UASFA: Has the pendulum swung to the point of sense or nonsense?

March 1, 2010 yvonnemason

Kate Chester

Lawoffice@connectNC.net

UASFA: Has the pendulum swung to the point of sense or nonsense?

“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.” Carl G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections 154 (1989 Vintage ed.).
UBackground and Historical Context
The Adoption and Safe Families Act [ASFA] was passed by Congress with wide bipartisan support, in 1997. The Department of Health and Human Services was tasked with the responsibility of turning the new law into regulations for implementation. The ASFA regulations went into effect on 27 March 2000. The law is extremely complex, and there are exceptions to many of the basic rules. Although this paper sets out the most important features of ASFA, any attorney practicing in this area should read the law carefully and in depth, and study materials which have been published to explain the law.
ASFA was not, by far, the first attempt which had been made to address the problem of children whose parents had either become unable to care for them, or who had allegedly abused or neglected them. The history of child welfare in America is best symbolized by a pendulum which swings between two opposing viewpoints: one which believes that when a child’s own parents cannot take care of him/her, the child should be given to someone who, ostensibly, can do a better job; and the viewpoint which says that families are important, and should be preserved whenever possible. Under the latter paradigm, it is in the best interests of the child for the parent(s) to be given assistance and some reasonable amount of time to see if they can become better able to take care of their own children. The first group believes that the safety of the child should be the paramount consideration; the second group believes that more children can be safe in their own homes, and that children fare better when they are given an opportunity to maintain their bonds with their parents and their community. Underlying both philosophies is a strong foundation of Constitutional law which has consistently held that parents have fundamental rights to the care, custody, and control of their own children,TPD7DPT while also recognizing that parental rights are not absolute.TPD8DPT
When the history of ‘child-saving’ is recounted, the story of Mary Ellen is usually told. Legend has it that in 1875, a New York City child named Mary Ellen Wilson was defended by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, because she had been abused by her mother, and there were laws on the books to protect animals, but not children.

