Chalk Up Another One For CPS
January 25, 2010yvonnemasonLeave
Chalk Up Another One For CPS
How many more children have to die before we fix the problem?
As a general rule, Children’s Service agencies simply do not work. I’m sure people can point to one or two states who have sterling agencies with no children in the state who have been further victimized while under the “protection” of the agency, however, I’ll wager those are the exception, not the rule. I haven’t done the math, but I can personally name a good three dozen in the last two years who have wound up dead due to abuse while under the supervision and protection of Children’s Service agencies.
I don’t fault the individual caseworkers (although some of them have shown criminal levels of negligence and surely deserve blame), I’m faulting the entire system. It’s not working, for a multitude of reasons. The failures are widespread enough that I believe it’s safe to say it’s a “nationwide” problem, not a “specific state” problem. It’s not one agency, it’s many of them.
Here’s one of the latest CPS failures:
In 2004, three young siblings were removed from the care of their parents because the father of the children had abused one of them. The children first lived with their mother, but when she refused to sever contact with the father, who was by that time in prison for the abuse, the children were removed from her care as well.
The children then went to live with their father’s brother, Robert Ford, Jr., who had three children of his own. He and his wife intended to keep the children, but the folks at CPS felt that the children needed a more financially stable home. So, after seven months, the couple reluctantly placed their niece and nephews into a foster home and began saving money to adopt them.
Then, in January of 2005, while the Fords were still working to meet CPS requirements for a six child household, a prospective adoptive family began visiting with the children. After one of their visits with the family, the foster family reported that the youngest child, (then) 3-year old Sean Ford, had come home with a bruise on his bottom. The adoptive family explained that the boy had fallen from a bunk bed, but the foster mother felt the bruising was too severe. When the children reported that Sean had also been forbidden to have lunch as well, the foster mom called the authorities. A caseworker was sent to the home to evaluate the situation, met with the family and their four children and ultimately decided that there was no need for concern.
When the boy returned from a subsequent visit with welts on his bottom and thighs, Robert Ford made the next call. Once again, a caseworker investigated and decided there was no cause for concern.
On July 22, 2005, six weeks after they’d made application through a private agency to adopt the three children, the court issued a decree of adoption to Johnny and Lynn Paddock — despite the reports to CPS and despite their biological uncle’s family still working to meet the state’s requirements to adopt them. He and his wife put together a family scrapbook for the children. Robert Ford said that the children begged him to keep them that day, the last time that they were permitted to see them. Everything happened so fast, “all I could do was hold them and cry.”
The family lost touch with the children after the adoption; state law prevented them from knowing the adoptive parents.
Robert and his wife heard nothing more about the children until February 26 when they learned of Sean’s death on television. Lynn Paddock had beaten Sean with a length of PVC pipe, and when she went to awaken him in the morning, the boy was dead.
Lynn is charged with Sean’s death, no charges have been filed against the adoptive father. Lynn is being held pending trial, her bail has been set at $1 million. The boy’s surviving 8- and 9-year old siblings and the youngest two of the Paddock’s four children have been removed from the home. One child was injured so badly he was limping, according to the district attorney. The children told deputies that their mother stashed PVC pipes throughout the home.
Sean’s siblings have been placed back into the foster care system. Robert Ford and his wife again hope to adopt them. They also hope that they’ll be allowed to bury Sean.
They’ll make sure that Paddock, his adopted name, is nowhere on the tombstone.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/chalk-up-another-one-for-cps/
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
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Would Accountability Solve the System’s Abuses?
Would Accountability Solve the System’s Abuses?
Tuesday, February 05, 2002
By Robin Wallace
A Tennessee federal judge in November ordered the arrest of all the employees at the Franklin County Department of Children�s Services for refusing to implement his ruling on a custody case involving a two-year-old child.
Tennessee’s child protective services office has been embroiled in scandal. Among other problems, caseworkers have been accused of falsify records and the state legislature has threatened to dismantle thestate’s foster care system unless the DCS reforms. In the case of the Franklin County arrests, the judge ruled that the child should be turned over to one of the parties in the custody case. DCS did not agree with judge’s ruling; they refused to turn the child over while they tried to stay the ruling.
And the Tennessee case may not be an isolated one. Some recent court decisions suggest that judges may be growing as frustrated with the child protective system as the families caught in it.
In May, a federal jury decided that a caseworker with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services failed to protect three foster children who were brutally abused while in state custody. The jury found the caseworker knew of the abuse and ignored it, and violated the children’s civil rights by failing to protect them. The children were awarded $3.3 million.
In Maine, a committee of the state legislature studying the state�s child protective services system came to some scathing conclusions. The report, released in November, found that the state relied too much on foster care and needed to make greater efforts to keep families together.
In April, in a class action suit filed by child-care workers and foster parents wrongfully accused of abuse, a federal judge ruled that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services needed to meet a higher standard of proof before reporting the workers as abusers to their employers.
Evidence presented in the Illinois case found that three-fourths of child care workers found to have abused or neglected a child were exonerated after appealing those finding, though sometimes not until years later. In the meantime, care workers and foster parents were being entered into a registry of abusers based on being accused and suffering the consequences of that listing long before their cases were decided once and for all.
Parents, however, don’t have the power judges do and it is still a rare case that makes it to a civil trial. That ’s why activists are calling for reforms that will increase caseworkers accountability and impose penalties on those who act arbitrarily or vindictively.
The notion that a social worker would act purely out of vindictiveness sounds like parent propoganda, but California saw the need to pass a law specifically addressing that possibility. It allows for the prosecution of social workers who have been proven to have acted with intentional malice. Activists say it is almost impossible to prove a caseworker acted maliciously, but some accountability is better than none. Consider this Massachusetts case:
Postal worker David Luisi lost custody of his three children to his ex-wife for refusing to enroll in a program for “angry men”�because the only person he was angry at was the caseworker.
The couple separated in 1994 and Luisi was eventually awarded custody of the children after their mother gave them up, saying she couldn’t cope with the pressures of raising them. But in 1997, the mother filed a false abuse charge against Luisi. Based on that accusation, the Department of Social Services gave the children to the mother.
It took almost two years for Luisi to get a hearing, clear his name and then wait for DSS to correct their records. The children remained with the mother throughout the ordeal, during which time a doctor diagnosed Luisi’s young daughter as suffering from malnutrition and the mother’s boyfriend was charged with assaulting one of his sons.
Luisi informed DSS that he planned to seek custody of his children and pestered the social worker on the case to investigate his wife�s fitness. Concerned that the children appeared to be malnourished and neglected in their mother’s care and that her boyfriend was a danger, Luisi and his relatives complained to police, to the DSS and to the media that the children were being neglected.
In 1999, the social worker on the case sought an emergency order to terminate the Luisi�s visitation rights, claiming that his phone calls and anxiety over the fate of his children indicated he had problems with anger management. Visitation could only be resumed if he agreed to attend a program for men with anger issues that required participants to admit they were abusive. The alleged anger and abuse the social worker claimed required this treatment was not aimed at his own children. She was demanding he enroll in the program because she didn�t like the way he was treating her.
Luisi, who had been unequivocally cleared of the false abuse charge, feared that attending the program would brand him an abuser and hurt his chances of regaining custody when the case came to trial. He decided not to seek visitation with his children if it meant having to attend the classes.
But the case did not come to trial for another year. When it did come to trial in July, 2001, the judge gave full custody to the mother, ruling against the father because he had waited a full year to seek visitation. The judge also granted the mother permission to move to Niagra Falls, New York with the children. The judge said Luisi put his own selfish needs above the needs of his children. Yet it was the system that forced him to wait a year to seek visitation by demanding he enroll in a program for abusers because he was making too many phone calls to the social worker handling the case.
This need for greater accountability is the root of many problems with child services, activists maintain.
In the case of activist Nev Moore, her daughter was removed from their home, she said, as a strategy to force Moore to admit to being abused by her husband. Because she wouldn’t, the state kept her daughter. In other cases documented by activist organizations, social workers have defined abuse or neglect as parenting or family lifestyle choices they disagree with.
“If we had an accountability statue put in place these social workers would be a little more reluctant to go after these � frivolous cases that are blocking up our court system,” said attorney Janet Frederick Wilson.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/would-accountability-solve-the-systems-abuses/
Tuesday, February 05, 2002
By Robin Wallace
A Tennessee federal judge in November ordered the arrest of all the employees at the Franklin County Department of Children�s Services for refusing to implement his ruling on a custody case involving a two-year-old child.
Tennessee’s child protective services office has been embroiled in scandal. Among other problems, caseworkers have been accused of falsify records and the state legislature has threatened to dismantle thestate’s foster care system unless the DCS reforms. In the case of the Franklin County arrests, the judge ruled that the child should be turned over to one of the parties in the custody case. DCS did not agree with judge’s ruling; they refused to turn the child over while they tried to stay the ruling.
And the Tennessee case may not be an isolated one. Some recent court decisions suggest that judges may be growing as frustrated with the child protective system as the families caught in it.
In May, a federal jury decided that a caseworker with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services failed to protect three foster children who were brutally abused while in state custody. The jury found the caseworker knew of the abuse and ignored it, and violated the children’s civil rights by failing to protect them. The children were awarded $3.3 million.
In Maine, a committee of the state legislature studying the state�s child protective services system came to some scathing conclusions. The report, released in November, found that the state relied too much on foster care and needed to make greater efforts to keep families together.
In April, in a class action suit filed by child-care workers and foster parents wrongfully accused of abuse, a federal judge ruled that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services needed to meet a higher standard of proof before reporting the workers as abusers to their employers.
Evidence presented in the Illinois case found that three-fourths of child care workers found to have abused or neglected a child were exonerated after appealing those finding, though sometimes not until years later. In the meantime, care workers and foster parents were being entered into a registry of abusers based on being accused and suffering the consequences of that listing long before their cases were decided once and for all.
Parents, however, don’t have the power judges do and it is still a rare case that makes it to a civil trial. That ’s why activists are calling for reforms that will increase caseworkers accountability and impose penalties on those who act arbitrarily or vindictively.
The notion that a social worker would act purely out of vindictiveness sounds like parent propoganda, but California saw the need to pass a law specifically addressing that possibility. It allows for the prosecution of social workers who have been proven to have acted with intentional malice. Activists say it is almost impossible to prove a caseworker acted maliciously, but some accountability is better than none. Consider this Massachusetts case:
Postal worker David Luisi lost custody of his three children to his ex-wife for refusing to enroll in a program for “angry men”�because the only person he was angry at was the caseworker.
The couple separated in 1994 and Luisi was eventually awarded custody of the children after their mother gave them up, saying she couldn’t cope with the pressures of raising them. But in 1997, the mother filed a false abuse charge against Luisi. Based on that accusation, the Department of Social Services gave the children to the mother.
It took almost two years for Luisi to get a hearing, clear his name and then wait for DSS to correct their records. The children remained with the mother throughout the ordeal, during which time a doctor diagnosed Luisi’s young daughter as suffering from malnutrition and the mother’s boyfriend was charged with assaulting one of his sons.
Luisi informed DSS that he planned to seek custody of his children and pestered the social worker on the case to investigate his wife�s fitness. Concerned that the children appeared to be malnourished and neglected in their mother’s care and that her boyfriend was a danger, Luisi and his relatives complained to police, to the DSS and to the media that the children were being neglected.
In 1999, the social worker on the case sought an emergency order to terminate the Luisi�s visitation rights, claiming that his phone calls and anxiety over the fate of his children indicated he had problems with anger management. Visitation could only be resumed if he agreed to attend a program for men with anger issues that required participants to admit they were abusive. The alleged anger and abuse the social worker claimed required this treatment was not aimed at his own children. She was demanding he enroll in the program because she didn�t like the way he was treating her.
Luisi, who had been unequivocally cleared of the false abuse charge, feared that attending the program would brand him an abuser and hurt his chances of regaining custody when the case came to trial. He decided not to seek visitation with his children if it meant having to attend the classes.
