractor for a house," Toumpas said. Rather than hiring an individual plumber, builder and electrician, a person can hire a contractor who will then find the plumber, builder and electrician. Toumpas said the model would be different for each region. He hopes to discuss options with area agencies, providers, and local and county government.
Already he has met with groups in the Lakes Region, the North Country and Manchester, and he plans to begin talking to providers and governments throughout the state. He said he is still looking for people to analyze the department's data, facilitators who can work with the community organizations, and knowledgeable individuals who can find the weaknesses in his plans.
Ultimately, Toumpas said, he expects some resistance from institutions that will be affected. But he said he has little choice - only so many rate and benefit cuts can be made without threatening the system.
Demand outweighs supply
Toumpas said significant change is necessary because although the immediate crisis stems from the recession, the number of people requiring services is not expected to go down. According to an analysis done by University of New Hampshire economist Ross Gittell, Medicaid caseloads typically continue to rise for six months after a recession and then level off, but they do not drop.
According to data from HHS, the current program shortfalls are mostly due to the recession and high unemployment. The number of unemployed people in New Hampshire increased by 20,100 between December 2008 and December 2009. During that same time, the number of HHS clients increased by 15,900.
The growing number of clients came particularly in areas affected by the economy. The department saw an increase of more than 10,000 people, or 10 percent, getting Medicaid benefits - leaving a budget hole of $11.2 million in that area.
Most of the growth came as more people qualified for benefits because of poverty. The amount of financial assistance given jumped by 22.9 percent - leaving a $6.8 million hole in that budget. Again, more people qualified because of poverty. There was also 10 percent growth in child care services, leaving a $10.3 million gap.
"It's entirely due to the economic situation," Toumpas said.
So far, Toumpas has laid out plans for cutting $28 million this year. Those plans include lowering child-care subsidy rates so low-income parents have to contribute more, and reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates and capping services for a variety of medical services, which will take money from health care providers, particularly nursing homes and hospitals.
Within the department, there were 451 positions left vacant at the end of January, an amount equal to 13.5 percent of the its total authorized staff. Toumpas said the department has tried to stay away from cutting direct care personnel, which make up 65 percent of departmental jobs, so most of the vacancies are administrative.
Efficiency
Toumpas must still fill an additional $15 million hole in his budget, though he has asked the Legislature to give him until the end of 2011 to cut $8 million of that. And Gov. John Lynch recently asked all department heads to plan for an additional cut of 8 percent of their general fund money in fiscal year 2011. For HHS, that could mean close to $60 million.
Asked where that money would come from, Toumpas answered, "I don't know."
"We'll look at entire programs, entire business processes, entire functions within the department," he said.
Toumpas must submit a plan to Lynch by March 4.
Toumpas also pointed out that he has limited options of where to cut. During the budgeting process last year, the department determined that 35 percent of its budget went toward federally mandated services, such as Medicaid payments.
An additional 28 percent went toward optional federal entitlements and services - things like allowing people above a certain minimum income level to qualify for Medicaid. As long as the state is getting federal stimulus money, which is expected to be through December 2010, it cannot change the conditions for many of those programs.
The optional state services, which make up 17 percent of the budget, are often where the department looks to cut. That category includes programs like the children's health insurance program, contracts with the Brain Injury Association and screenings for newborns.
So with few good options for cutting spending, Toumpas said, he is trying to use the crisis to make the organization more efficient overall.
"It's fundamentally about how do we deliver services, what outcomes are we trying to achieve and how could we be more effective," Toumpas said.
By SHIRA SCHOENBERG
Monitor staff
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/620283-196/recession-hikes-state-social-services-spending.html
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 06:22AM
Recession hikes state social services spending
CONCORD MONITOR - The Department of Health and Human Services has serious money problems - and they won't go away until the department changes the way it does business, said HHS Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas.
"Short term, all we can do is cut," Toumpas told the Monitor editorial board. "Long term, we need to fundamentally change what we're doing."
The problem is that the number of people using the department's services is rising. And the department, already the state's largest, can't count on any extra money from the state.