In reality, New York had had a law against child abuse since 1833, and the woman accused of beating her was not her mother, but a woman with whom Mary Ellen had been sent to live. Mary Ellen was an illegitimate child, and had been placed by the New York City Department of Charities – - a precursor of today’s foster care – - as an indentured servant. She was supposedly under supervision of the Board of Charities when the abuse occurred.TPD10DPT
From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, as many as 200,000 “orphans” were shipped to the mid-west as part of a plan called the “placing out system.” Charles Loring Brace, a minister and forerunner of the social work profession, considered the children of immigrants – - particularly offspring of the Italian and Irish Catholic – - to be racially inferior. He opined that, if these children were removed quickly enough from their “depraved” parents, and placed in rural areas with Protestant families, they might rise above the “inferior culture” into which they had been born, and become responsible citizens.TPD11DPT
Aside from the inherent bigotry, and other glaringly obvious issues and problems with this ’system,’ data from historical research indicates that approximately 30-44% of these children were not orphans at all, but had at least one living parent.TPD12DPT Allegations were made of child-stealing, and lurking under the more overt appeal to Christian charity was a subtext of free labor, as many of the children who were sent west were used as free farm labor.TPD13DPT
To some extent, the ‘placing out system’ was a reaction to the institutionalization of children in orphanages. One hundred years before the case of Mary Ellen, New York City had opened one of the nation’s first poorhouses.TPD14DPT Early on, orphaned children were often housed along with the aged and the insane. By the end of the 19PthP century, some estimate that 100,000 children were living in children’s orphanages.TPD15DPT The pendulum swung between attempting to keep children near their families, communities, and roots by placing them in orphanages, or sending them away to new homes.
Around the turn of the century, the federal government began to take notice and to involve itself in the welfare of America’s children. In 1909, the White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children was held.TPD16DPT The conference asserted that poverty alone did not make a parent unfit. It led to the establishment of a significant government support program which came to be known as the “Mother’s Pension,” or the “Widow’s Pension,” based on the tenet that “family life . . . is sapped in its foundations when the mothers of young children work for wages.”TPD17DPT The 1934 Social Security Act was an outgrowth, and included Title IV, which created Aid to Dependent Children, which in 1964 became Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC].TPD18DPT
A radical change in the way child welfare was approached came in the early 1960’s. In 1961, the term, “battered child syndrome” was coined, and physicians established that a child could continue to suffer physically and emotionally long after bruises and broken bones had appeared to heal.TPD19DPT By 1966, all 50 states had passed legislation requiring doctors and other health care workers to report suspected cases of child abuse.
In 1974, Congress passed the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. States were required to strengthen mandatory reporting laws or lose federal money. Courts around the nation were flooded with parents accused of intentionally injuring their children.TPD21DPT A philosophical dichotomy emerged between those who believed that children should be protected by being removed from unsafe and potentially unsafe families, opposed by civil libertarians who believed that, “in the haste to ferret out abuse[,] the rights of children and families were being trampled.”TPD22DPT
By 1977, there were in excess of 500,000 children in foster care in the United States.TPD23DPT In response to those rising numbers, in 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act [AACWA].TPD24DPT
AACWA attempted to strike a balance between keeping children safe from abuse while at the same time preventing the unnecessary severing of children from their families of origin and their communities. The federal government provided funding to help states pay for both adoption and reunification costs, not just foster care.TPD25DPT The law required courts to make findings that leaving a child with his/her parent(s) was “contrary to the welfare” of the child, and that “reasonable efforts” had been made to prevent removal.TPD26DPT
Critics of AACWA claimed that it placed too much emphasis on family preservation and reunification, and as a result, caused children to languish endlessly in foster care while their parents were given limitless time in which to cure alleged ills. They believed that under AACWA, children’s safety could not be ensured. AACWA supporters, on the other hand, saw children not as sole individuals, but as members of families and communities. They insisted that troubled families deserved an opportunity to try and reunify, and that diligent efforts should be made by the government to help them; but they also reluctantly conceded that once efforts had been made and had failed, children should then be freed for adoption. Within 2 years of the passage of AACWA, the number of children in foster care was cut almost in half from the 1977 figure.TPD27DPT
But, in the early years of the Reagan administration, there were broad-scale reductions in government spending on social welfare programs.TPD28DPT The Reagan administration attempted to get AACWA repealed, but when that failed, it dramatically cut funding for family preservation and reunification services, but placed no cap on foster care subsidies.TPD29DPT In 1989, the federal government spent more than $1 billion on foster care, but no more than $124 million on preventive services.TPD30DPT By 1994, foster care roles had dramatically increased, to more than 465,000 children. TPD31DPT
So before AACWA was given any reasonable chance of success, the pendulum swung once more, away from the focus on family preservation, and making reasonable efforts at reunifying troubled families, and towards safety as the primary goal. Richard Gelles, a professor of sociology at the University of Rhode Island, was one of the advocates of swinging the pendulum back in the ’safety’ direction. He wrote a landmark book called, UThe Book of DavidU, in which he describes the horror of coming to believe that a small boy was
preservation/reunification and not cognizant enough of safety and the need to protect children from abusive parents.TPD32DPT He had previously been an advocate of family preservation, but changed his mind as a result of a case he referred to as the “David Edwards case.” He asserted that the family preservation model was a failure, that too many children died as a result, and it was necessary to “put children first.”TPD33DPT
Calling for a new “Child-centered Policy,” Gelles stated that,
The essential first step in creating a safe world for children is to abandon the fantasy that child welfare agencies can balance the goals of protecting children and preserving families, adopting instead a child-centered policy of family services. This is not a new policy, but rather a return to the policy of the early 1960s that established child safety as the overriding goal of the child welfare system.
If we have learned anything in the past thirty years, it is that we cannot achieve the delicate balance between keeping abused children safe and keeping them with their parents. The data we have on child welfare interventions support a child-centered policy that aims at reducing the risk for children and matching interventions to their needs. More important, the interventions must be applied efficiently enough that children do not languish in administrative limbo while court cases drag on.TPD34DPT
On the opposing side, Richard Wexler has been among the strongest proponents of giving family preservation a reasonable chance. Wexler, author of UWounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child AbuseU, wrote the following in a law journal article, highly critical of policies put into play by ASFA:
ASFA was the culmination of an assault on safe, effective programs to keep families together that began in the 1990’s. The law has caused untold misery for thousands of children. While supposedly intended to solve the problems of the foster care system, it has, in fact, worsened those problems. In the name of promoting adoption, it is creating a generation of legal orphans. And worst of all, in the name of child safety, it has made children less safe.
There is nothing really new about the ASFA approach. Its guiding philosophy can be boiled down to a single sentence: “take the child and run.”TPD35DPT
As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. There ought to be a way, in the 21PstP Century, in the wealthiest nation on earth, to both keep most children safe most of the time, AND, at the same time, to preserve most families most of the time. The balance of this manuscript will focus on the most important features and requirements ofASFA, and how the current interpretation and application of the regulations appear to be having draconian consequences, especially for those living in poverty and for children of color. Some of the promises of ASFA have been realized; other goals either been not
realized, or have been achieved at the price of unnecessarily destroying families bonds.
UKey Provisions of ASFA
The primary goals of ASFA were to:
(1) shift the emphasis from making efforts to reunify families to ensuring that
children were safe;
(2) achieve permanent homes more quickly, that is decrease the amount of time
which children spend in foster care and move them more quickly either back
to their own homes or into adoptive homes; and
(3) increase the number of adoptions from the pool of children in foster care who are
available for adoption.TPD36DPT
To achieve those goals, ASFA set time restrictions which states have to meet in order to receive Title IV reimbursement money from the federal government.TPD37DPT The federal government reimburses state governments for approximately 65% of their foster care costs.TPD38DPT
Under ASFA, the following deadlines must be met in order for states to receive their federal funding:
• Within 60 days from the date upon which the child is removed from his/her home,
a Case Plan must be established.TPD39DPT
The term “case plan” means a written document which includes at least the
following: “a plan assuring that the child receives safe and proper care and
that Uthe services are provided to parentsU, child and foster parents Uin order to
Uimprove conditions in the parents’ home, facilitate return of the child to his
Uown safe homeU”TPD40DPT
• In the very first court order, the court must make a finding that “continuation in the
home is contrary to the welfare of the child.”
“Contrary to the welfare findings must be ‘detailed’ and be in the court order or
hearing transcript. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, or orders simply referringto a state law requiring such findings for removal do not meet this
requirement.”TPD41DPT
• Within 60 days from the date upon which the child is removed from his/her home,
the court must make a finding that “reasonable efforts have been made to
prevent the child’s removal from home.TPD42DPT
Under certain circumstances, reasonable efforts need not be made. For example, reasonable efforts need not be made when removal is necessary because there is no way to ensure the child’s safety while providing services.TPD43DPT
• Within 6 months of the date upon which the child “enters foster care,” a six-moth
periodic review must be held. The date on which the child entered foster care
is one of the following, which ever occurred first:
(a) the date upon which the court found the child to be abused or neglected;
(b) 60 days after the child’s actual removal from his/her home.TPD44DPT
• Within 12 months of the date upon which the child enters foster care, the court
must make a finding that the agency has made reasonable efforts to finalize a
permanent plan.TPD45DPT
“Reasonable efforts findings must be detailed – they must include relevant
case facts. These findings must be in the court order or hearing
transcript. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and orders simply referring
to state laws requiring reasonable efforts for removal do not meet the
requirement . . . The exact wording of the federal statute does not have to be used as long as the findings make clear that the agency made reasonable efforts.”TPD46DPT
Judicial determinations that reasonable efforts have been made are considered “important safeguard(s) against inappropriate agency action” which are not supposed to become “a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal funding.”TPD47DPT While specific terminology need not be used, “[i]t must be clear, however, that the court really determined that the agency actually made reasonable efforts.”TPD48DPT
• If the child remains in foster care for 15 out of 22 months, the agency MUST file a
termination petition.TPD49DPT Additionally, if a court determines that a child is an
abandoned infant, or has been convicted of a particular felony,TPD50DPT then the agency must file the Petition within 60 days of the date on which the finding is
made.TPD51DPT
These are the only points in time, and the only circumstances under which an agency is REQUIRED to file a TPR Petition. This latter deadline – - mandating that an agency must file a termination petition if the child remains out of his/her home for the previous 15 out of 22 months – - is the most radical and controversial of the ASFA provisions.
UThe Problems with ASFA
First of all, ASFA is built on a false premise. Statistics show that adoptions climbed steadily through the 1990’s, before ASFA was implemented.TPD52DPT So it was not necessary to implement ASFA in order to increase adoptions. Adoptions decreased in 2001, increased slightly in 2002, but then dropped again in 2003.TPD53DPT
The pool of children available for adoptions is constantly being refilled as terminations increase. It is common knowledge that younger children are more likely to be adopted. Children of color are less likely to be adopted than Caucasian children. If states continue to terminate parents’ rights at a faster rate than adoptive homes can be found for children, are we doing much more than using the law to bastardize children who could have gone home, safely – - and perhaps more quickly – - had their parents had been provided a little assistance and a little more time? In 2002, there were 67,000 terminations and 53,000 adoptions, nationwide; in 2003, terminations increased to 68,000, but adoptions dropped to 49,000.TPD54DPT
A second false premise is the assumption that children must be safer in foster care than they are with their own families. The fact is, no adult – - parent or foster caregiver – - can guarantee a child’s safety 100% of the time. As our Supreme Court held in UIn re StumboU,
On this record, we have a report of a circumstance that probably happens repeatedly across our state, where a toddler slips out of a house without the awareness of the parent or caregiver — no matter how conscientious or diligent the parent or care giver might be. While no one wants that to happen, such a lapse does not in and of itself constitute “neglect” under N.C.G.S. § 7B-101. However, a single report of a naked, unsupervised two-year-old in the driveway of her home does not trigger the investigative requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-302.TPD55DPT
Placement in FC does not guarantee safety. In November 2000, Time Magazine published the results of an investigation which they had conducted, in an article called, “The Crisis of Foster Care.” In the article, the author stated that,
Many foster parents . . .continue to act selflessly as important way stations for at-risk kids while their biological parents get their lives together. However, neglect and a quagmire of child-swallowingbureaucracies plague the system. And the incidence of neglect, physical and sexual abuse of children in the various foster-care systems is feared to be significantly higher than the incidence in the general population. Nobody bothers to keep an accurate count, but in round numbers, more than 7,500 children are tortured under what is technically government protection.TPD56DPT
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform has found statistics to support the
conclusion that children are always not safe in foster care: a child is twice as likely to die from abuse suffered in foster care as in the general population. NCCPR cites studies which show that in Baltimore, the rate of substantiated cases of sexual abuse was more than four times higher in foster care than in the general population. A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington state found that nearly 1/3 of the children reported being abused by a foster parent or other adult in a foster home.TPD57DPT