But the case did not come to trial for another year. When it did come to trial in July, 2001, the judge gave full custody to the mother, ruling against the father because he had waited a full year to seek visitation. The judge also granted the mother permission to move to Niagra Falls, New York with the children. The judge said Luisi put his own selfish needs above the needs of his children. Yet it was the system that forced him to wait a year to seek visitation by demanding he enroll in a program for abusers because he was making too many phone calls to the social worker handling the case.
This need for greater accountability is the root of many problems with child services, activists maintain.
In the case of activist Nev Moore, her daughter was removed from their home, she said, as a strategy to force Moore to admit to being abused by her husband. Because she wouldn’t, the state kept her daughter. In other cases documented by activist organizations, social workers have defined abuse or neglect as parenting or family lifestyle choices they disagree with.
“If we had an accountability statue put in place these social workers would be a little more reluctant to go after these � frivolous cases that are blocking up our court system,” said attorney Janet Frederick Wilson.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/would-accountability-solve-the-systems-abuses/
State Auditor releases performance audit work plan
February 26, 2010
State Auditor releases performance audit work plan
While lawmakers debate ways to balance the state budget, State Auditor Brian Sonntag released today his performance audit work plan to help identify savings and efficiencies. According to the plan:
This work plan identifies 30 state government programs and functions we plan to evaluate under the authority of Initiative 900 between now and June 2013.
This plan reflects a blend of near- and long-term audits of major state programs as well as shorter-term audits that will give policymakers ideas to consider as they work to meet the state’s financial challenges. They also reflect our goal of independently and objectively identifying opportunities for cost savings, efficiencies and improved customer service . . .
The following programs and functions have been selected for audit, review and further consideration.
Vulnerable Children and Adults
1. WorkFirst Program Effectiveness
2. Child Protective Services
3. Child Care Licensing & Monitoring
4. Foster Care Program Performance
5. DSHS Programs: Possible Gaps and Overlaps
6. Aging and Disability Services
7. Developmental Disability Services
Public Safety
8. Crime Victims’ Programs
9. Reducing Repeat Offenses in Corrections System
10. Community Supervision of Offenders on Parole
Health
11. Purchasing Prescription Drugs
12. Health Insurance Coverage for School Employees
13. Detecting and Preventing Medicaid Fraud
Student Achievement
14. Educational Spending Patterns
15. Intervention for Low-Performing Schools
16. Comprehensive Education Data System
Postsecondary Learning
17. College Student Financial Aid Programs
18. Workforce Development
State Government Efficiency and Effectiveness
19. Opportunities to Improve State Printing Services
20. Grant Management Program Effectiveness
21. Call Center Effectiveness
22. Opportunities to Improve State Procurement
23. Options for Property Management
24. Washington Management Service and Executive Management Service
Economic Vitality
25. Results of Federal Economic Stimulus Funding
26. Master Building Licensing Opportunities
27. Workers’ Compensation System
Natural Resources
28. Department of Fish and Wildlife Revenue Options
29. Forest and Fish Adaptive Management Program
Mobility
30. Sound Transit Ridership Projections (part of local government performance audit work plan)
Additional details on each of these planned performance audits available here.
Posted by Jason Mercier at 01:33 PM in Budget and Taxes | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54ee27704883401310f404fe3970c
http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2010/02/state-auditor-releases-performance-audit-work-plan.html
State Auditor releases performance audit work plan
While lawmakers debate ways to balance the state budget, State Auditor Brian Sonntag released today his performance audit work plan to help identify savings and efficiencies. According to the plan:
This work plan identifies 30 state government programs and functions we plan to evaluate under the authority of Initiative 900 between now and June 2013.
This plan reflects a blend of near- and long-term audits of major state programs as well as shorter-term audits that will give policymakers ideas to consider as they work to meet the state’s financial challenges. They also reflect our goal of independently and objectively identifying opportunities for cost savings, efficiencies and improved customer service . . .
The following programs and functions have been selected for audit, review and further consideration.
Vulnerable Children and Adults
1. WorkFirst Program Effectiveness
2. Child Protective Services
3. Child Care Licensing & Monitoring
4. Foster Care Program Performance
5. DSHS Programs: Possible Gaps and Overlaps
6. Aging and Disability Services
7. Developmental Disability Services
Public Safety
8. Crime Victims’ Programs
9. Reducing Repeat Offenses in Corrections System
10. Community Supervision of Offenders on Parole
Health
11. Purchasing Prescription Drugs
12. Health Insurance Coverage for School Employees
13. Detecting and Preventing Medicaid Fraud
Student Achievement
14. Educational Spending Patterns
15. Intervention for Low-Performing Schools
16. Comprehensive Education Data System
Postsecondary Learning
17. College Student Financial Aid Programs
18. Workforce Development
State Government Efficiency and Effectiveness
19. Opportunities to Improve State Printing Services
20. Grant Management Program Effectiveness
21. Call Center Effectiveness
22. Opportunities to Improve State Procurement
23. Options for Property Management
24. Washington Management Service and Executive Management Service
Economic Vitality
25. Results of Federal Economic Stimulus Funding
26. Master Building Licensing Opportunities
27. Workers’ Compensation System
Natural Resources
28. Department of Fish and Wildlife Revenue Options
29. Forest and Fish Adaptive Management Program
Mobility
30. Sound Transit Ridership Projections (part of local government performance audit work plan)
Additional details on each of these planned performance audits available here.
Posted by Jason Mercier at 01:33 PM in Budget and Taxes | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54ee27704883401310f404fe3970c
http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2010/02/state-auditor-releases-performance-audit-work-plan.html
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Civil trial set for abuse case
Civil trial set for abuse case
by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:14 AM HST
Lawsuit alleges school knew about girl's situation
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.
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 was also tortured psychologically, being forced to eat cockroaches and Froot Loops mixed with chili peppers.
Unless a settlement is reached, the non-jury trial is scheduled to be heard by Hilo Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura at 9 a.m. Feb. 23.
Among the allegations is that personnel at Keonepoko Elementary School knew of the abuse as early as December 2004, but failed to notify either police or Child Protective Services. Honolulu attorney Arthur Park, who represents the girl's grandfather, Bienvenido Cabanting, on Thursday asked Nakamura for a pretrial ruling against the DOE for breaching its duty of care.
Nakamura took Park's request under advisement.
"If the DOE had done its job anywhere along the line in December '04 or January '05, then those catastrophic injuries would not have occurred," Park told the judge. "There would have been injuries, but not the catastrophic injuries. ... There is controverted or disputed evidence on what occurred prior to that time. But anything that occurred prior to a week before (hospitalization) was relatively minor to what she had when she was found on ... Feb. 7, '05."
According to the filing, teacher Lei Fanunu, guidance counselor Candace Thomson-Bott, and former DOE behavioral health specialist Stritama Sherreitt all testified in depositions that they told Keonepoko Principal Kathleen Romero of the abuse. The lawsuit says Romero denied in her deposition that she was notified by any of the three.
"There are a number of undisputed facts in this case that at this point the state has not really disputed or rebutted, and that would be that the two counselors and teacher Fanunu knew of abuse," Park asserted. "The abuse might have been hearsay, but the rule ... talks about suspected abuse. So even if it was hearsay, it should have been reported immediately."
Kenneth Robbins, a Honolulu attorney representing the DOE, told Nakamura: "There is a question that the teacher or the counselor is to be believed. ... And further, insofar as what teacher Fanunu was told or knew about a bruise on (the girl's) face is concerned, whether or not she had a duty to report to principal Romero depends on the credibility of (the girl) at that time, because she said that that was self-inflicted."
Park said it doesn't matter who failed to notify police or CPS when the girl's situation came to light.
"If we construe the facts most favorably for the state, accept principal Romero's ... position that she was never told nor was aware of this abuse, then those three school personnel violated their duty. They can't have it both ways," he argued.
"It's undisputed there was no report to the police or CPS. (The girl) was absent from school continuously from Dec. 16, three days before Christmas vacation, to Feb. 7, that's 28 or so continuous days, even taking into account holidays. That alone should have triggered an inquiry by the school. It was well-known among the counselors that (the girl) was absent. It was also undisputed that there was a predator child living in the Poouahi household. ... He was a prior student at Keonepoko School. ... He had beaten up another child. He punched a teacher. That's the thing that concerned (counselors), the potential abuse of (the girl). And as it turns out, he was one of the major abusers."
Park said afterwards that Thursday's hearing was "basically a preview of opening arguments in the trial."
E-mail John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2010/02/14/local_news/local01.txt
by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:14 AM HST
Lawsuit alleges school knew about girl's situation
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.
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 was also tortured psychologically, being forced to eat cockroaches and Froot Loops mixed with chili peppers.
Unless a settlement is reached, the non-jury trial is scheduled to be heard by Hilo Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura at 9 a.m. Feb. 23.
Among the allegations is that personnel at Keonepoko Elementary School knew of the abuse as early as December 2004, but failed to notify either police or Child Protective Services. Honolulu attorney Arthur Park, who represents the girl's grandfather, Bienvenido Cabanting, on Thursday asked Nakamura for a pretrial ruling against the DOE for breaching its duty of care.
Nakamura took Park's request under advisement.
"If the DOE had done its job anywhere along the line in December '04 or January '05, then those catastrophic injuries would not have occurred," Park told the judge. "There would have been injuries, but not the catastrophic injuries. ... There is controverted or disputed evidence on what occurred prior to that time. But anything that occurred prior to a week before (hospitalization) was relatively minor to what she had when she was found on ... Feb. 7, '05."
According to the filing, teacher Lei Fanunu, guidance counselor Candace Thomson-Bott, and former DOE behavioral health specialist Stritama Sherreitt all testified in depositions that they told Keonepoko Principal Kathleen Romero of the abuse. The lawsuit says Romero denied in her deposition that she was notified by any of the three.
"There are a number of undisputed facts in this case that at this point the state has not really disputed or rebutted, and that would be that the two counselors and teacher Fanunu knew of abuse," Park asserted. "The abuse might have been hearsay, but the rule ... talks about suspected abuse. So even if it was hearsay, it should have been reported immediately."
Kenneth Robbins, a Honolulu attorney representing the DOE, told Nakamura: "There is a question that the teacher or the counselor is to be believed. ... And further, insofar as what teacher Fanunu was told or knew about a bruise on (the girl's) face is concerned, whether or not she had a duty to report to principal Romero depends on the credibility of (the girl) at that time, because she said that that was self-inflicted."
Park said it doesn't matter who failed to notify police or CPS when the girl's situation came to light.
"If we construe the facts most favorably for the state, accept principal Romero's ... position that she was never told nor was aware of this abuse, then those three school personnel violated their duty. They can't have it both ways," he argued.
"It's undisputed there was no report to the police or CPS. (The girl) was absent from school continuously from Dec. 16, three days before Christmas vacation, to Feb. 7, that's 28 or so continuous days, even taking into account holidays. That alone should have triggered an inquiry by the school. It was well-known among the counselors that (the girl) was absent. It was also undisputed that there was a predator child living in the Poouahi household. ... He was a prior student at Keonepoko School. ... He had beaten up another child. He punched a teacher. That's the thing that concerned (counselors), the potential abuse of (the girl). And as it turns out, he was one of the major abusers."
Park said afterwards that Thursday's hearing was "basically a preview of opening arguments in the trial."
E-mail John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2010/02/14/local_news/local01.txt
Case Studies out of California where Children were forced by CPS to be Given to Abusive Parents
Case Studies out of California where Children were forced by CPS to be Given to Abusive Parents
February 26, 2010 yvonnemason
Case Studies
This is so wrong on so many levels.
http://www.protectiveparents.com/cases.html
The following summaries are a few selected samples of real California Family Law cases (catogorized by county), in which children are taken away from safe parents, and forced to live with abusive parents.