"Our planning assumption is we won't get any additional funds," Toumpas said.
In fiscal year 2010, which ends in June, the department is predicting a $43.2 million deficit - $35.5 million due to program shortfalls and $7.7 million due to budget reductions made by the Legislature last June. In 2011, the department is predicting a $50 million deficit - $37.5 million from program shortfalls and $12.5 million from legislative budget reductions. (The department's total budget is about $2 billion.)
As a result of the budget crisis, Toumpas has started an ambitious process of restructuring the way the department delivers services. His goal, he said, is to create a system that focuses on the clients, not on the agencies providing the services.
What that could mean is that HHS would determine what batch of services it needs to provide to a group of people in a particular area - for example, to children in the North Country. The department would then contract with a single agency, and it would be up to that lead agency to work with other groups in the area to develop those services.
The lead agency could be a hospital, a Community Action Program, a county or any other entity. Ultimately, that would reduce some of the approximately 4,000 contracts that the department has with outside agencies.
Toumpas said he does not plan to go to individual agencies and force them to merge. But he does want to stop the situation where the department is paying hundreds of independent organizations - all with their own boards, directors and buildings - to perform similar services. Consolidating services through one agency, he said, could also help clients who will no longer have to visit different agencies for each service.
"It's like a contractor for a house," Toumpas said. Rather than hiring an individual plumber, builder and electrician, a person can hire a contractor who will then find the plumber, builder and electrician. Toumpas said the model would be different for each region. He hopes to discuss options with area agencies, providers, and local and county government.
Already he has met with groups in the Lakes Region, the North Country and Manchester, and he plans to begin talking to providers and governments throughout the state. He said he is still looking for people to analyze the department's data, facilitators who can work with the community organizations, and knowledgeable individuals who can find the weaknesses in his plans.
Ultimately, Toumpas said, he expects some resistance from institutions that will be affected. But he said he has little choice - only so many rate and benefit cuts can be made without threatening the system.
Demand outweighs supply
Toumpas said significant change is necessary because although the immediate crisis stems from the recession, the number of people requiring services is not expected to go down. According to an analysis done by University of New Hampshire economist Ross Gittell, Medicaid caseloads typically continue to rise for six months after a recession and then level off, but they do not drop.
According to data from HHS, the current program shortfalls are mostly due to the recession and high unemployment. The number of unemployed people in New Hampshire increased by 20,100 between December 2008 and December 2009. During that same time, the number of HHS clients increased by 15,900.
The growing number of clients came particularly in areas affected by the economy. The department saw an increase of more than 10,000 people, or 10 percent, getting Medicaid benefits - leaving a budget hole of $11.2 million in that area.
Most of the growth came as more people qualified for benefits because of poverty. The amount of financial assistance given jumped by 22.9 percent - leaving a $6.8 million hole in that budget. Again, more people qualified because of poverty. There was also 10 percent growth in child care services, leaving a $10.3 million gap.
"It's entirely due to the economic situation," Toumpas said.
So far, Toumpas has laid out plans for cutting $28 million this year. Those plans include lowering child-care subsidy rates so low-income parents have to contribute more, and reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates and capping services for a variety of medical services, which will take money from health care providers, particularly nursing homes and hospitals.
Within the department, there were 451 positions left vacant at the end of January, an amount equal to 13.5 percent of the its total authorized staff. Toumpas said the department has tried to stay away from cutting direct care personnel, which make up 65 percent of departmental jobs, so most of the vacancies are administrative.
Efficiency
Toumpas must still fill an additional $15 million hole in his budget, though he has asked the Legislature to give him until the end of 2011 to cut $8 million of that. And Gov. John Lynch recently asked all department heads to plan for an additional cut of 8 percent of their general fund money in fiscal year 2011. For HHS, that could mean close to $60 million.
Asked where that money would come from, Toumpas answered, "I don't know."
"We'll look at entire programs, entire business processes, entire functions within the department," he said.
Toumpas must submit a plan to Lynch by March 4.
Toumpas also pointed out that he has limited options of where to cut. During the budgeting process last year, the department determined that 35 percent of its budget went toward federally mandated services, such as Medicaid payments.