Beyond the flawed premise behind ASFA, the problems with the law tend to fall into two categories. There are both inherent flaws, flaws in the way ASFA was written; and there are also flaws in the way ASFA is applied. The most troubling aspect of the way ASFA is structured is that state governments are paid to adopt children out; no incentives are paid for placing a child in any other permanent home, including back with their parents.
ASFA was intended to encourage adoption, so it was written to provide adoption incentive payments to states. A baseline was established for each state, based on an average of the number of adoptions which took place between 1995 and 1997. States receive a bonus for each child adopted above the baseline in a given year. “Regular” children are worth $4,000; special needs children are worth $6,000. TPD58DPT In some cities and counties, quotas have been imposed.TPD59DPT
As soon as money enters the picture, conflict of interest – - or at least the potential for conflict of interest – - becomes possible. There are no incentive payments or awards for achieving any other permanent plan for a child. Specifically, there is no financial incentive for reuniting children with their own parents. For example, if a sibling-group of 3 children will bring an $18,000 bonus to North Carolina, and a social worker is sitting on the fence trying to decide whether to recommend either reunification or adoption, isn’t there at least the possibility that the money will influence her decision? When deciding where children should live, money shouldn’t be the deciding factor. Bonuses should either be eliminated, or should be given not just for adoption, but for achieving any safe permanent home for a child, regardless of what the permanent plan is.
A second problem with ASFA is that the term ‘reasonable efforts’ is not defined. The law does not provide a list or even any guidelines for what types of efforts are reasonable. Consequently, when social workers draft so-called ‘reasonable efforts reports,’ they are often replete with items such as, “took Junior to the dentist.” Taking Junior to the dentist is not a reasonable effort towards reunifying a family; it is something the government must dounder the parens patriae doctrine because the state has taken away the parent’s chance to do it.
Another problem inherent in ASFA is that it treats the cases of abused children the same
way it treats cases which involve neglected children. Intentional abuse is a different problem from neglect. Abuse cases should be fast-tracked, and ASFA makes some provision for that, under limited circumstances.TPD60DPT In 2002, the federal government determined that of the approximately 35,000 children reported as maltreated, approximately 90% were
substantiated for neglect, and about 7% were substantiated for abuse.TPD61DPT
This failure to separate abuse of children from neglect of children, and to treat them distinctly differently, however, is at the very root of the argument between the “safety at the expense of family preservation” advocates, and the “family preservation at the expense of safety” advocates. That children should be safe is a given. But how much consideration is ever given to the damage which is done to children by removing them from the only parent(s) they have ever known? “Think for a moment what it means to rip children from their parents and their brothers and sisters and place them in the care of strangers . . . . Tearing children from their parents almost always leaves emotional scars.”TPD62DPT
Putting children in foster care does not guarantee their safety. And although those of us who represent parent-respondents are inevitably focussed on the rights of our clients, don’t children have a right to know their parents, especially when many parents are ‘guilty’ of nothing more than being economically disadvantaged?
Neglect, as opposed to abuse, is not usually the result of intentional acts, and more often than not, is driven by poverty. Parents who are already struggling because of poverty-related issues should not be further victimized by having their children removed. When children and their parent(s) are living in poverty, then genuine reasonable efforts should be made to keep the family together, a reasonable spectrum services should be provided, and a reasonable amount of time should be allowed for them to make their home environment safe. ASFA does not address the root cause of why most children enter foster care, which is because of poverty-related issues.
In the year 2000, nearly 20% of North Carolina’s children were living in poverty.TPD63DPT “Poverty is confused with neglect . . . because ‘it often comes packaged with depression and anger, poor nutrition and housekeeping, lack of education, and medical care, leaving children alone, exposing children to improper influences.’”TPD64DPT
Parents who are actively working to regain custody of their children should not have their rights terminated based on the children being in foster care for 15 out of 22 months. It is somewhere between totally unrealistic and impossible for parent(s) living in poverty to overcome the multiple issues which they face in such a short period of time. Often they are told they have only a year – - not 15 months – - to: “find and maintain stable housing,” “find and maintain stable employment”; get a substance abuse assessment and follow allrecommendations; overcome addiction; attend parenting classes; attend counseling/training sessions for domestic violence; get a psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations. These are common case plan goals, which parents are frequently expected to complete in 12 months. How can anyone maintain stable housing or employment in one year’s time (or less)? especially when, more often than not, no reasonable effort at all is being made to assist them.
Too often, parental rights are being terminated in cases like these:
(1) the parent failed to complete her case plan; the mother lived in a rural area, and
could not afford a telephone. She could use a neighbor’s phone for emergencies, but
the case plan required her to call the social worker 3 times a week. When the
neighbor got tired of the mother using the phone so often, the mother had to walk 3
miles to get to a pay phone. She could not do it 3 times a week. By ‘failing to stay in
touch with the social worker,” she failed to comply with the case plan.
(2) the parents were temporarily living in their car; no, of course that is not a good
environment in which to raise children. But both parents had only worked factory
jobs, and the factory in which they had worked closed. The solution was not to take
the children away; the solution was to help the family find safe, affordable housing.
The parents looked for work but could not find jobs. They received no assistance
with job training, seeking employment, or seeking housing. Their rights to their 3
children were terminated.
(3) Mother smoked marijuana. Yes, of course it is illegal and wrong. However, she
never smoked it in front of her two sons. There was no evidence that her marijuana
use had any affect on the children. She had used it infrequently for many years, and
had never ‘graduated’ to crack/cocaine/heroine. She was told she had one year to
recover from her “addiction.” She was put on a waiting list, and could not get into a
substance abuse treatment program for 3 months. The brochure from the treatment
program says that it cannot be completed in a year, and most people take 2 years.
Her rights were terminated because she failed to complete her case plan in a year.
(4) House was “cluttered,” with piles of clothing left on beds, and dishes in the sink.
Children were removed due to an ‘injurious environment, and adjudicated to be
neglected.
(5) “Instability;” mother could not afford to buy a car, and could not afford auto
insurance. She worked minimum-wage jobs, and was a single parent while her
husband was incarcerated. She could not keep any one particular job for any length
of time because she lacked reliable transportation. Because she could not maintain
stable employment, she moved frequently. Her rights to her son, who was 6 months
old when he was removed from her care, were terminated when the child was 22
months old because the mother had not corrected the conditions which led to
removal.
Fifteen months is simply not a reasonable period of time in which to fix the long laundry-list of problems often seen in case plans, many of which have no impact on the child, and have nothing to do with making sure children are safe. For example, “instability” – - moving frequently – - almost certainly had less negative impact on the 6-month-old baby than removing him from his mother/primary caregiver did. If instability is a ground for termination, then the rights of nearly every parent serving in the military would need to be terminated.
ASFA has had a disproportionate impact on families of color. Dorothy Roberts, professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and author of UShattered Bonds: The Color of Child WelfareU, asserts that white children who are abused or neglected are twice as likely as Black children to receive in-home services, while Black children are far more likely to be removed from their homes.TPD65DPT Once in foster care, Black children tend to remain there longer than white children. “Nearly half of while children who are placed in foster care return home within three months; very few Black children do.”TPD66DPT
Statistics maintained by the federal Administration for Children and Families show that in North Carolina, in 2002, (the most recent year for which such statistics have been released,) Black children made up 25.9% of the population of children under 18, while on 30 September 2002, 44.7% of the children in foster care were Black. For the same year, 62.2% of children under 18 in North Carolina were White, but 45.5% of the children in foster care were White. So, even though there were approximately 2.5 times as many white children as Black living in North Carolina, there were roughly equal numbers of Black and White children in foster care. Of children waiting to be adopted, 47.2% were Black, while only 43.3% were White.TPD67DPT
As stated above, there are also flaws in the way ASFA is applied. First of all, states are free to shorten the deadlines imposed by ASFA. For example, in North Carolina, one ground for a terminating a parent’s rights to his/her children is if the parent “has willfully left the juvenile in foster care or placement outside the home for more than 12 months without showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress has been made in correcting those conditions which led to removal . . . . “TPD68DPT
ASFA does not require termination under those circumstances; ASFA only requires that social services file a termination Petition if the child has been in placement in state-sponsored foster care for 15 out of the previous 22 months. Further, under ASFA, a child does not “enter foster care” on the date when s/he is removed from his/her parents’ home. A child enters foster care on either (a) the date upon which the court found the child to be abused or neglected; or (b) 60 days after the child’s actual removal from his/her home.TPD69DPT Therefore, under ASFA, a parent actually has 17 months to turn his or her life around, while North Carolina only allows that parent 12 months.
Further, the Petitioner is supposed to bear the burden of proving, by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that grounds exist for termination.TPD70DPT Yet, under the ground fortermination cited above, the burden is shifted to the parent; the parent must prove to the court’s satisfaction that s/he has corrected the conditions which led to removal.
It also appears clear that in many cases, no reasonable efforts are being made at all. As stated above,TPD71DPT ASFA UrequiresU reasonable efforts to be made; it is one of the foundational assumptions on which ASFA is built. In a recent case, a social worker stated that the Department had provided “extensive services.” But when cross examined by the mother’s attorney, the social worker testified that the mother had been ineligible for emergency financial assistance because the children had been removed, and that the only services which had been provided to the mother was that the Department had drafted a case plan, and that a social worker had given the mother occasional rides to visit with her son, since she did not own a car, and did not have access to public transportation. No reasonable efforts report was included in the court file.TPD72DPT In the author’s experience, this is fairly typical.
As stated above, findings that reasonable efforts have been made were considered “important safeguard(s) against inappropriate agency action,” and were not supposed to become “a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal funding.”TPD73DPT Yet that is exactly what it has become in many cases in North Carolina. After examination of many court files and transcripts, it is this author’s experience that most findings that agencies have made reasonable efforts at reunification are not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
An essential key to reunification between children and their parents is sufficient visitation.
Visitation between parents and children in out-of-home placements is vital. Studies show visitation is the most important factor in the reunification process. . . . In addition to assisting in visitation, the caseworker should be making consistent efforts to facilitate a meaningful relationship between parent and child. This includes regularly informing the parent about the child’s progress, and including the parent in health and educational decisions.TPD74DPT
Yet, in North Carolina cases, parents are frequently restricted to one hour a week of supervised visitation a week, even when the permanent plan for the child is to return home. Making reasonable efforts at reunification should include liberal visits between parents and children.
UHow are North Carolina’s Foster Children Faring Under ASFA?
In April of 2004, the New York Times published an article stating that Federal investigators had found widespread problems in the implementation of ASFA. The article stated that, “No state fully complies with standards established by the federal government to assess performance in protecting children and finding safe, permanent homes for those who havesuffered abuse or neglect.”TPD75DPT Further, there are 14 standards, 7 of which “focus on the safety and well-being of children, including the incidence of abuse and neglect, the time they spend in foster care and the stability of their living arrangements.” Sixteen states failed to meet all of those 7 standards, and one of the states which failed is North Carolina.
The 7 “outcome areas” in which North Carolina was “out of substantial compliance,” include the following:
Safety Outcomes
1. Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
2. Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency Outcomes
1. Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
2. The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes
1. Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
2. Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
3. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.TPD76DPT
In other words, federal evaluators found that, despite implementation of ASFA’s mandated priority of “safety first,” North Carolina was not doing a sufficient job of keeping children safe, nor was North Carolina doing a sufficient job of maintaining children safely in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate. Additionally, children do not have permanency or stability in their living situations, or continuity with their family relationships and connections.
Another sign of North Carolina’s functioning in the environment created by ASFA is that in 2001, North Carolina earned $623, 679 in adoption bonus money for increasing the number of children adopted.TPD77DPT In 2003, North Carolina’s adoption bonus dwindled to $320,000.TPD78DPT In 2005, North Carolina did not earn any adoption bonus money at all.TPD79DPT
In raw numbers, in 2000, the year during which ASFA was implemented, 1,337 children were adopted in North Carolina. In 2001, the number was 1,327 (10 fewer). In 2002, the number was 1,324, another slight decrease from the previous year.TPD80DPT As for children still awaiting adoption, the numbers have declined, but not radically so. In 1999, before ASFA was implemented, there were 3,595 children waiting to be adopted; in 2000, the number increased to 3,709; in 2001, it decreased to 3,329; and in 2002, 3,130 children still waiting to be adopted.TPD81DPT