Amador County
When these children were four, seven and nine years old, they were taken from their mother who was accused of non-evidentiary Parent Alienation Syndrome, and placed in the full custody of their father. This occurred in 1996, after the two girls disclosed molest by their father, despite corroborative medical evidence, explicit disclosures of abuse to law enforcement, and receipt of California Victims of Crime funding for therapy due to the crime committed against them. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including nightmares, encopresis, excessive fears, sexualized behavior, depression, dissociation, anger, physical pains, headaches, constipation, and stomach aches. The mother, found by the court to be a good, loving mother and not accused of any crime, has been on supervised visitation since the reversal of custody three years ago. The mother, bankrupt after spending $250,000, must represent herself in court against the father’s attorney. The children’s attorney functions as a de facto attorney for the accused perpetrator.
Contra Costa County
After disclosing molest by her father, this 11-year-old victim and her two siblings were forced to continue overnight, unsupervised visits with the identified perpetrator. The father admitted molesting his daughter and was convicted. Nevertheless, overnight visits were court ordered to continue. In 1997 the five-year-old daughter disclosed molest by the father. Unsupervised visits continued because the court determined the father was not able to pay a supervisor.
El Dorado County
In 1998 this 4-year-old boy was taken from his mother and given to his physically abusive father. He is barred from any contact from his mother.
Fresno County
This little girl, born in 1994, was taken away from her mother when she was a toddler, and placed with her father, despite her on-going disclosures of sexual abuse by the father. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including anger, phobias, eating problems, insomnia, constipation, headaches, nausea, regression, terror when her diapers were changed, night terrors, and attention problems. These problems increased when she was placed with the father, but the numerous reports to CPS have been to no avail. The child cries until she vomits when she leaves her mother on week-end visits and is forced to return to the father.
Los Angeles/Orange County (Torrance)
Born in 1988, this little girl was placed in the custody of her mother when she was five years old, seeing her violent father only in the presence of a court monitor. When she was seven, she was forced to see her father without a supervisor, and reported to professionals that he was sexually and physically abusing her. The abuse was corroborated by medical evidence. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears of her mother dying, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, extreme dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, and a learning disability. Rather than protecting her, Judge F. granted primary custody to her father. In Utah, where her mother had moved, physical and sexual abuse was substantiated and she received complete court protection. However, California regained jurisdiction and placed her with the father. The child, now 11, is only able to see her non-offending mother for 8 hours per month under supervised conditions.
These two children, a boy born in 1982 and a girl born in 1984, were in the full custody of their mother who was a victim of domestic violence. In 1989 and 1990, both children disclosed sexual abuse by the father. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including lack of intact hymen, vaginal infections, nightmares and night terrors, enuresis and encopresis, phobias, sexualized behavior, depression, eating disorders, intense anger, headaches, and stomach aches. The mother was charged by the State of Georgia for not protecting the children from the father. The children received California Victims of Crime funding for therapy due to the crimes committed against them. However, in 1990 the California court took the children away from their mother and put them with the father’s family. The mother was placed on supervised visitation. In 1992 the father gained custody and hid the children from their mother. $36,000 back child support owed to the mother was erased, and the court doubled her payments of child support. In 1997 the mother was assaulted and injured in the courthouse by the father, who continued to terrorize her. The mother, a court monitor herself, was chosen “1995 Humanitarian of the Year” by her university.
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Born in 1987, this child began masturbating at school and reported sexual abuse by her father when she was seven years old. The Department of Children and Family Court Services (DCFS) concluded she had been sexually abused. She was placed in the custody of her mother, and saw her father on court-ordered supervised visits. The child repeatedly asked to be placed with her mother and consistently reported sexual molest by her father, even in court. Nevertheless, in she was taken away from her non-abusive mother and placed in the custody of her father on the recommendation of an evaluator. In 1994 DCFS filed another sexual-abuse petition against the father in juvenile court. However, the child remained in the custody of her father, despite having a court-appointed attorney who does not represent the wishes of the child. In 1998, the court cut off her off from all contact with her non-offending mother. Currently this severely learning-disabled child is allowed to see her mother only twice a week under supervised conditions. The mother is now bankrupt.
Los Angeles/Riverside County (Torrance Superior Court)
This child was raised by her mother who has never been accused of any crime. In 1998 she was taken away from her mother and legal father, and forced to live with a man whom she has continuously stated sexually abused her. She is allowed no contact with her mother, who has tried unsuccessfully to protect her.
Los Angeles County
This two-year-old girl disclosed sexual abuse by father, and was given to identified abuser. The mother is on supervised visits.
These small children were placed in the custody of their mother when they were nearly one and two years old. Their violent father was ordered to take a parenting class. A year later they were taken away from their mother and forced to live with their father. The judge stated he was only interested in the mother’s “alienation” (the mother was breast-feeding), and ignored police reports of the father’s domestic violence and history of DUI’s. The unemployed mother is ordered to pay child support of over $1200 per month to the multi-millionaire Israeli father (who obtained a green card through their marriage). The toddlers are being raised to speak only Hebrew and are only allowed scant contact with their mother, who cannot afford an attorney.
Born in 1990, this child made graphic disclosures of rape by his father, including group sex, to physicians, therapists, and detectives. He had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including sexualized behavior, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, extreme dissociation, intense anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, learning disability and attention problems. CPS did not protect him. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. Despite saying that he wanted to live with his mother, he was forced to live with his identified perpetrator who then moved to Boston. He is rarely allowed to see his mother, and only with a supervisor.
Born in 1989, this child was taken from his mother after he disclosed that his father beat him when he was 4 years old. There was medical evidence of abuse. The child had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behaviors, depression, intense anger, nightmares and night terrors, headaches, stomach aches, bladder problems and enuresis, diarrhea, phobias, and attention problems. The boy stated he wanted to live with his mother, and instead was forced to live with his father. The child’s attorney does not represent the wishes of the child. The non-offending mother has spent approximately $85,000 and must represent herself in court.
Los Angeles (Long Beach and Concord)
This four-year-old child lived with his mother and 3 brothers in Long Beach after his parents separated in 1997. When the mother decided to move to Northern California, the judge ordered the child delivered to Southern California every week for visits in 1998. An evaluator recommended a change of custody to the father, despite the mother complying with the visitation schedule.
Marin County
This little girl reported sexual abuse, corroborated by 4 medical reports, by her father who physically abused and choked her mother unconscious. She was placed in the custody of her mother, a bank vice president, and saw her father only under supervised conditions. The father threatened and stalked them until the mother and child took refuge in a battered women’s shelter. The child was forced to visit her father without supervision, and was subsequently re-abused. Her mother was court-ordered not to take her to the doctor. The mother fled with her daughter to Europe in 1992, because she could not obtain protection for the child through California family law court. They were found 1½ years later, and the child was placed in the full custody of her father. Her mother went to prison for depriving the father visitation, is prohibited from contacting her daughter, and is ordered to pay the father $65,000 in restitution.
Mono County
In 1997, these five- and six-year-old brothers were taken away from their mother, amid allegations that the mother deliberately kept the youngest child sick. The five-year-old was subsequently hospitalized when the father did not take care of his illness. The father threatened suicide at the hospital, and had to be subdued, disarmed and taken to a psychiatric hospital by police. Subsequently, the boys were placed in foster care. The five-year-old, who suffered from a rare blood sugar disease, became fatally ill and died after social worker and foster parents failed to provide appropriate medical care, in spite of the mother’s pleas. The older boy is forced to live with his father, despite his statement that he wants to live with his mother, and statements by his older sister to CPS about sexual abuse by their father. He is only allowed to see his non-offending mother with a court monitor. The mother has won 3 wrongful death lawsuits against the father and the county totaling over $800,000.
Placer County
This child, when she was 6 years old, was ripped from her mother’s arms and given into the custody of her father whom she had reported molested her. She begs to come to live with her mother, who has spent several hundred thousand dollars trying to protect her.
Plumas County
Born in 1994, this little girl began disclosing sexual abuse when she was only 1½ years old. She identified her father as the perpetrator. She eventually told a doctor, counselor and school teacher about the abuse. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, consisting of nightmares, night terrors, sexualized behavior, enuresis, fear of her father, depression, eating disorder, dissociation, extreme anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, and stomach aches. Despite documentation of the sexual abuse to the court, she is forced to stay unsupervised with her father. The child’s attorney does not represent his client’s wishes. The mother has spent approximately $150,000 trying to protect her child and is now without an attorney. She has not seen her child.
Sacramento County
This boy, born in 1990, was placed in the custody of his mother after to his parents divorce, with overnight visits with his father. When he was less than two years old, he began reporting on-going sodomy by his father. He had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including rectal bleeding, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, sexualized behavior, depression, extreme dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, insomnia, diarrhea, and stomach aches. The child disclosed the abuse to 5 teachers, family physician, therapists, police, family and friends. There were over 62 reports of suspected abuse in 7 years. Child Protective Services investigated and substantiated 7 reports of child sex abuse. The child wrote and talked to the judge, asking to live with his mother and grandmother. Instead, the court repeatedly placed him in the custody of his identified perpetrator. He called 911 for help from his father’s house, and his therapist called the police to help him, and was put into expensive private foster care, rather than with his non-offending mother. He was able to stay with his mother while she was dying. Four months after her death, he was forcibly removed from his non-offending grandmother’s care by armed police. He was placed in expensive foster care again for over six months, and is now forced by Juvenile Court to live with his identified perpetrator permanently. The child’s attorneys did not represent his wishes, and functioned as de facto attorneys for the accused perpetrator.
This child, born in 1986, had nightmares and medical evidence of sexual abuse at age 4 ½ years, and identified her father as the perpetrator. The judge ordered that the father’s new wife supervise the visits. The child again disclosed molestation. CPS and the sheriff’s department placed her in the Children’s Receiving Home. After a 6 month investigation and UC Davis Medical Center examinations, the little girl was placed with her mother, and the father was not allowed visits. During reunification, the therapist recommended unsupervised visits. The mother fled with the child to Canada to protect her from further abuse. They were found after 11/2 years and the mother was put in jail. The child was forced to live with her identified perpetrator and did not see her mother for six years. She is currently being treated for suicide attempts and alcoholism.
These two boys were taken from their mother and given to their father when they were 12 and 15 years old, after they reported that their father abused them and threatened suicide. The father had brutally abused the mother during the marriage. When the boys asked their mother to motion the court to remove their court-appointed attorney who was threatening them, the judge gave guardianship of the boys to that attorney. The children protested being removed from their mother, pleaded with the judge and evaluator, refused to get on the airplane to be sent to another state, and were forced to go to live with the father. The younger child ran away from his father’s home and cannot be found.
These three children reported sexual molestation by the father to numerous professionals. Physical evidence of the abuse was found for all three, and the children had psychological symptoms of nightmares, school phobias, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation. Both parents have equal time with the children due to evaluator recommendations.
In 1996 this 3 ½ year old child, who lived in the custody of her mother, stated she was being touched by her father inappropriately during visits. The recommendation from the mediator was to have supervised visits, but the evaluator denied the molest, did not gather evidence, misquoted parties, and recommended 50/50 custody. The child again disclosed molest. When the judge still refused to provide supervised visits, CPS in another county took the child into protective custody and supervised visits were ordered. However, Sacramento County took jurisdiction and the evaluator said the mother had Parent Alienation. The judge forced both the girl and her brother to live with their father, despite ordering the father to attend anger control classes.
This little boy had speech problems, frequent ear infections and leg pains, nightmares, enuresis, fears and phobias. The mother divorced the physician father (who was in treatment for addiction to pornography) due to his violence and alcohol abuse. During the divorce proceedings, a custody evaluation report was written which the mother was not allowed to see. The father demanded custody of the child. The mother’s attorney said she would lose all parental rights if she did not accede to the demand. She acceded and the child is now allowed to see his non-offending mother only under supervised conditions, despite the child’s statements that his father abuses him.
This child reported sexual abuse by the father to numerous professionals. The child had medical and psychological evidence of sexual abuse, yet was required to visit the father unsupervised, due to evaluator’s recommendations.
This child reported sexual abuse by the father. CPS investigation confirmed the abuse and there was medical evidence of sexual abuse. The child was required to visit the father unsupervised, due to the evaluator’s recommendations.