An additional 28 percent went toward optional federal entitlements and services - things like allowing people above a certain minimum income level to qualify for Medicaid. As long as the state is getting federal stimulus money, which is expected to be through December 2010, it cannot change the conditions for many of those programs.
The optional state services, which make up 17 percent of the budget, are often where the department looks to cut. That category includes programs like the children's health insurance program, contracts with the Brain Injury Association and screenings for newborns.
So with few good options for cutting spending, Toumpas said, he is trying to use the crisis to make the organization more efficient overall.
"It's fundamentally about how do we deliver services, what outcomes are we trying to achieve and how could we be more effective," Toumpas said.
By SHIRA SCHOENBERG
Monitor staff
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/620283-196/recession-hikes-state-social-services-spending.html
Synopsis of child welfare fraud
Synopsis of child welfare fraud
~author unknown~ (Maybe Nev Moore?)
When people read stories of children being snatched by SOSCF/CPS/DSS, etc. from parents who assert that they have never maltreated their children, I realize that their first question is always: "Why?" Why would a government agency that exists to protect children from abuse and neglect traumatize children by snatching them from their homes and families without good reason? There are two reasons. One is a sick, narcissistic mentality of social control and "re-structuring" by a faction of people who consider themselves god-like.
The other reason, that I will cover here, is money. Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12. billion a year on it. The money is made by tens of thousands of -
a) state employees: social workers and an amazing hierarchy of deadwood, (I'm sorry -administrators...) in the states Child Protective Service agencies,
b) collateral professionals: lawyers, court personnel, court investigators and evaluators, guardian ad litems, judges, and,
c) DSS contracted vendors (service providers) such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities (more dependent jobs), foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc.
This paper is not big enough to even list all of the people in this state alone who have a job, make a paycheck, or make their profits off of the kids in CPS custody. In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for CPS to take peoples children. And not give them back.
In 1974 Mondale passed the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that stemmed Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today.
After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it may be misused and lead states to create "business". In 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act". The PR campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled in-between dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family to call their own. In a press release from U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24th, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton's initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source". In the stereotype that we've been sold about kids in foster care we picture in our minds eye a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through dirt streaked face.
Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930's. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a little movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke's eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear.
And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.
Now it's time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. (Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again).
When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that, out of the 29 area DSS offices in Massachusetts, it is the Cape Cod & Islands office that leads the numbers in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. Over the inner city areas, over the projects, over Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn. Interesting.
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children, so, perhaps that would distract us from his other unsavory shortcomings. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses", to promote the adoption of children.
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100. per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child "Protective" Services CPS/DSS). Health & Human Services therefore is in charge of the foster care and adoption systems. To accompany the ASFA Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, but also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn 18.
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believed that these people were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I've got some bad news for you about the Easter bunny, too.
The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of CPS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I've talked to for the past three years look at me with pity – because I'm preaching to the already damned. The legislators have forgotten who pays their paychecks and who they need to account to – as has the Governor – because it isn't the President. It's us.
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child that CPS can get adopted out there is a bonus of $4,000. to $6,000., but that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed it's baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. (Like compounded interest). The bill reads: "$4,000. To $6,000. will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year".
In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary (of HHS) may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption (parents, for instance), more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
A report from the National Center for Policy Analysis reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards growth in program size instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier.
Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families". So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don't find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "AdoptShoppe". If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS's quaint "Adoption Fairs", where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking."
The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I'm surprised we don't have government agents breaking down peoples doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids, But then, if you need more apples you don't chop down your apple trees.
That covers the goodies the State gets, now let's have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.
After the adoption is finalized State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410. - $486. per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs", which, of course, they all can. According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child's development if not adopted by them; (but their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation).
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings." In their report on the State of the Children, Boston's Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social security check.
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance, and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process". Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact", including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services".
Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen! The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section.
The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family".
What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child's mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a safe car to drive worth over $1000. – all so she can collect $539.per month for herself and two children.