Conclusion:

The problems which ASFA was designed to solve will not be solved unless and until the root cause of the child welfare problem is addressed: poverty. There is simply no excuse for 20% of NC children to be living in poverty in 21PstP Century America. This author does not advocate that we return to a welfare system which involves no responsibility, and hand-outs of government checks. But at the same time, parents living in poverty should be given reasonable amounts of assistance for reasonable amounts of time, and they should be given a legitimate chance to address the issues which create barriers to them living safely with their children.
This is important, not just because parents have Constitutionally protected rights, but also because children should have the right and opportunity to know their parents and siblings and other relatives. In poverty-driven neglect cases, the government should be required to make genuine reasonable efforts. Further, what the government orders, the government should pay for; for example, if a trial court orders a parent to have psychological evaluation as a condition of reunification, and the parent is indigent, the government should pay for the evaluation. Indigent parents should not have their rights terminated if they fail to finish a case plan because they are unable to afford what the government orders them to do
In cases where there is clear evidence of intentional abuse, termination should be should be fast-tracked. If a parent has a subsequent child, after his/her rights are terminated to an abused child, s/he should bear the burden of proof that s/he is fit to parent that subsequent child.
“Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.”TPD82DPT
This Court’s decisions have by now made plain beyond the need for multiple citation that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest that “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.TPD83DPT
It is a fallacy to apply either/or thinking to child welfare cases: children should be both safe AND protected from unnecessary severance from their families of origin whenever preservation or reunification is reasonably possible. That is the place in the middle where the pendulum should ultimately settle, and where the law would make sense.