San Bernardino County
In 1993 this child’s mother divorced her father due to his physical abuse of the child. After a visit with her father, the child reported physical and sexual abuse. There was medical evidence of genital warts, bruises and welts. In 1995 after an evaluation, the mother was ordered to bring the child to court. The court forced the child to live with her identified perpetrator father. After the evaluation was overturned in a peer review, the child was placed half time with her mother. The evaluator did another report in 1997, and again recommended the child be placed with her father. After the child told her mother that she wanted to commit suicide, she was not allowed to see her mother at all. Now she may see her non-offending mother only with a court monitor present.
Born in 1989, this child was placed in the custody of his mother when he was 20 months old. His father had physically abused his mother for 9 years. The child returned from visits with the father with bruises, black eyes, a raw penis, headaches, ear aches, stomach aches and throat infections. At age 4, he had sexualize behavior, masturbation, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, depression, dissociation, insomnia, nausea, and attention problems. The child tried to jump out of a moving car when he had to return to his father. The evaluator ignored hospital reports and police reports. The court gave full custody to the father in 1995, despite the child’s stated desire to stay with his mother. Four months later he again disclosed sexual abuse to 12 professionals and 3 CPS workers. Nevertheless, the court forced him to remain in his father’s custody, and has denied him any visits with his mother. The mother is now bankrupt.
These seven and ten year old children reported physical and sexual abuse by father. The father received full custody and mother is on supervised visits once per week when she can afford it.
San Diego County
Born in 1987, this child reported sexual abuse to his pediatrician when he was six years old. He had sexualized behavior, fears of his mother dying, depression, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, and stomach aches. He has a medical condition called Williams Syndrome in which his body ages rapidly, but he is younger in many ways than his biological age. In 1988 he and his mother had moved to a battered woman’s shelter due to violence in the home. He stated he wanted to live with his mother, a teacher. Instead he is forced by the court to live with his violent father who had been convicted of DUI and stealing, and is permanently disabled with mental disability. The father moved the child to another state, and sees his mother only a few times per year. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
After a short marriage this child’s parents separated in 1986. Custody of the one year old child was given to the mother. He returned from visits with the father with genital irritation. At age 2 ½ he disclosed genital touching by the father, and at age 3 ½ he displayed sexually precocious behavior to a therapist, and a deep bruise on his genitals. An evaluation was ordered. The evaluator recommended full custody to the father. The mother left the state with the child to protect him from further abuse. 1 ½ years later the mother and child were apprehended. Both old and new abuse evidence was suppressed in court, through the efforts of a social worker. Although there was medical evidence of sexual abuse and evidence of abuse by the father from another victim, full custody was given to the father and the mother was placed on supervised visits. The child continued to disclose abuse. The father moved to another state, and the mother’s visits have been thwarted.
In 1993 this three year old child began to reveal she was sexually abused by her father. The family court refused to consider any evidence of sexual abuse and ordered “molest cannot be an issue in this case”. Unsupervised visits, and later temporary custody with the father, were ordered in 1994. An evaluator recommended that the child be removed from the mother’s house due to “severe parental alienation.” The mother was placed on supervised visits, and is now allowed weekends with the child. The evidence of molest is overwhelming, as testified to by 3 psychologists, a police investigator, an expert in child sexual abuse allegations, tape recordings of the child’s disclosures, sexual acting out, photographs of the father naked with the child on his lap, and medical evidence of labial adhesions. . The attorney for the child does not listen to the child’s wants, but indicates he is doing what is “best” for the child. The police determined probable cause, but the District Attorney declined to prosecute the father. This child ran away from her father’s home.
San Luis Obispo County
Born in 1994, this child disclosed that he was being molested by his father when he was nine years old. He told counselors, CPS, and police, and had symptoms of nightmares, night terrors, enuresis and encopresis, excessive fears of men and anger, sexualized behavior, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches. Despite this, the child was taken away from his safe mother and forced to live with his identified perpetrator. He has only been allowed to see his mother a few times with a therapist. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. The mother has since died.
The underage mother became pregnant at age 16 by the father, who was then 19 years old. She left shortly after the child was born due to the father assaulting her and threatening her with a knife and a gun. The father continued to stalk and threaten the mother, who obtained a restraining order. In April 1999, the court awarded custody of this little boy, age 4 ½, to the father, stating in a court order, “While the court observes that a change in the minor child’s custody could be detrimental to his development, they must give the father custody due to alienation on the part of the plaintiff.”
These two girls, born in 1987 and 1988, disclosed sexual abuse when they were 4 and 5 years old. The children had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behaviors, excessive fears, depression, eating disorder, dissociation, anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, diarrhea, stomach aches, learning disability and attention deficit problems. They named the father, who is on welfare, as their perpetrator. Many CPS reports were made, yet the children were not protected, and were placed in the custody of the father.
This child, born in 1994, and his older brother and sister, were abused. The child reported to the police and therapist that his uncle sexually abused him. He displayed a cluster of symptoms indicative of sex abuse including nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears, sexualized behavior, anger, headaches, and insomnia. Two CPS reports were made. The father received custody, and the mother is not allowed to talk to anyone about her concerns.
San Mateo County
Born in 1989, this child was adopted and spent the first 9 years of her life with her stay-at-home mother. The father abused the child and the mother (put a knife to her stomach), and left the marriage several times. In 1995 the couple separated after 30 years of marriage. During supervised visits, the father said he was going to take the child away from her mother. The Special Master, chosen by the father’s attorney, selected the therapist, attorney and evaluator. The evaluation, accusing the mother of parental alienation, was so biased that another evaluator wrote a report stating that it was entirely unprofessional. The child reported that the therapist said she would be taken away from her mother, and increased therapy to 3 to 4 times per week. In 1998 the father received full custody, despite the child’s wish to remain with her mother.. The child has symptoms of depression, anger, dissociation, fear of sleeping, nightmares, night terrors, headaches, stomach aches, problems urinating, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, phobias, regression and learning disability. The mother, now without funds, has to represent herself against the father’s attorney, and is forced to pay child support. She is unable to see her child and cannot afford the cost of supervised visits. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. This child ran away from her father’s home, but was forced by the police to return.
These twin boys, born in 1985, lived with their mother after their parents divorced in 1988 due to domestic violence by their father. The father, a convicted, registered sex offender, was convicted of spousal battery. He saw the children under supervised conditions because of the children’s behaviors which were indicative of sexual abuse. He eventually obtained overnight visits. The father’s attorney motioned the court to appoint a Special Master who then gave the father joint custody. The children disclosed sexual abuse, the District Attorney investigated, yet the mother was precluded from presenting evidence of the abuse, or have witnesses testify. The children, ages 11, were then taken away from their mother and forced to live in the full custody of their identified sex abuser against their will, and began to fail in school. The mother, representing herself, managed to remove the Special Master and the children’s attorney, and have the judge recuse himself. However, the children still live with the father. At age 14 they refused to go back to their father’s home. The police forced them to return. At 15, they succeeded in running away from home and returning to their mother.
San Mateo/Merced County
These young girls, born in 1988 and 1990, disclosed sexual abuse by their father in 1993. They reported the abuse to CPS, police investigators, teachers, sheriffs, nurses, physicians, hospital staff, Sunday school staff and friends. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behavior, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears of their mother leaving, and being with their father, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, dissociation, anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, learning disability and attention problems. They were placed in the full custody of their mother, and received Victims of Crime funding for treatment for the crimes committed against them. Two years later, in 1996, they were ordered by the court to see their father for unsupervised visits. On one visit they stated they were brutally raped, and had bruises, labial lacerations and loss of intact hymen. Physical evidence and documents disappeared, the mother was arrested for child abduction despite having custody, and the father was given temporary legal, but not physical custody. However, the father took the children to his home, and has refused to allow the mother to see them.
Santa Clara County
This child, born in 1996, displayed sexualized behavior, eating disorders, depression, dissociation, anger, physical pains, insomnia, stomach aches and attention problems. He disclosed sexual abuse when he was 5 years old and named his father and girlfriend as perpetrators. The father has been convicted of DUIs. The court ordered that the abuse was not to be talked about, and the child was placed in the primary care of his father, despite wanting to live with his mother. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
This child, born in 1990, began having symptoms at age 1 ½. He had nightmares, excessive fears of being taken away from his mother, sexualized behavior, depression, dissociation, anger, headaches, insomnia, stomach aches, and learning disability. When he was eight years old, he had encopresis. He banged his head on tables, and acted out by hitting. He named his father as perpetrator of sexual abuse, and told the police. There is medical evidence of abuse, and 3 or 4 CPS reports. However, based on the evaluator’s report, the court ordered that sole physical custody be given to the father. Despite the medical evidence of abuse, including cigarette burns, and the child’s wishes to be with his mother, he is forced to remain with his father. He has minimal visitation with his mother. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
This child, born in 1993 was in his mother’s sole custody after the parents divorced in 1995. The child had nightmares, night terrors, anger, stomach aches and attention problems. The court accused the mother of “alienation” and changed custody to the father when the child was 2 years old. The mother was placed on supervised visitation.
This child, born in 1993, was taken away from his mother, who was accused of “alienation”. He and his seven and nine-year-old siblings were placed with their father without a custody trial. The Special Master changed the time share to 95% with the father, despite their wishes to remain with their mother. The mother was placed on supervised visitation which she cannot afford, so these children have been unable to see her. The child had depression, eating disorder, anger, physical pains, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, weight gain and learning disability. The oldest child, who was not moved to the father’s custody, experienced a drastic reduction in symptoms, including asthma, when he stopped seeing the father at age 15.
These two boys, born after their parents’1990 marriage, have dual citizenship (Finnish/ American). Their mother told Finnish authorities about their disclosures of abuse in 1994. She filed for divorce, after experiencing domestic violence. After the boys were placed in joint custody, their mother fled to Finland with them. The father was awarded full custody and the children were returned to the United States.
This child was taken away from her mother and placed in the custody of her father. The court ordered all contact severed with her mother when she was eight years old. The professionals in this case have multiple roles, and were appointed despite the mother not signing an agreement for a special masters as required by law. The first special master then appointed the second, who continued making orders after her term expired, and issued orders without hearings.
This child disclosed that his father beat him with a belt, and described sexual abuse after sexual acting out behavior. After the judge ordered a new evaluator, the special master recommended that the son be taken away from his mother and forced to live with the father, and the daughter be placed in foster care. Despite the lack of written agreement for the special master, she issued a change of custody order to the father, severely limiting the mother’s contact with her children.
This child lived with the mother, who was the main parent. Eventually the father got de facto custody when the child was seven, after the evaluator recommended a reversal of the 60/40 time share.
Although the parents agreed on a living arrangement, the special master ordered an evaluation, and threatened to have custody changed if the mother did not comply with the evaluation. The special master continued acting after her appointment had expired. When mother complained, the court ordered an attorney for child.
This teen-aged girl is forced to live with her step-father, a convicted sex offender.
When she was 4, this child had a vaginal rash, cuts and a discharge. The doctor called CPS which ordered a rape SART exam. The investigation concluded the abuse allegations were unfounded, despite the child’s comments and later she had another rash. This time, the mother was accused of “parental alienation syndrome” and the mother lost custody. She can only see her mother every other weekend. Now she is seven years old and cries when she has to return to her father. She wants to know if someday she gets to decide where she gets to live.
Yolo County
This child reported sexual abuse by the father who was stalking the mother. When the mother called the police about the stalking, the boy was taken from his mother by the police and immediately placed with his father. He is only allowed to see his mother under supervised conditions. He continues to disclose sexual abuse through his sexualized behavior.
Case Study Review
From the above sample of cases, a pattern is evident:
A young child discloses sexual and/or physical abuse by the father to a variety of professionals and community members.
The abuse is corroborated by medical and/or psychological factors.
Many of the children receive Victims of Crime funding for therapy
The mother may have been battered by the father.
The police do not arrest and the District Attorney does not prosecute the accused offender.
CPS does not investigate incest cases thoroughly.
CPS does not protect the children, even after multiple reports.
The accused offender files for custody of his alleged victim.