The foster parent who gets her children gets $820. plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents (who are bleeding tens times as much from the taxpayers) up as saints.
The adoptive and foster parents aren't subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI's, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens either – as the parents are.
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. (Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?). There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900. per month plus another $500. from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." I'll bet it does.
I can't help but wonder why we don't give this same level of support to the children's parents in the first place?
According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment". The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the parents were given "services that may be helpful in keeping the family intact", the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn't it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated?
How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12. Billion to around $4. Billion.
Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business (I'm sure they could find another line of work - like clubbing baby seals to death or something), but we would have safe, healthy, intact families – the foundation of any society. (We could hand out buttons that said: "Out of work therapist – will work for food"). That's just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowleys children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May* is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002" the U.S. postal service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don't feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
--anonymous (proudly forwarded by Susan Detlefsen, Director, Oregon Family Rights, November 2003)
This is a wonderfully well written truth about our sick child welfare system. I truly do not know who wrote it. I would like to thank him/her.
*November is now also “National Adoption Month”
~author unknown~ (Maybe Nev Moore?)
When people read stories of children being snatched by SOSCF/CPS/DSS, etc. from parents who assert that they have never maltreated their children, I realize that their first question is always: "Why?" Why would a government agency that exists to protect children from abuse and neglect traumatize children by snatching them from their homes and families without good reason? There are two reasons. One is a sick, narcissistic mentality of social control and "re-structuring" by a faction of people who consider themselves god-like.
The other reason, that I will cover here, is money. Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12. billion a year on it. The money is made by tens of thousands of -
a) state employees: social workers and an amazing hierarchy of deadwood, (I'm sorry -administrators...) in the states Child Protective Service agencies,
b) collateral professionals: lawyers, court personnel, court investigators and evaluators, guardian ad litems, judges, and,
c) DSS contracted vendors (service providers) such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities (more dependent jobs), foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc.
This paper is not big enough to even list all of the people in this state alone who have a job, make a paycheck, or make their profits off of the kids in CPS custody. In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for CPS to take peoples children. And not give them back.
In 1974 Mondale passed the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that stemmed Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today.
After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it may be misused and lead states to create "business". In 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act". The PR campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled in-between dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family to call their own. In a press release from U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24th, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton's initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source". In the stereotype that we've been sold about kids in foster care we picture in our minds eye a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through dirt streaked face.
Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930's. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a little movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke's eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear.
And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.
Now it's time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. (Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again).
When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that, out of the 29 area DSS offices in Massachusetts, it is the Cape Cod & Islands office that leads the numbers in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. Over the inner city areas, over the projects, over Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn. Interesting.
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children, so, perhaps that would distract us from his other unsavory shortcomings. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses", to promote the adoption of children.
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100. per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child "Protective" Services CPS/DSS). Health & Human Services therefore is in charge of the foster care and adoption systems. To accompany the ASFA Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, but also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn 18.
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believed that these people were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I've got some bad news for you about the Easter bunny, too.
The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of CPS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I've talked to for the past three years look at me with pity – because I'm preaching to the already damned. The legislators have forgotten who pays their paychecks and who they need to account to – as has the Governor – because it isn't the President. It's us.
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child that CPS can get adopted out there is a bonus of $4,000. to $6,000., but that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed it's baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. (Like compounded interest). The bill reads: "$4,000. To $6,000. will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year".
In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary (of HHS) may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption (parents, for instance), more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
A report from the National Center for Policy Analysis reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards growth in program size instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier.
Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families". So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don't find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "AdoptShoppe". If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS's quaint "Adoption Fairs", where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking."
The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I'm surprised we don't have government agents breaking down peoples doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids, But then, if you need more apples you don't chop down your apple trees.
That covers the goodies the State gets, now let's have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.
After the adoption is finalized State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410. - $486. per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs", which, of course, they all can. According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child's development if not adopted by them; (but their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation).
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings." In their report on the State of the Children, Boston's Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social security check.
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance, and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process". Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact", including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services".
Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen! The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section.
The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family".
What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child's mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a safe car to drive worth over $1000. – all so she can collect $539.per month for herself and two children.