TP1PT DEBRA BAKER,MAKING SENSE OF THE ASFA REGULATIONS 3 (2001). See, also, Pub. L. 103-89.
T2T Id. ASFA was codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-679.
PPT3T Id., at 4.
PPTP4PT See, generally, Baker, supra at note 1.
TP5 PTSee, generally, RICHARD GELLES, THE BOOK OF DAVID: HOW PRESERVING FAMILIES CAN COST
CHILDREN’S LIVES (1996).T
P6 PSee, generally, MARIANNE BERRY, THE FAMILY AT RISK: ISSUES AND TRENDS IN FAMILY
PRESERVATION SERVICES (1997).
P7 PSee, e.g., UTroxel v. GranvilleU, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)(holding that the Due Process Clause “includes
a substantive component that provides ‘heightened protection against government
interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.’ The liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this court.”) UTroxelU, at 65 (citation omitted).
P8 PSee, e.g., UIn re R.T.W.U, 359 N.C. 539, 614 S.E.2d 489 (2005)(holding that it is possible for parents
to forfeit their constitutionally protected rights if they are found to be unfit, or if they behave
in a manner which is inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status,) UR.T.WU. at 543, 614 S.E.2d at 492.
P9 PRICHARD WEXLER,WOUNDED INNOCENTS: THE REAL VICTIMS OF THE WAR AGAINST CHILD
ABUSE 30-31(1995).
P10 PId., at n. 2-3.
P11 PThe Adoption History Project: Charles Loring Brace (1826-1890), http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~
adoption/people/brace.html (last visited 26 November 2005).
P12 PSeeWEXLER, supra note 4, at 35.
P13 PId., at 36.
P14 PLYNNELL HANCOCK, HANDS TO WORK 78 (2002).
P15 DUNCAN LINDSEY, THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN 13 (2004)
PP16 PJENNIFER REICH, FIXING FAMILIES: PARENTS, POWER, AND THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 34
(2005).
P17 PId.
P18 PId., at 35.
P19 PJOHN HUBNER, SOMEBODY ELSE’S CHILDREN: THE COURTS, THE KIDS, AND THE STRUGGLE TO
SAVE AMERICA’S TROUBLED FAMILIES 71 (2003).
P20P Id., at 71.
P21 PId., at 72.
P22 PId.
P23 PSee REICH, supra note 16, at 43.
P24 Id., at 42.
PP25 PId., at 42-3.
P26 PId.
P27 PSee LINDSEY, supra note 15 at 83, noting that there were more than 500,000 children in foster care
in 1977, and only 262,000 in 1982.
P28 PId.
P29 PSeeWEXLER, supra note 9, at 219.
P30 PId.