Professionals are appointed by the family law court. These professionals often take on multiple roles in cases. All enjoy a high standard of living because of the litigation.
Certain individuals are repeatedly appointed.
Many of the professionals fail to make mandated suspected child abuse reports, even when the child directly discloses abuse to them.
The court-appointed custody evaluator ignores or minimizes domestic violence and child abuse, and recommends the child be placed with the identified abuser.
The court-appointed attorney for the child does not represent his/her client’s wishes regarding placement, and often functions as a de facto attorney for the accused perpetrator.
Special Masters, mental health professionals with powers of a judge, are untrained in the law, yet are given authority to make binding orders on cases.
Evidence of abuse and witnesses for the child are not admitted into the family law court.
The child is not allowed to speak to the judge, or his/her wishes are ignored by the court.
The mother who is trying to protect the child, is accused of alienating the child from the father.
After months or years of litigation, the mother becomes bankrupt and must represent herself.
The child is placed in the unsupervised or full custody of the identified perpetrator.
The protective mother is placed on supervised visitation or not allowed contact with the child
The child pleads to remain with the safe parent, but is taken, sometimes by police force, back to the identified abuser.
Child Abuse: Educator’s Responsibility
Crime and Violence Prevention Center
California Attorney General’s Office
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General
August 1999
INDICATORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE
Indicators of sexual abuse can surface through a child’s history, physical symptoms and behavior. Some of these indicators, taken separately, may not be symptomatic of sexual abuse. They are listed below as a guide and should be examined in the context of other factors.
History
The single most important indicator is disclosure by the child to a friend, classmate, teacher, friend’s mother or other trusted adult. The disclosure may be direct or indirect, e.g., “I know someone…” or “What would you do if…?” or “I heard something about somebody…” It is not uncommon for the disclosure by children experiencing chronic or acute sexual abuse to be delayed. Children rarely fabricate these accounts; they should be taken seriously.
The child wears torn, stained, or bloody underclothing.
Knowledge that a child’s injury/disease (vaginal, trauma, sexually transmitted disease) is unusual for the specific age group.
Knowledge of a child’s history of previous or recurrent injuries/diseases.
Unexplained injuries/diseases (parent/caretaker unable to explain reason for injury/disease); there are discrepancies in explanation; blame is placed on a third party; explanations are inconsistent with medical diagnosis.
A young girl is pregnant or has a sexually transmitted disease. Pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute the basis of reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse.
Physical Symptoms
Sexually transmitted disease.
Genital discharge or infection.
Physical trauma or irritation to the anal/genital area (pain, itching, swelling, bruising, bleeding, lacerations, abrasions), especially if injuries are unexplained or there is an inconsistent explanation.
Pain during urination or defecation.
Difficulty in walking or sitting due to genital or anal pain.
Psychosomatic symptoms (stomachaches, headaches).
Sexual Behaviors of Children
Detailed and age-inappropriate understanding of sexual behavior (especially by younger children).
Inappropriate, unusual or aggressive sexual behavior with peers or toys.
Compulsive indiscreet masturbation.
Excessive curiosity about sexual matters or genitalia (self and others).
Unusually seductive with classmates, teachers and other adults.
Excessive concern about homosexual, especially of boys.
Behavioral Indicators in Younger Children
Enuresis (wetting pants, bed wetting).
Fecal soiling.
Eating disturbances such as overeating, undereating.
Fears and phobias.
Overly compulsive behavior.
School problems or significant change in school performance (attitude and grades).
Age-inappropriate behavior that includes pseudomaturity or regressive behavior such as bed wetting or thumb sucking.
Inability to concentrate.
Sleeping disturbances (nightmares, fear of falling asleep, fretful sleep pattern, sleeping long hours).
Drastic behavior changes.
Speech disorders.
Frightened of parents/caretaker or of going home.
Behavioral Indicators in Older Children & Adolescents
Withdrawal.
Chronic fatigue.
Clinical depression, apathy.
Overly compliant behavior.
Poor hygiene or excessive bathing.
Poor peer relations and social skills; inability to make friends.
Acting out, running away, aggressive, antisocial or delinquent behavior.
Alcohol or drug abuse.
Prostitution or excessive promiscuity.
School problems, frequent absences, sudden drop in school performance.
Refusal to dress for physical education.
Non-participation in sports and social activities.
Fearful of other things (going outside or participating in familiar activities).
Extraordinary fear of males (in cases of male perpetrator and female victim).
Self-consciousness of body beyond that expected for age.
Sudden acquisition of money, new clothes or gifts with no reasonable explanation.
Suicide attempt or other self-destructive behavior.
Crying without provocation.
Setting fires.
Sexual abuse of children within the family, or incest, is the most hidden form of child abuse. In spite of its taboo and the difficulty of detection, some researchers believe it may be even more common than physical abuse. In discussing sexual abuse, incest means sexual activity between certain close relatives, (e.g., parents and children, sibling, grandparents and grandchildren); intrafamilial mean sexual activity between persons in a family setting, (e.g., stepparent, parent’s live-in partner).
In most reported cases, the father or a male caretaker is the initiator and the victim is usually a female child. However, boys are also victims more often that previously believed. Embarrassment and shame often deter children from reporting abuse. The initial sexual abuse may occur at any age from infancy through adolescence.
Injustice taking place by Jackson County DFCS
Parents Harrassed by CPS
Yes Case Workers Get A Bounty For Taking Children From their Parents
Get the news up high
Categories: Abuse by CPSTags: abuse by CPS in California, abusive parents, yvonne mason
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/case-studies-out-of-california-where-children-were-forced-by-cps-to-be-given-to-abusive-parents/
February 26, 2010 yvonnemason
Case Studies
This is so wrong on so many levels.
http://www.protectiveparents.com/cases.html
The following summaries are a few selected samples of real California Family Law cases (catogorized by county), in which children are taken away from safe parents, and forced to live with abusive parents.
Amador County
When these children were four, seven and nine years old, they were taken from their mother who was accused of non-evidentiary Parent Alienation Syndrome, and placed in the full custody of their father. This occurred in 1996, after the two girls disclosed molest by their father, despite corroborative medical evidence, explicit disclosures of abuse to law enforcement, and receipt of California Victims of Crime funding for therapy due to the crime committed against them. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including nightmares, encopresis, excessive fears, sexualized behavior, depression, dissociation, anger, physical pains, headaches, constipation, and stomach aches. The mother, found by the court to be a good, loving mother and not accused of any crime, has been on supervised visitation since the reversal of custody three years ago. The mother, bankrupt after spending $250,000, must represent herself in court against the father’s attorney. The children’s attorney functions as a de facto attorney for the accused perpetrator.
Contra Costa County
After disclosing molest by her father, this 11-year-old victim and her two siblings were forced to continue overnight, unsupervised visits with the identified perpetrator. The father admitted molesting his daughter and was convicted. Nevertheless, overnight visits were court ordered to continue. In 1997 the five-year-old daughter disclosed molest by the father. Unsupervised visits continued because the court determined the father was not able to pay a supervisor.
El Dorado County
In 1998 this 4-year-old boy was taken from his mother and given to his physically abusive father. He is barred from any contact from his mother.
Fresno County
This little girl, born in 1994, was taken away from her mother when she was a toddler, and placed with her father, despite her on-going disclosures of sexual abuse by the father. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including anger, phobias, eating problems, insomnia, constipation, headaches, nausea, regression, terror when her diapers were changed, night terrors, and attention problems. These problems increased when she was placed with the father, but the numerous reports to CPS have been to no avail. The child cries until she vomits when she leaves her mother on week-end visits and is forced to return to the father.
Los Angeles/Orange County (Torrance)
Born in 1988, this little girl was placed in the custody of her mother when she was five years old, seeing her violent father only in the presence of a court monitor. When she was seven, she was forced to see her father without a supervisor, and reported to professionals that he was sexually and physically abusing her. The abuse was corroborated by medical evidence. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears of her mother dying, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, extreme dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, and a learning disability. Rather than protecting her, Judge F. granted primary custody to her father. In Utah, where her mother had moved, physical and sexual abuse was substantiated and she received complete court protection. However, California regained jurisdiction and placed her with the father. The child, now 11, is only able to see her non-offending mother for 8 hours per month under supervised conditions.
These two children, a boy born in 1982 and a girl born in 1984, were in the full custody of their mother who was a victim of domestic violence. In 1989 and 1990, both children disclosed sexual abuse by the father. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including lack of intact hymen, vaginal infections, nightmares and night terrors, enuresis and encopresis, phobias, sexualized behavior, depression, eating disorders, intense anger, headaches, and stomach aches. The mother was charged by the State of Georgia for not protecting the children from the father. The children received California Victims of Crime funding for therapy due to the crimes committed against them. However, in 1990 the California court took the children away from their mother and put them with the father’s family. The mother was placed on supervised visitation. In 1992 the father gained custody and hid the children from their mother. $36,000 back child support owed to the mother was erased, and the court doubled her payments of child support. In 1997 the mother was assaulted and injured in the courthouse by the father, who continued to terrorize her. The mother, a court monitor herself, was chosen “1995 Humanitarian of the Year” by her university.
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Born in 1987, this child began masturbating at school and reported sexual abuse by her father when she was seven years old. The Department of Children and Family Court Services (DCFS) concluded she had been sexually abused. She was placed in the custody of her mother, and saw her father on court-ordered supervised visits. The child repeatedly asked to be placed with her mother and consistently reported sexual molest by her father, even in court. Nevertheless, in she was taken away from her non-abusive mother and placed in the custody of her father on the recommendation of an evaluator. In 1994 DCFS filed another sexual-abuse petition against the father in juvenile court. However, the child remained in the custody of her father, despite having a court-appointed attorney who does not represent the wishes of the child. In 1998, the court cut off her off from all contact with her non-offending mother. Currently this severely learning-disabled child is allowed to see her mother only twice a week under supervised conditions. The mother is now bankrupt.
Los Angeles/Riverside County (Torrance Superior Court)
This child was raised by her mother who has never been accused of any crime. In 1998 she was taken away from her mother and legal father, and forced to live with a man whom she has continuously stated sexually abused her. She is allowed no contact with her mother, who has tried unsuccessfully to protect her.
Los Angeles County
This two-year-old girl disclosed sexual abuse by father, and was given to identified abuser. The mother is on supervised visits.
These small children were placed in the custody of their mother when they were nearly one and two years old. Their violent father was ordered to take a parenting class. A year later they were taken away from their mother and forced to live with their father. The judge stated he was only interested in the mother’s “alienation” (the mother was breast-feeding), and ignored police reports of the father’s domestic violence and history of DUI’s. The unemployed mother is ordered to pay child support of over $1200 per month to the multi-millionaire Israeli father (who obtained a green card through their marriage). The toddlers are being raised to speak only Hebrew and are only allowed scant contact with their mother, who cannot afford an attorney.
Born in 1990, this child made graphic disclosures of rape by his father, including group sex, to physicians, therapists, and detectives. He had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse including sexualized behavior, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, extreme dissociation, intense anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, learning disability and attention problems. CPS did not protect him. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. Despite saying that he wanted to live with his mother, he was forced to live with his identified perpetrator who then moved to Boston. He is rarely allowed to see his mother, and only with a supervisor.
Born in 1989, this child was taken from his mother after he disclosed that his father beat him when he was 4 years old. There was medical evidence of abuse. The child had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behaviors, depression, intense anger, nightmares and night terrors, headaches, stomach aches, bladder problems and enuresis, diarrhea, phobias, and attention problems. The boy stated he wanted to live with his mother, and instead was forced to live with his father. The child’s attorney does not represent the wishes of the child. The non-offending mother has spent approximately $85,000 and must represent herself in court.
Los Angeles (Long Beach and Concord)
This four-year-old child lived with his mother and 3 brothers in Long Beach after his parents separated in 1997. When the mother decided to move to Northern California, the judge ordered the child delivered to Southern California every week for visits in 1998. An evaluator recommended a change of custody to the father, despite the mother complying with the visitation schedule.