The foster parent who gets her children gets $820. plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents (who are bleeding tens times as much from the taxpayers) up as saints.
The adoptive and foster parents aren't subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI's, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens either – as the parents are.
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. (Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?). There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900. per month plus another $500. from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." I'll bet it does.
I can't help but wonder why we don't give this same level of support to the children's parents in the first place?
According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment". The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the parents were given "services that may be helpful in keeping the family intact", the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn't it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated?
How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12. Billion to around $4. Billion.
Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business (I'm sure they could find another line of work - like clubbing baby seals to death or something), but we would have safe, healthy, intact families – the foundation of any society. (We could hand out buttons that said: "Out of work therapist – will work for food"). That's just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowleys children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May* is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002" the U.S. postal service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don't feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
--anonymous (proudly forwarded by Susan Detlefsen, Director, Oregon Family Rights, November 2003)
This is a wonderfully well written truth about our sick child welfare system. I truly do not know who wrote it. I would like to thank him/her.
*November is now also “National Adoption Month”
Monday, February 15, 2010
Jim Gottstein to host webinar on plans to curb the over-drugging of children
Jim Gottstein to host webinar on plans to curb the over-drugging of children
2010 February 8
by giannakali
Planned for February 24th.
ICSPP’s 2010 Distinguished Lecture Series will begin with Attorney Jim Gottstein’s webinar presentation on PsychRights‘ Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth
Background:
The massive psychiatric drugging of America’s children, particularly poor, disadvantaged children and youth through Medicaid and in foster care is an unfolding public health catastrophe of massive proportions. This catastrophe is being caused by the fraudulent promotion of these harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies sacrificing children and youth’s health, futures and lives on the altar of corporate profits. In 2009, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $1.4 Billion in criminal and civil penalties for such off-label promotion of Zyprexa and Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 Billion for the illegal off-label promotion of Geodon and other drugs, yet the practice has not stopped. It is merely a cost of doing business to these pharmaceutical Goliaths and, in fact, caps their liability for these crimes. Most importantly, these settlements have not stopped the practice of child psychiatrists and other prescribers giving these drugs to children and youth and Medicaid continuing to pay for these fraudulent claims.
Purpose:
PsychRights‘ Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children and Youth is designed to address this problem by having lawsuits brought against the doctors prescribing these harmful, ineffective drugs, their employers, and the pharmacies filling these prescriptions and submitting them to Medicaid for reimbursement. Each offending prescription carries a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000. This is why it is expected that once their financial exposure becomes known to them prescribers and pharmacies will curtail the practice. Anyone with knowledge of specific offending prescriptions can sue on behalf of the government to recover for such Medicaid Fraud, and receive a percentage of the recovery, if any.
This webinar will walk through the requirements of the Federal False Claims Act as it pertains to this type of Medicaid Fraud and is for people and lawyers who may be interested in bringing such suits.
A bio of Attorney Gottstein, Esq. can be found here.
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/jim-gottstein-to-host-webinar-on-plans-to-curb-the-over-drugging-of-children/
2010 February 8
by giannakali
Planned for February 24th.
ICSPP’s 2010 Distinguished Lecture Series will begin with Attorney Jim Gottstein’s webinar presentation on PsychRights‘ Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth
Background:
The massive psychiatric drugging of America’s children, particularly poor, disadvantaged children and youth through Medicaid and in foster care is an unfolding public health catastrophe of massive proportions. This catastrophe is being caused by the fraudulent promotion of these harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies sacrificing children and youth’s health, futures and lives on the altar of corporate profits. In 2009, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $1.4 Billion in criminal and civil penalties for such off-label promotion of Zyprexa and Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 Billion for the illegal off-label promotion of Geodon and other drugs, yet the practice has not stopped. It is merely a cost of doing business to these pharmaceutical Goliaths and, in fact, caps their liability for these crimes. Most importantly, these settlements have not stopped the practice of child psychiatrists and other prescribers giving these drugs to children and youth and Medicaid continuing to pay for these fraudulent claims.