http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/has-the-pendulum-swung-to-the-point-of-sense-or-nonsense-by-kate-chester/

Did This Judge Lose Her Child? The Answer is NO!

Did This Judge Lose Her Child? The Answer is NO!
February 27, 2010 yvonnemason


UPDATED: 1:10 P.M.
Judge who left child alone at home stays on bench, but can’t handle
child-neglect cases

By STEVE VISSER and CRAIG SCHNEIDER
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writers

Judge Nina Hickson, in her second four-year term, is chief of Fulton County
Juvenile Court.

Related:
• Statement: ‘I … should have known better’
• Atlanta/South Metro community page

Fulton County Superior Court judges Tuesday allowed a juvenile judge to stay on
the bench after she recused herself from handling child-neglect cases.
State social workers found Juvenile Court Judge Nina Hickson had committed
child neglect last November when she left her 4-year-old daughter home alone at
night. After learning about the case last week, Superior Court judges, who
appoint Juvenile Court judges, had convened to discuss whether any action
should be taken against her.

Hickson informed the judges she would only hear juvenile delinquency cases –
not ones involving parenting — until after judicial and police investigations
of her conduct were concluded.

“We’re satisfied with Judge Hickson’s voluntary recusal,” said Chief Superior
Court Judge Elizabeth Long.

Child advocates, lawyers and judges had questioned whether Hickson should hear
neglect cases because of fears she might be seen as biased. Some judges also
were troubled Hickson didn’t report the incident to Superior Court judges nor
to her colleagues on the juvenile bench.

The state Department of Family and Children Services informed Hickson Dec. 5 it
had found she had committed a one-time case of neglect. The state Judicial
Qualifications Commission announced Monday that it was investigating whether
the judge should stay on the bench after learning about the issue from the
media. Atlanta Police have said they are also investigating.

Long refused to elaborate further on the meeting, which was closed to the
public, saying it was a personnel issue. She noted the turnout of 17 of 19
Superior Court judges for the meeting showed they took the issue seriously.

As fellow judges consider case, Fulton jurist said she make mistake in leaving
child alone

By STEVE VISSER and CRAIG SCHNEIDER
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writers

Fulton County Juvenile Court Judge Nina Hickson issued a public apology Monday
as two more inquiries began regarding her leaving her 4-year-old daughter home
alone while she ran a late-night errand.
The state Judicial Qualifications Commission announced Monday that it was
investigating whether Hickson’s behavior in the Nov. 29 incident makes her
unsuitable for the Juvenile Court bench or whether she should be disciplined.

Separately, Fulton County Superior Court judges, who appointed Hickson, will
meet Tuesday to discuss the matter and possible action against her, Chief Judge
Elizabeth Long said.

“Everything will be on the table — people are concerned,” Long said.

A number of lawyers, psychologists and child advocates have raised concerns
about Hickson’s action — with some urging that she be replaced — because she
judges parents charged with neglect in similar cases, Long said.

Hickson, a 43-year-old single parent, acknowledged in a two-page written
statement that she made a mistake in leaving her daughter, Wesley Victoria,
home alone to make a dash back to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport to
claim a piece of luggage.

“I, of all people, should have known better,” the judge said.