Marin County
This little girl reported sexual abuse, corroborated by 4 medical reports, by her father who physically abused and choked her mother unconscious. She was placed in the custody of her mother, a bank vice president, and saw her father only under supervised conditions. The father threatened and stalked them until the mother and child took refuge in a battered women’s shelter. The child was forced to visit her father without supervision, and was subsequently re-abused. Her mother was court-ordered not to take her to the doctor. The mother fled with her daughter to Europe in 1992, because she could not obtain protection for the child through California family law court. They were found 1½ years later, and the child was placed in the full custody of her father. Her mother went to prison for depriving the father visitation, is prohibited from contacting her daughter, and is ordered to pay the father $65,000 in restitution.
Mono County
In 1997, these five- and six-year-old brothers were taken away from their mother, amid allegations that the mother deliberately kept the youngest child sick. The five-year-old was subsequently hospitalized when the father did not take care of his illness. The father threatened suicide at the hospital, and had to be subdued, disarmed and taken to a psychiatric hospital by police. Subsequently, the boys were placed in foster care. The five-year-old, who suffered from a rare blood sugar disease, became fatally ill and died after social worker and foster parents failed to provide appropriate medical care, in spite of the mother’s pleas. The older boy is forced to live with his father, despite his statement that he wants to live with his mother, and statements by his older sister to CPS about sexual abuse by their father. He is only allowed to see his non-offending mother with a court monitor. The mother has won 3 wrongful death lawsuits against the father and the county totaling over $800,000.
Placer County
This child, when she was 6 years old, was ripped from her mother’s arms and given into the custody of her father whom she had reported molested her. She begs to come to live with her mother, who has spent several hundred thousand dollars trying to protect her.
Plumas County
Born in 1994, this little girl began disclosing sexual abuse when she was only 1½ years old. She identified her father as the perpetrator. She eventually told a doctor, counselor and school teacher about the abuse. She had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, consisting of nightmares, night terrors, sexualized behavior, enuresis, fear of her father, depression, eating disorder, dissociation, extreme anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, and stomach aches. Despite documentation of the sexual abuse to the court, she is forced to stay unsupervised with her father. The child’s attorney does not represent his client’s wishes. The mother has spent approximately $150,000 trying to protect her child and is now without an attorney. She has not seen her child.
Sacramento County
This boy, born in 1990, was placed in the custody of his mother after to his parents divorce, with overnight visits with his father. When he was less than two years old, he began reporting on-going sodomy by his father. He had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including rectal bleeding, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, sexualized behavior, depression, extreme dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, insomnia, diarrhea, and stomach aches. The child disclosed the abuse to 5 teachers, family physician, therapists, police, family and friends. There were over 62 reports of suspected abuse in 7 years. Child Protective Services investigated and substantiated 7 reports of child sex abuse. The child wrote and talked to the judge, asking to live with his mother and grandmother. Instead, the court repeatedly placed him in the custody of his identified perpetrator. He called 911 for help from his father’s house, and his therapist called the police to help him, and was put into expensive private foster care, rather than with his non-offending mother. He was able to stay with his mother while she was dying. Four months after her death, he was forcibly removed from his non-offending grandmother’s care by armed police. He was placed in expensive foster care again for over six months, and is now forced by Juvenile Court to live with his identified perpetrator permanently. The child’s attorneys did not represent his wishes, and functioned as de facto attorneys for the accused perpetrator.
This child, born in 1986, had nightmares and medical evidence of sexual abuse at age 4 ½ years, and identified her father as the perpetrator. The judge ordered that the father’s new wife supervise the visits. The child again disclosed molestation. CPS and the sheriff’s department placed her in the Children’s Receiving Home. After a 6 month investigation and UC Davis Medical Center examinations, the little girl was placed with her mother, and the father was not allowed visits. During reunification, the therapist recommended unsupervised visits. The mother fled with the child to Canada to protect her from further abuse. They were found after 11/2 years and the mother was put in jail. The child was forced to live with her identified perpetrator and did not see her mother for six years. She is currently being treated for suicide attempts and alcoholism.
These two boys were taken from their mother and given to their father when they were 12 and 15 years old, after they reported that their father abused them and threatened suicide. The father had brutally abused the mother during the marriage. When the boys asked their mother to motion the court to remove their court-appointed attorney who was threatening them, the judge gave guardianship of the boys to that attorney. The children protested being removed from their mother, pleaded with the judge and evaluator, refused to get on the airplane to be sent to another state, and were forced to go to live with the father. The younger child ran away from his father’s home and cannot be found.
These three children reported sexual molestation by the father to numerous professionals. Physical evidence of the abuse was found for all three, and the children had psychological symptoms of nightmares, school phobias, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation. Both parents have equal time with the children due to evaluator recommendations.
In 1996 this 3 ½ year old child, who lived in the custody of her mother, stated she was being touched by her father inappropriately during visits. The recommendation from the mediator was to have supervised visits, but the evaluator denied the molest, did not gather evidence, misquoted parties, and recommended 50/50 custody. The child again disclosed molest. When the judge still refused to provide supervised visits, CPS in another county took the child into protective custody and supervised visits were ordered. However, Sacramento County took jurisdiction and the evaluator said the mother had Parent Alienation. The judge forced both the girl and her brother to live with their father, despite ordering the father to attend anger control classes.
This little boy had speech problems, frequent ear infections and leg pains, nightmares, enuresis, fears and phobias. The mother divorced the physician father (who was in treatment for addiction to pornography) due to his violence and alcohol abuse. During the divorce proceedings, a custody evaluation report was written which the mother was not allowed to see. The father demanded custody of the child. The mother’s attorney said she would lose all parental rights if she did not accede to the demand. She acceded and the child is now allowed to see his non-offending mother only under supervised conditions, despite the child’s statements that his father abuses him.
This child reported sexual abuse by the father to numerous professionals. The child had medical and psychological evidence of sexual abuse, yet was required to visit the father unsupervised, due to evaluator’s recommendations.
This child reported sexual abuse by the father. CPS investigation confirmed the abuse and there was medical evidence of sexual abuse. The child was required to visit the father unsupervised, due to the evaluator’s recommendations.
San Bernardino County
In 1993 this child’s mother divorced her father due to his physical abuse of the child. After a visit with her father, the child reported physical and sexual abuse. There was medical evidence of genital warts, bruises and welts. In 1995 after an evaluation, the mother was ordered to bring the child to court. The court forced the child to live with her identified perpetrator father. After the evaluation was overturned in a peer review, the child was placed half time with her mother. The evaluator did another report in 1997, and again recommended the child be placed with her father. After the child told her mother that she wanted to commit suicide, she was not allowed to see her mother at all. Now she may see her non-offending mother only with a court monitor present.
Born in 1989, this child was placed in the custody of his mother when he was 20 months old. His father had physically abused his mother for 9 years. The child returned from visits with the father with bruises, black eyes, a raw penis, headaches, ear aches, stomach aches and throat infections. At age 4, he had sexualize behavior, masturbation, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, depression, dissociation, insomnia, nausea, and attention problems. The child tried to jump out of a moving car when he had to return to his father. The evaluator ignored hospital reports and police reports. The court gave full custody to the father in 1995, despite the child’s stated desire to stay with his mother. Four months later he again disclosed sexual abuse to 12 professionals and 3 CPS workers. Nevertheless, the court forced him to remain in his father’s custody, and has denied him any visits with his mother. The mother is now bankrupt.
These seven and ten year old children reported physical and sexual abuse by father. The father received full custody and mother is on supervised visits once per week when she can afford it.
San Diego County
Born in 1987, this child reported sexual abuse to his pediatrician when he was six years old. He had sexualized behavior, fears of his mother dying, depression, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, and stomach aches. He has a medical condition called Williams Syndrome in which his body ages rapidly, but he is younger in many ways than his biological age. In 1988 he and his mother had moved to a battered woman’s shelter due to violence in the home. He stated he wanted to live with his mother, a teacher. Instead he is forced by the court to live with his violent father who had been convicted of DUI and stealing, and is permanently disabled with mental disability. The father moved the child to another state, and sees his mother only a few times per year. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
After a short marriage this child’s parents separated in 1986. Custody of the one year old child was given to the mother. He returned from visits with the father with genital irritation. At age 2 ½ he disclosed genital touching by the father, and at age 3 ½ he displayed sexually precocious behavior to a therapist, and a deep bruise on his genitals. An evaluation was ordered. The evaluator recommended full custody to the father. The mother left the state with the child to protect him from further abuse. 1 ½ years later the mother and child were apprehended. Both old and new abuse evidence was suppressed in court, through the efforts of a social worker. Although there was medical evidence of sexual abuse and evidence of abuse by the father from another victim, full custody was given to the father and the mother was placed on supervised visits. The child continued to disclose abuse. The father moved to another state, and the mother’s visits have been thwarted.
In 1993 this three year old child began to reveal she was sexually abused by her father. The family court refused to consider any evidence of sexual abuse and ordered “molest cannot be an issue in this case”. Unsupervised visits, and later temporary custody with the father, were ordered in 1994. An evaluator recommended that the child be removed from the mother’s house due to “severe parental alienation.” The mother was placed on supervised visits, and is now allowed weekends with the child. The evidence of molest is overwhelming, as testified to by 3 psychologists, a police investigator, an expert in child sexual abuse allegations, tape recordings of the child’s disclosures, sexual acting out, photographs of the father naked with the child on his lap, and medical evidence of labial adhesions. . The attorney for the child does not listen to the child’s wants, but indicates he is doing what is “best” for the child. The police determined probable cause, but the District Attorney declined to prosecute the father. This child ran away from her father’s home.
San Luis Obispo County
Born in 1994, this child disclosed that he was being molested by his father when he was nine years old. He told counselors, CPS, and police, and had symptoms of nightmares, night terrors, enuresis and encopresis, excessive fears of men and anger, sexualized behavior, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, dissociation, intense anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches. Despite this, the child was taken away from his safe mother and forced to live with his identified perpetrator. He has only been allowed to see his mother a few times with a therapist. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. The mother has since died.
The underage mother became pregnant at age 16 by the father, who was then 19 years old. She left shortly after the child was born due to the father assaulting her and threatening her with a knife and a gun. The father continued to stalk and threaten the mother, who obtained a restraining order. In April 1999, the court awarded custody of this little boy, age 4 ½, to the father, stating in a court order, “While the court observes that a change in the minor child’s custody could be detrimental to his development, they must give the father custody due to alienation on the part of the plaintiff.”
These two girls, born in 1987 and 1988, disclosed sexual abuse when they were 4 and 5 years old. The children had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behaviors, excessive fears, depression, eating disorder, dissociation, anger, flashbacks, physical pains, headaches, diarrhea, stomach aches, learning disability and attention deficit problems. They named the father, who is on welfare, as their perpetrator. Many CPS reports were made, yet the children were not protected, and were placed in the custody of the father.
This child, born in 1994, and his older brother and sister, were abused. The child reported to the police and therapist that his uncle sexually abused him. He displayed a cluster of symptoms indicative of sex abuse including nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears, sexualized behavior, anger, headaches, and insomnia. Two CPS reports were made. The father received custody, and the mother is not allowed to talk to anyone about her concerns.
San Mateo County
Born in 1989, this child was adopted and spent the first 9 years of her life with her stay-at-home mother. The father abused the child and the mother (put a knife to her stomach), and left the marriage several times. In 1995 the couple separated after 30 years of marriage. During supervised visits, the father said he was going to take the child away from her mother. The Special Master, chosen by the father’s attorney, selected the therapist, attorney and evaluator. The evaluation, accusing the mother of parental alienation, was so biased that another evaluator wrote a report stating that it was entirely unprofessional. The child reported that the therapist said she would be taken away from her mother, and increased therapy to 3 to 4 times per week. In 1998 the father received full custody, despite the child’s wish to remain with her mother.. The child has symptoms of depression, anger, dissociation, fear of sleeping, nightmares, night terrors, headaches, stomach aches, problems urinating, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, phobias, regression and learning disability. The mother, now without funds, has to represent herself against the father’s attorney, and is forced to pay child support. She is unable to see her child and cannot afford the cost of supervised visits. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes. This child ran away from her father’s home, but was forced by the police to return.