Purpose:
PsychRights‘ Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children and Youth is designed to address this problem by having lawsuits brought against the doctors prescribing these harmful, ineffective drugs, their employers, and the pharmacies filling these prescriptions and submitting them to Medicaid for reimbursement. Each offending prescription carries a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000. This is why it is expected that once their financial exposure becomes known to them prescribers and pharmacies will curtail the practice. Anyone with knowledge of specific offending prescriptions can sue on behalf of the government to recover for such Medicaid Fraud, and receive a percentage of the recovery, if any.
This webinar will walk through the requirements of the Federal False Claims Act as it pertains to this type of Medicaid Fraud and is for people and lawyers who may be interested in bringing such suits.
A bio of Attorney Gottstein, Esq. can be found here.
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/jim-gottstein-to-host-webinar-on-plans-to-curb-the-over-drugging-of-children/
Government Ran Kidnapping Ring? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!
August 3, 2009...9:26 pm
Government Ran Kidnapping Ring? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!
Recently, I ran across the question on LegallyKidnapped.com ‘Is Child and Family services a Government ran Kidnapping Ring?’ I have to answer this question with a firm “yes”. I’m not the only one who has done investigations of CPS, DCFS, DFS, DHS, or whatever they call themselves in your area, there have been many.
As parents have access to the internet, and are asking the questions “why was MY child(ren) taken away?” they are discovering a bleak and traumatic truth.
There are hundreds of websites, if not thousands, that parents have created to get the message out to unsuspecting parents out there, with information they have discovered.
Parents have experienced that in these “Secret Courts” that are ran and administered by the same people that are taking the children, that it is in fact a “Tribunal Court”. There is virtually no possible way the parents can win. In these courts, parents are placed with Gag Orders, as to ‘not discuss the case’, this way, the social workers can conduct their business outside of scrutiny, and they can lie on the reports and to the Judges free to perjure themselves without question, after all who will complain?. Parents are often not even allowed in the court rooms while their cases are being discussed. All the people involved are playing the parents like a fiddle. Social Workers are very nice, claiming they are there to “help you” and they are sure ‘you’ll probably get your children back’, however each time you express any type of conflict with them or their decisions; something to either expose them, or to prove your innocents, they threaten that they will and can “put your child up for adoption”. This is not a false story,, this is a fact.
The children are being taken at an alarming rate, and although they are only investigating ONE child… they will take them all, regardless of the circumstances. They are stealing the children legally. Social Workers (SW) have no problems falsifying documents, lying about parents and extended family members, they threaten the parents into so called “services” which by parents taking these services is an automatic admission of guilt (even if they have done nothing); SW’s will do whatever it takes to ensure your child WILL be placed up for adoption.
Children are often placed into care and deemed “special needs” ensuring more Federal Funding and Non Profit Grants for these children. New Hampshire’s Social Services website states that one criterion to be deemed for a Special Needs child is simply to be of age 6 or more. It has been documented that babies as young as a few months old are deemed to have “mental issues” and are given strong psychotropic drugs. With each medial issue that can be found (or created) the state and Federal Government gets more money, not just from the demand for more taxes, but also from the Non Profit Grants that you so kindly donate to.
The Governments motto is “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” I don’t believe this is only meant to be a slogan for Educationm as most children are taken, from schools… “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” a slogan most likely used by Social Services.. a slogan for all government, after what I’ve seen, experienced, researched and learned I believe this to be true.
No Child Left Behind, means that the Social Workers, the State, and Federal Government including the Non Profit groups, Adoptions Agencies and all their agents and affiliates have a guaranteed income, and I can tell you the economics involved is one of the highest in America.
Just as Cancer will not be cured, due to the amount of job losses and business losses, government investments and Mental Health, too many doctors would be out of business, along with the countless Oncology Hospitals popping up, Child Stealing by the Government will also only increase.
I was told by a Government Official, during my investigation, that Social Services does in fact “have a quota, and are REQUIRED to increase their child intake each year” per County.