Hickson said she and her daughter had returned home from a trip about 10:45
p.m. and she thought her daughter was safely asleep for the night when she
decided to go to the airport.

But a passer-by found the girl wandering on an East Point street, looking for
her mother, and called authorities.

East Point police contacted Atlanta police, who returned the girl to her
mother.

Hickson said police called the state Division of Family and Children Services
that evening. On Dec. 1, she said, she called the DFCS deputy administrator for
Fulton County to inform her about her child-neglect case.

‘No history’ of neglect

The state DFCS’ Special Investigation Unit handled the inquiry because county
DFCS officials work closely with Hickson, said Renee Huie, DFCS spokeswoman.

Hickson said investigators interviewed her and her daughter and inspected her
home and determined that the incident represented neglect.

DFCS devised a plan for the judge to keep the child safe and notified her on
Dec. 5 that the case was closed, Huie said.

“If it is a situation in which there is no future risk to the child, as best as
can be determined, the case is closed,” Huie said. “There is no history [of
neglect] involving the judge in the [DFCS] computerized system.”

Fulton County Superior Court judges were to meet at 8 a.m. Tuesday to discuss
Hickson.

Some judges have raised concerns that she didn’t report the Nov. 29 incident to
the Superior Court or to her Juvenile Court colleagues immediately.

Atlanta police also began an investigation recently. Assistant police ChiefAlan
Dreher said the delay occurred because the patrol officers didn’t forward their
report to the Crimes Against Women and Children Unit until after a media
inquiry.

The department now will review its procedures and policies regarding incidents
involving children, he said.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission said a story, first reported in The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution over the weekend, also prompted it to investigate
Hickson. The commission investigates complaints about judges and issues
opinions to the state Supreme Court regarding judicial conduct.

The commission specifically investigates conduct “prejudicial to the
administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute,”
according to its Web site.

The seven-member commission can recommend varying levels of punishment, ranging
from private warnings to suspension to removal.

The commission consists of two judges, three lawyers and two lay members. One
seat is currently vacant.

But the final decision on any discipline rests with the state Supreme Court.

Rick McDevitt, president of the Georgia Alliance for Children, said Hickson
needs to take a voluntary leave of absence until the matter is fully resolved.

“The problem is her credibility, because she hears this kind of cases and
admonishes the parents on poor decision making,” McDevitt said. “I don’t see
how until this cloud of suspicion is resolved she can continue to hear these
types of cases.”

Hickson, who is in her second four-year term, is the chief judge of the
Juvenile Court.

She was first appointed in 1997, and among her supporters for the post were
former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and Richard Deane and Kent
Alexander, both former U.S. attorneys for the Northern District of Georgia.

A ‘personal failing’

In her public statement Monday, Hickson indicated she wanted to remain on the
bench.

She called the incident a “personal failing” but insisted it in no way
reflected a lack of concern for her child or toward the children and families
who appeared before her in court.

“If I could turn back time, I would,” Hickson said. “I would have wrapped my
daughter up in a blanket and taken her to the airport with me, or waited until
the next day to go there, or had the bag delivered to the house.”

“There are only a handful of things worth breaking one’s neck to have,” Hickson
added. “Tuesday, I know that a missing suitcase is not one of them. But my
daughter is.”

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met…4/06judge.html

Who Put This Judge On The Bench????
Letter of Support from Child Advocacy Planning Retreat Participants to Gove…
People Who Dilberate Make False Reports of Child Abuse – Written By Dan W…
Judicial Issues in Pennsylvania… since Luzerne Co.
Categories: Abuse by Family Court JudgesTags: abuse in the system, CPS, yvonne mason


http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/did-this-judge-lose-her-child-the-answer-is-no/

Foster Care in America – how it affects children

Foster Care in America – how affects children

About 800,000 Children end up in a foster family in America every year. Helping to care for orphaned, abandoned and abused Children find homes where they are safe and proper care, can receive up to a stable environment at home to find for them. The problem is that the American expectation is loosely organized and make life difficult in situations involving Children not to meet their individual needs in full.

* Who is eligible forCare?

Day care is given to each Child aged between birth and 18 years. Children are usually in a nursing home for an average of three years. Then a child will be reunited in principle with his biological family or definitively adopted by another family. However, some children remain in a position to promote the family for more than this time.

* How can young children in a situation to promote the family?

Statistics show that young children in foster careoften have a certain degree of emotional and behavioral problems. They are removed from their homes because of neglect or physical, sexual or verbal abuse. They carry these memories with them for a long time. You can do a lot of children are worried about other people or otherwise, to go to the anger of families who are taking as part of the program expectations. Many of these children need mental health services and often have physical disabilities due to poor health.

Children inFoster care program does not do so well, on average, like their counterparts in school. Have lower grades and cause much worse on standardized tests. Some children are loved and are struggling in most of the time, even up to expulsion. This is not only difficult on the child, but the family care for him.

* What happens to children who "age out" of custody?

Children who "age out" of expectations, too old for the program can be found in atroublesome situation. While some of these organisms and former youth custody of transition to adulthood can help, it is often difficult for young people to find work and provide an alternative place to live. Unfortunately, many end up homeless.

Statistics show that children who rarely someone for advice or guidance when they reach the maximum foster care aged 18 and above. There are mentoring programs available to help, but these children do not know where to find such coveragePrograms. Many of these young people are the same parents at an early age, and only about 46 percent of them even A-levels.

* What is with the foster family?

In almost half the cases, 46 percent of the time, place a child in a foster care home of the family to strangers. This may happen several times the participation of children in the system of expectations. Some will be able to live with relatives, and others may be placed in a foster family thatis a group of children in foster care under one roof. A foster family is given a small monthly stipend to support child care, but this is often not sufficient, especially if a child needs advice of any kind

Everything seems to children, forced into a foster family situation bleak. The purpose of the program is to give these children a loving and nurturing environment in order to get through some pretty tough times, but the system is failing these children? Is there a way tomake the system work better for these children? This topic is the subject of thorough investigation and continues. More and more Americans realize that something in the system of expectations through our nation needs to change. Increased awareness of the problems the system faces custody is the driving force behind these changes is necessary. Only time will tell whether we did the right thing.