These twin boys, born in 1985, lived with their mother after their parents divorced in 1988 due to domestic violence by their father. The father, a convicted, registered sex offender, was convicted of spousal battery. He saw the children under supervised conditions because of the children’s behaviors which were indicative of sexual abuse. He eventually obtained overnight visits. The father’s attorney motioned the court to appoint a Special Master who then gave the father joint custody. The children disclosed sexual abuse, the District Attorney investigated, yet the mother was precluded from presenting evidence of the abuse, or have witnesses testify. The children, ages 11, were then taken away from their mother and forced to live in the full custody of their identified sex abuser against their will, and began to fail in school. The mother, representing herself, managed to remove the Special Master and the children’s attorney, and have the judge recuse himself. However, the children still live with the father. At age 14 they refused to go back to their father’s home. The police forced them to return. At 15, they succeeded in running away from home and returning to their mother.
San Mateo/Merced County
These young girls, born in 1988 and 1990, disclosed sexual abuse by their father in 1993. They reported the abuse to CPS, police investigators, teachers, sheriffs, nurses, physicians, hospital staff, Sunday school staff and friends. They had a cluster of symptoms indicative of sexual abuse, including sexualized behavior, nightmares, night terrors, enuresis, encopresis, excessive fears of their mother leaving, and being with their father, depression, suicide attempt, eating disorder, dissociation, anger, physical pains, headaches, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, learning disability and attention problems. They were placed in the full custody of their mother, and received Victims of Crime funding for treatment for the crimes committed against them. Two years later, in 1996, they were ordered by the court to see their father for unsupervised visits. On one visit they stated they were brutally raped, and had bruises, labial lacerations and loss of intact hymen. Physical evidence and documents disappeared, the mother was arrested for child abduction despite having custody, and the father was given temporary legal, but not physical custody. However, the father took the children to his home, and has refused to allow the mother to see them.
Santa Clara County
This child, born in 1996, displayed sexualized behavior, eating disorders, depression, dissociation, anger, physical pains, insomnia, stomach aches and attention problems. He disclosed sexual abuse when he was 5 years old and named his father and girlfriend as perpetrators. The father has been convicted of DUIs. The court ordered that the abuse was not to be talked about, and the child was placed in the primary care of his father, despite wanting to live with his mother. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
This child, born in 1990, began having symptoms at age 1 ½. He had nightmares, excessive fears of being taken away from his mother, sexualized behavior, depression, dissociation, anger, headaches, insomnia, stomach aches, and learning disability. When he was eight years old, he had encopresis. He banged his head on tables, and acted out by hitting. He named his father as perpetrator of sexual abuse, and told the police. There is medical evidence of abuse, and 3 or 4 CPS reports. However, based on the evaluator’s report, the court ordered that sole physical custody be given to the father. Despite the medical evidence of abuse, including cigarette burns, and the child’s wishes to be with his mother, he is forced to remain with his father. He has minimal visitation with his mother. The child’s attorney did not represent the child’s wishes.
This child, born in 1993 was in his mother’s sole custody after the parents divorced in 1995. The child had nightmares, night terrors, anger, stomach aches and attention problems. The court accused the mother of “alienation” and changed custody to the father when the child was 2 years old. The mother was placed on supervised visitation.
This child, born in 1993, was taken away from his mother, who was accused of “alienation”. He and his seven and nine-year-old siblings were placed with their father without a custody trial. The Special Master changed the time share to 95% with the father, despite their wishes to remain with their mother. The mother was placed on supervised visitation which she cannot afford, so these children have been unable to see her. The child had depression, eating disorder, anger, physical pains, insomnia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, stomach aches, weight gain and learning disability. The oldest child, who was not moved to the father’s custody, experienced a drastic reduction in symptoms, including asthma, when he stopped seeing the father at age 15.
These two boys, born after their parents’1990 marriage, have dual citizenship (Finnish/ American). Their mother told Finnish authorities about their disclosures of abuse in 1994. She filed for divorce, after experiencing domestic violence. After the boys were placed in joint custody, their mother fled to Finland with them. The father was awarded full custody and the children were returned to the United States.
This child was taken away from her mother and placed in the custody of her father. The court ordered all contact severed with her mother when she was eight years old. The professionals in this case have multiple roles, and were appointed despite the mother not signing an agreement for a special masters as required by law. The first special master then appointed the second, who continued making orders after her term expired, and issued orders without hearings.
This child disclosed that his father beat him with a belt, and described sexual abuse after sexual acting out behavior. After the judge ordered a new evaluator, the special master recommended that the son be taken away from his mother and forced to live with the father, and the daughter be placed in foster care. Despite the lack of written agreement for the special master, she issued a change of custody order to the father, severely limiting the mother’s contact with her children.
This child lived with the mother, who was the main parent. Eventually the father got de facto custody when the child was seven, after the evaluator recommended a reversal of the 60/40 time share.
Although the parents agreed on a living arrangement, the special master ordered an evaluation, and threatened to have custody changed if the mother did not comply with the evaluation. The special master continued acting after her appointment had expired. When mother complained, the court ordered an attorney for child.
This teen-aged girl is forced to live with her step-father, a convicted sex offender.
When she was 4, this child had a vaginal rash, cuts and a discharge. The doctor called CPS which ordered a rape SART exam. The investigation concluded the abuse allegations were unfounded, despite the child’s comments and later she had another rash. This time, the mother was accused of “parental alienation syndrome” and the mother lost custody. She can only see her mother every other weekend. Now she is seven years old and cries when she has to return to her father. She wants to know if someday she gets to decide where she gets to live.
Yolo County
This child reported sexual abuse by the father who was stalking the mother. When the mother called the police about the stalking, the boy was taken from his mother by the police and immediately placed with his father. He is only allowed to see his mother under supervised conditions. He continues to disclose sexual abuse through his sexualized behavior.
Case Study Review
From the above sample of cases, a pattern is evident:
A young child discloses sexual and/or physical abuse by the father to a variety of professionals and community members.
The abuse is corroborated by medical and/or psychological factors.
Many of the children receive Victims of Crime funding for therapy
The mother may have been battered by the father.
The police do not arrest and the District Attorney does not prosecute the accused offender.
CPS does not investigate incest cases thoroughly.
CPS does not protect the children, even after multiple reports.
The accused offender files for custody of his alleged victim.
Professionals are appointed by the family law court. These professionals often take on multiple roles in cases. All enjoy a high standard of living because of the litigation.
Certain individuals are repeatedly appointed.
Many of the professionals fail to make mandated suspected child abuse reports, even when the child directly discloses abuse to them.
The court-appointed custody evaluator ignores or minimizes domestic violence and child abuse, and recommends the child be placed with the identified abuser.
The court-appointed attorney for the child does not represent his/her client’s wishes regarding placement, and often functions as a de facto attorney for the accused perpetrator.
Special Masters, mental health professionals with powers of a judge, are untrained in the law, yet are given authority to make binding orders on cases.
Evidence of abuse and witnesses for the child are not admitted into the family law court.
The child is not allowed to speak to the judge, or his/her wishes are ignored by the court.
The mother who is trying to protect the child, is accused of alienating the child from the father.
After months or years of litigation, the mother becomes bankrupt and must represent herself.
The child is placed in the unsupervised or full custody of the identified perpetrator.
The protective mother is placed on supervised visitation or not allowed contact with the child
The child pleads to remain with the safe parent, but is taken, sometimes by police force, back to the identified abuser.
Child Abuse: Educator’s Responsibility
Crime and Violence Prevention Center
California Attorney General’s Office
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General
August 1999
INDICATORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE
Indicators of sexual abuse can surface through a child’s history, physical symptoms and behavior. Some of these indicators, taken separately, may not be symptomatic of sexual abuse. They are listed below as a guide and should be examined in the context of other factors.
History
The single most important indicator is disclosure by the child to a friend, classmate, teacher, friend’s mother or other trusted adult. The disclosure may be direct or indirect, e.g., “I know someone…” or “What would you do if…?” or “I heard something about somebody…” It is not uncommon for the disclosure by children experiencing chronic or acute sexual abuse to be delayed. Children rarely fabricate these accounts; they should be taken seriously.
The child wears torn, stained, or bloody underclothing.
Knowledge that a child’s injury/disease (vaginal, trauma, sexually transmitted disease) is unusual for the specific age group.
Knowledge of a child’s history of previous or recurrent injuries/diseases.
Unexplained injuries/diseases (parent/caretaker unable to explain reason for injury/disease); there are discrepancies in explanation; blame is placed on a third party; explanations are inconsistent with medical diagnosis.
A young girl is pregnant or has a sexually transmitted disease. Pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute the basis of reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse.
Physical Symptoms
Sexually transmitted disease.
Genital discharge or infection.
Physical trauma or irritation to the anal/genital area (pain, itching, swelling, bruising, bleeding, lacerations, abrasions), especially if injuries are unexplained or there is an inconsistent explanation.
Pain during urination or defecation.
Difficulty in walking or sitting due to genital or anal pain.
Psychosomatic symptoms (stomachaches, headaches).
Sexual Behaviors of Children
Detailed and age-inappropriate understanding of sexual behavior (especially by younger children).
Inappropriate, unusual or aggressive sexual behavior with peers or toys.
Compulsive indiscreet masturbation.
Excessive curiosity about sexual matters or genitalia (self and others).
Unusually seductive with classmates, teachers and other adults.
Excessive concern about homosexual, especially of boys.
Behavioral Indicators in Younger Children
Enuresis (wetting pants, bed wetting).
Fecal soiling.
Eating disturbances such as overeating, undereating.
Fears and phobias.
Overly compulsive behavior.
School problems or significant change in school performance (attitude and grades).
Age-inappropriate behavior that includes pseudomaturity or regressive behavior such as bed wetting or thumb sucking.
Inability to concentrate.
Sleeping disturbances (nightmares, fear of falling asleep, fretful sleep pattern, sleeping long hours).
Drastic behavior changes.
Speech disorders.
Frightened of parents/caretaker or of going home.
Behavioral Indicators in Older Children & Adolescents
Withdrawal.
Chronic fatigue.
Clinical depression, apathy.
Overly compliant behavior.
Poor hygiene or excessive bathing.
Poor peer relations and social skills; inability to make friends.
Acting out, running away, aggressive, antisocial or delinquent behavior.
Alcohol or drug abuse.
Prostitution or excessive promiscuity.
School problems, frequent absences, sudden drop in school performance.
Refusal to dress for physical education.
Non-participation in sports and social activities.
Fearful of other things (going outside or participating in familiar activities).
Extraordinary fear of males (in cases of male perpetrator and female victim).
Self-consciousness of body beyond that expected for age.
Sudden acquisition of money, new clothes or gifts with no reasonable explanation.
Suicide attempt or other self-destructive behavior.
Crying without provocation.
Setting fires.
Sexual abuse of children within the family, or incest, is the most hidden form of child abuse. In spite of its taboo and the difficulty of detection, some researchers believe it may be even more common than physical abuse. In discussing sexual abuse, incest means sexual activity between certain close relatives, (e.g., parents and children, sibling, grandparents and grandchildren); intrafamilial mean sexual activity between persons in a family setting, (e.g., stepparent, parent’s live-in partner).
In most reported cases, the father or a male caretaker is the initiator and the victim is usually a female child. However, boys are also victims more often that previously believed. Embarrassment and shame often deter children from reporting abuse. The initial sexual abuse may occur at any age from infancy through adolescence.