Does this scare you? If you have children or are thinking of having children, or even have grand children, this should scare you. I’ve had a few social workers tell me that “the majority of the children they take come from really good homes, and never go back”
I was also told “if you don’t make the claims against the parents, you lose your job”
I have spent approximately 3 years worth of time (in 1 ½ years time) looking into this, as I wanted to know why my own son was taken, and I was appalled at my discovery.
Please feel free to ask questions, I have many answers.. Though there are many more that still need to be discovered.
Sandra Ami
http://amiablyme.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/government-ran-kidnapping-ring-no-child-left-behind/
Government Ran Kidnapping Ring? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!
Recently, I ran across the question on LegallyKidnapped.com ‘Is Child and Family services a Government ran Kidnapping Ring?’ I have to answer this question with a firm “yes”. I’m not the only one who has done investigations of CPS, DCFS, DFS, DHS, or whatever they call themselves in your area, there have been many.
As parents have access to the internet, and are asking the questions “why was MY child(ren) taken away?” they are discovering a bleak and traumatic truth.
There are hundreds of websites, if not thousands, that parents have created to get the message out to unsuspecting parents out there, with information they have discovered.
Parents have experienced that in these “Secret Courts” that are ran and administered by the same people that are taking the children, that it is in fact a “Tribunal Court”. There is virtually no possible way the parents can win. In these courts, parents are placed with Gag Orders, as to ‘not discuss the case’, this way, the social workers can conduct their business outside of scrutiny, and they can lie on the reports and to the Judges free to perjure themselves without question, after all who will complain?. Parents are often not even allowed in the court rooms while their cases are being discussed. All the people involved are playing the parents like a fiddle. Social Workers are very nice, claiming they are there to “help you” and they are sure ‘you’ll probably get your children back’, however each time you express any type of conflict with them or their decisions; something to either expose them, or to prove your innocents, they threaten that they will and can “put your child up for adoption”. This is not a false story,, this is a fact.
The children are being taken at an alarming rate, and although they are only investigating ONE child… they will take them all, regardless of the circumstances. They are stealing the children legally. Social Workers (SW) have no problems falsifying documents, lying about parents and extended family members, they threaten the parents into so called “services” which by parents taking these services is an automatic admission of guilt (even if they have done nothing); SW’s will do whatever it takes to ensure your child WILL be placed up for adoption.
Children are often placed into care and deemed “special needs” ensuring more Federal Funding and Non Profit Grants for these children. New Hampshire’s Social Services website states that one criterion to be deemed for a Special Needs child is simply to be of age 6 or more. It has been documented that babies as young as a few months old are deemed to have “mental issues” and are given strong psychotropic drugs. With each medial issue that can be found (or created) the state and Federal Government gets more money, not just from the demand for more taxes, but also from the Non Profit Grants that you so kindly donate to.
The Governments motto is “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” I don’t believe this is only meant to be a slogan for Educationm as most children are taken, from schools… “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” a slogan most likely used by Social Services.. a slogan for all government, after what I’ve seen, experienced, researched and learned I believe this to be true.
No Child Left Behind, means that the Social Workers, the State, and Federal Government including the Non Profit groups, Adoptions Agencies and all their agents and affiliates have a guaranteed income, and I can tell you the economics involved is one of the highest in America.
Just as Cancer will not be cured, due to the amount of job losses and business losses, government investments and Mental Health, too many doctors would be out of business, along with the countless Oncology Hospitals popping up, Child Stealing by the Government will also only increase.
I was told by a Government Official, during my investigation, that Social Services does in fact “have a quota, and are REQUIRED to increase their child intake each year” per County.
Does this scare you? If you have children or are thinking of having children, or even have grand children, this should scare you. I’ve had a few social workers tell me that “the majority of the children they take come from really good homes, and never go back”
I was also told “if you don’t make the claims against the parents, you lose your job”
I have spent approximately 3 years worth of time (in 1 ½ years time) looking into this, as I wanted to know why my own son was taken, and I was appalled at my discovery.
Please feel free to ask questions, I have many answers.. Though there are many more that still need to be discovered.
Sandra Ami
http://amiablyme.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/government-ran-kidnapping-ring-no-child-left-behind/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)