Injustice taking place by Jackson County DFCS
Parents Harrassed by CPS
Yes Case Workers Get A Bounty For Taking Children From their Parents
Get the news up high
Categories: Abuse by CPSTags: abuse by CPS in California, abusive parents, yvonne mason
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/case-studies-out-of-california-where-children-were-forced-by-cps-to-be-given-to-abusive-parents/
Straight Out of Hell
Straight Out of Hell
From Brenda Alexanders Blog CPS - A System Out of Control
Posted: 26 Feb 2010 11:28 AM PST
Satan (aka the devil)
February 25, 2010
My favorite people are murderers, rapist, sex offenders, and thieves, but my very favorite are the people from cps Child Protective Services (LOL) and casa. These outstanding people are doing my works and they are doing a very fine job. They break up families, They get family members fighting with one another. They put the children in harms way with their so called Safety Plan. The places where they put the children are many many times a lot worse than the homes they were taken from. They take the kids out of well loved homes where the child is happy well adjusted and polite, and stick them in homes that are terrible for the child. Cps says ‘Oh well we will get them in counseling.’ Another reason I just love these people is they are very good liars. They will lie to the parents, they will lie to the judge, under oath, They are scripted, they will say and do anything to make you look bad and them look good. The investigators are the apple of my eye.
They are so much like me. They sit and talk to you as though you are their best friend. They will tell you that have had similar experiences and give you all the sympathy that you need to feel ok. After the interview, that’s where they shine, they will twist your words, make up things and report it the way they want. (I’m so Proud)
What’s really neat is these people don’t give a dam about the child’s safety or feelings, all they are concerned about is the MONEY, Get more kids, get them adopted , make thousands and thousands of dollars, get the bonuses. I told you they are doing my work!
I just can’t wait till some of you people are sitting by my side comparing stories. When you get here don’t mind the heat, you will never get used to it. All you have to do is to remember that you are rotting in hell for your actions, but that is the price you are paying for being such a good cps/casa worker. I love you!! I know some of you will be here sooner than others, I’ll wait for you all to be here. There is room for all of you.
See You in Hell. THE DEVIL (This was written by one of my enemies , and I couldn’t do anything about it, Sorry)
From Brenda Alexanders Blog CPS - A System Out of Control
Posted: 26 Feb 2010 11:28 AM PST
Satan (aka the devil)
February 25, 2010
My favorite people are murderers, rapist, sex offenders, and thieves, but my very favorite are the people from cps Child Protective Services (LOL) and casa. These outstanding people are doing my works and they are doing a very fine job. They break up families, They get family members fighting with one another. They put the children in harms way with their so called Safety Plan. The places where they put the children are many many times a lot worse than the homes they were taken from. They take the kids out of well loved homes where the child is happy well adjusted and polite, and stick them in homes that are terrible for the child. Cps says ‘Oh well we will get them in counseling.’ Another reason I just love these people is they are very good liars. They will lie to the parents, they will lie to the judge, under oath, They are scripted, they will say and do anything to make you look bad and them look good. The investigators are the apple of my eye.
They are so much like me. They sit and talk to you as though you are their best friend. They will tell you that have had similar experiences and give you all the sympathy that you need to feel ok. After the interview, that’s where they shine, they will twist your words, make up things and report it the way they want. (I’m so Proud)
What’s really neat is these people don’t give a dam about the child’s safety or feelings, all they are concerned about is the MONEY, Get more kids, get them adopted , make thousands and thousands of dollars, get the bonuses. I told you they are doing my work!
I just can’t wait till some of you people are sitting by my side comparing stories. When you get here don’t mind the heat, you will never get used to it. All you have to do is to remember that you are rotting in hell for your actions, but that is the price you are paying for being such a good cps/casa worker. I love you!! I know some of you will be here sooner than others, I’ll wait for you all to be here. There is room for all of you.
See You in Hell. THE DEVIL (This was written by one of my enemies , and I couldn’t do anything about it, Sorry)
U.K. Commons Passes Sex-Ed Bill Forcing Schools to Promote Homosexuality, Abortion
U.K. Commons Passes Sex-Ed Bill Forcing Schools to Promote Homosexuality, Abortion
Head of Catholic bishops’conference and the Catholic Education Service thanked for supporting bill
By Hilary White
LONDON, February 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Commons voted 68 to 177 last night to pass third reading of the government’s sex-education bill in a vote that pro-life and pro-family advocates have called “deplorable.”
Under the bill, schools, both religious and secular, will be required to give children information on homosexual relationships as well as artificial contraception and abortion. The government has confirmed that these programs will specifically include information for children on how to obtain abortions and contraceptives.
Under current rules, parents have the right to withdraw their child from sex and relationship education (SRE) classes up until the age of 19. But the bill will lower that to 15, ensuring that students receive at least one year of sex-education. The BBC notes that currently, only 0.04 per cent of parents use the opt-out.
The bill now goes to the House of Lords.
While the bill has been called “controversial,” the controversy in the media has focused on a promise made by the government, with an amendment, that religious schools could teach the new sex-ed curriculum according to their religious “ethos.”
After an outcry by the homosexualist lobby and secular humanist organizations, the bill’s principle supporters, the government quickly backpedalled, assuring the public that the amendment was not an opt-out for faith schools.
This week, while his department issued a public statement to confirm, Children’s Minister Ed Balls told media that the amendment will not change the requirement of Catholic and Anglican schools to promote abortion, contraception, “civil partnerships” and homosexuality as “normal and harmless.”
Even with the amendment, Balls told the BBC, religious schools “must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well.”
The BBC reports that with 1/3 of Britain’s schools being faith schools, the government is aware that the support and cooperation of both the Church of England and the Catholic Church is crucial to the success of the programs.
This support has been assured by the Catholic Education Service (CES), which helped draft the bill and has defended it against criticisms from parent groups and pro-family advocates. CES claimed credit for the tabling of the faith schools amendment that pro-life and family groups have called “worthless” and Ed Balls himself said would change nothing.
On a BBC radio program Balls specifically thanked Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, the head of the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales, and the Catholic Education Service for their support of his bill.
“To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward.”
Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn children, which has lobbied heavily against the bill, said last night, “This is a dire result for school-children and for unborn children who are in the firing-line of this bill.”
Tully said that Balls had made it clear that the government’s intention was to force all schools, regardless of religious “ethos,” to teach children how to use and where to obtain birth control and abortions.
“These are the key ‘advertising’ messages that the pro-abortion lobby is fighting to have promoted throughout the education system – where children can be influenced and corrupted without parental guidance or protection.”
SPUC has been heavily critical of the involvement of CES, saying that the bishops’ education group has been complicit in creating anti-life and anti-Catholic legislation, that will usher in a new “totalitarianism,” suppressing religious freedoms.
Greg Hurst, writing in the opinion pages of the Times, added that the sex-education bill was all about boosting Labour’s reputation in time for the upcoming general elections, in which Gordon Brown’s Labour party is widely expected to lose. The point of such legislation, Hurst wrote today, is to continue the already massive socialist re-adjustment of Britain.
“Labour politicians want to entrench a change in social attitudes regardless of who wins. Leaving behind a more liberal Britain would be part of Labour’s legacy of achievements. If there were to be a change of government, their successors would have to live with such changes or risk looking reactionary by unpicking them one by one.”
A media release from the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCF) described the kind of cooperation that is expected from Britain’s faith schools, citing a Catholic school in Bedford as a good example.
St. Thomas More school, the DCF said, has developed a “successful balance” between the “faith ethos” and the sex education curriculum. The school teaches that restricting sex to marriage is “the ideal” but it “explicitly recognises the reality that some young people may choose to be sexually active” and will need contraception and abortion.
“The school nurse provides students with clear accurate information” on contraception and “details of local services.” These include “pregnancy options” that include abortion, which is “discussed in a non-judgemental way.”
Paul Tully remarked, “Many people will be especially appalled that both the National Society of the Church of England and the education service of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have endorsed the provisions of the bill. Mr. Balls made much of the support for the bill by Archbishop Nichols, and we have called upon the Archbishop, and other faith leaders to reconsider their support even at this late stage.”
To contact the Department of Catholic Education and Formation
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England & Wales:
39 Eccleston Square
LONDON SW1V 1BX
Tel: 020 7901 4829
Fax: 020 7901 4821
Email: grace.applewaithe@cbcew.org.uk
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022403.html
Head of Catholic bishops’conference and the Catholic Education Service thanked for supporting bill
By Hilary White
LONDON, February 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Commons voted 68 to 177 last night to pass third reading of the government’s sex-education bill in a vote that pro-life and pro-family advocates have called “deplorable.”
Under the bill, schools, both religious and secular, will be required to give children information on homosexual relationships as well as artificial contraception and abortion. The government has confirmed that these programs will specifically include information for children on how to obtain abortions and contraceptives.
Under current rules, parents have the right to withdraw their child from sex and relationship education (SRE) classes up until the age of 19. But the bill will lower that to 15, ensuring that students receive at least one year of sex-education. The BBC notes that currently, only 0.04 per cent of parents use the opt-out.
The bill now goes to the House of Lords.
While the bill has been called “controversial,” the controversy in the media has focused on a promise made by the government, with an amendment, that religious schools could teach the new sex-ed curriculum according to their religious “ethos.”
After an outcry by the homosexualist lobby and secular humanist organizations, the bill’s principle supporters, the government quickly backpedalled, assuring the public that the amendment was not an opt-out for faith schools.
This week, while his department issued a public statement to confirm, Children’s Minister Ed Balls told media that the amendment will not change the requirement of Catholic and Anglican schools to promote abortion, contraception, “civil partnerships” and homosexuality as “normal and harmless.”
Even with the amendment, Balls told the BBC, religious schools “must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well.”
The BBC reports that with 1/3 of Britain’s schools being faith schools, the government is aware that the support and cooperation of both the Church of England and the Catholic Church is crucial to the success of the programs.
This support has been assured by the Catholic Education Service (CES), which helped draft the bill and has defended it against criticisms from parent groups and pro-family advocates. CES claimed credit for the tabling of the faith schools amendment that pro-life and family groups have called “worthless” and Ed Balls himself said would change nothing.
On a BBC radio program Balls specifically thanked Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, the head of the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales, and the Catholic Education Service for their support of his bill.
“To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward.”
Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn children, which has lobbied heavily against the bill, said last night, “This is a dire result for school-children and for unborn children who are in the firing-line of this bill.”
Tully said that Balls had made it clear that the government’s intention was to force all schools, regardless of religious “ethos,” to teach children how to use and where to obtain birth control and abortions.
“These are the key ‘advertising’ messages that the pro-abortion lobby is fighting to have promoted throughout the education system – where children can be influenced and corrupted without parental guidance or protection.”
SPUC has been heavily critical of the involvement of CES, saying that the bishops’ education group has been complicit in creating anti-life and anti-Catholic legislation, that will usher in a new “totalitarianism,” suppressing religious freedoms.
Greg Hurst, writing in the opinion pages of the Times, added that the sex-education bill was all about boosting Labour’s reputation in time for the upcoming general elections, in which Gordon Brown’s Labour party is widely expected to lose. The point of such legislation, Hurst wrote today, is to continue the already massive socialist re-adjustment of Britain.
“Labour politicians want to entrench a change in social attitudes regardless of who wins. Leaving behind a more liberal Britain would be part of Labour’s legacy of achievements. If there were to be a change of government, their successors would have to live with such changes or risk looking reactionary by unpicking them one by one.”
A media release from the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCF) described the kind of cooperation that is expected from Britain’s faith schools, citing a Catholic school in Bedford as a good example.
St. Thomas More school, the DCF said, has developed a “successful balance” between the “faith ethos” and the sex education curriculum. The school teaches that restricting sex to marriage is “the ideal” but it “explicitly recognises the reality that some young people may choose to be sexually active” and will need contraception and abortion.
“The school nurse provides students with clear accurate information” on contraception and “details of local services.” These include “pregnancy options” that include abortion, which is “discussed in a non-judgemental way.”
Paul Tully remarked, “Many people will be especially appalled that both the National Society of the Church of England and the education service of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have endorsed the provisions of the bill. Mr. Balls made much of the support for the bill by Archbishop Nichols, and we have called upon the Archbishop, and other faith leaders to reconsider their support even at this late stage.”
To contact the Department of Catholic Education and Formation
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England & Wales:
39 Eccleston Square
LONDON SW1V 1BX
Tel: 020 7901 4829
Fax: 020 7901 4821
Email: grace.applewaithe@cbcew.org.uk
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022403.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)