Related :Lego Agents Store lego-games Lego Agents Store

Tags: affects, America, children, Foster

This entry was posted on Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 11:44 pm and is filed under legogamesagents. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://legogamesagents.blogono.com/2010/02/26/foster-care-in-america-how-affects-children/

County near settlement with family of girl who died in foster care

County near settlement with family of girl who died in foster care

February 28, 2010 12:02 PM
JOHN C. ENSSLIN

THE GAZETTE
Rather than face a potentially damaging and costly trial, El Paso County attorneys are close to reaching an out-of-court settlement in a federal lawsuit brought by the mother of a 2-year-old girl killed while in foster care.

In November, both sides initiated private mediation in the wrongful death suit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver by the estate of Alizé Vick, who died of a closed head injury while in the care of former foster mom Jules Lynn Cuneo.
“We have reached a conclusion, but I can’t yet go into details because we are still sorting out some technical, legal issues,” El Paso County Attorney William Louis said Wednesday. Those issues involve the ability to recover money on behalf of the county, he said.

A formal settlement including the dollar amount would be subject to a public vote of the county commissioners, Louis added.

On Feb. 19, a 4th Judicial District jury found Cuneo guilty of child abuse resulting in death, but did not convict her of first-degree murder, which would have meant mandatory life in prison.

The jurors in the criminal case did not hear some evidence that might have figured in a civil trial, such as alleged instances of verbal abuse by Cuneo overheard by a neighbor on a baby monitor.

A civil trial also could have raised other issues, such as allegations that authorities ignored obvious issues about Cuneo’s suitability before she was approved as a foster care mom and complaints raised months prior to Alize’s death by her grandmother.

El Paso County Human Services removed Alizé and her younger brother Anthoni from their home in March 2007, in part because they were living with their paternal grandfather, a registered sex offender.

On the day the county took custody of the children, their mother, Ashley Lindenberger said she was high on drugs.

One month later she was jail. So was the children’s father.

Lindenberger also filed lawsuits in the 4th Judicial District Court against Cuneo and Kids Crossing, the nonprofit agency that placed the Vick children with Cuneo. However, all sides reached an agreement to dismiss those lawsuits on Nov. 25, according to court records.

Jeffrey R. Hill, the attorney for Lindenberger in both the state and federal lawsuits, said last week that he could not comment on the reason for the dismissal.

A motion filed in federal court states that the El Paso County commissioners, meeting in executive session on Nov. 19, directed their attorneys to pursue mediation for the county and for several former and current Human Services employees named in the lawsuit.

The motion notes that El Paso County is “self-insured to a considerable extent and typically defense costs and fees are not covered by liability insurance.”

If a settlement is reached, that would not be an unusual outcome, according to a New York City law professor who has testified as an expert witness in cases involving allegations of abuse or wrongful death of children in foster care.

Daniel Pollack, an attorney and social worker who teaches at Yeshiva University, published a law journal article in December highlighting several such lawsuits, including one in Tulsa, Okla., in which a jury awarded $20 million against a former foster mom.

Pollack said it’s difficult to generalize about such cases because the specific facts and state laws vary from case to case. But the pressure to settle is usually there, he added.

“I think everyone would rather settle it than go to trial because it’s such an incredible production to go to trial whether you’re the plaintiff or the defense,” he said.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/settlement-94899-county-court.html

More Facts about CPS Buying and Selling Our Children

More Facts about CPS Buying and Selling Our Children
January 9, 2010 yvonnemason


Topic: Constitutional Issues
The Business of Child Stealing in Florida

——————————————————————————–
American taxpayers fund a racket that wrenches the stomach. That is CPS. Some of those involved claim their are just following orders, others just pocket the bounty on children wrenched from their parent’s arms. Nuremberg answered the question of orders; profiting from human trafficking should be a capital offense.
——————————————————————————–
by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 28, 2008

Under 5 years, blond, blue-eyed – $6,000.00. a top of the line product

We are going to take you behind the lies into the ugly truth that is destroying families for profit every day, in every community across America. You won’t want to believe it but when you see their faces, hear their voices, you will understand why this is happening and what it means to your own life, even if you don’t have children.

The same system that views children as commodities to be sold also has plans for you. There is a solution and we will get to that.

The CPS steals children using the system paid for by citizens who believe it is being used to protect those in need. That is a fraud; the system actually pumps money into the personal accounts of all those involved in the system, converting children into cash while destroying them and their families. The number of children who emerge from the system, able to function normally, are near zero. Some are never seen again.

The system used includes three stages. The first phase is to shock and intimidate the parents into consenting to let their children be processed into the system. The second phase is to force parents, terrified for their children, to begin a process of ‘case management.’ That process is a template that is designed to push the parents into emotional meltdown and bankruptcy. The third phase is to sever the parental rights entirely and sell the children.

In the wake of this trauma families are atomized, destroyed. Parents and grandparents never again see the children who connect them to the future. Children lose their past and the anchoring each of us needs to develop into a healthy human being.

Those who carry the process through the stages are well compensated. Agents, Case workers, judges, physicians, clerks, and others expect and receive compensation for services often not even delivered. Compensation takes place through corporations. State employees who fail to take children out of homes are penalized; many of these leave the system which has been converted from a system originally intended to help families to one that profits those in control.

Across the country, CPS experienced high turn overs in case workers struggling under impossible work loads for many years. Good people, motivated to help struggling families were frustrated and unable to help; those are the kinds of caseworkers who simply quit. Cases of extreme abuse while children were in foster care were common. Nothing about the system gave cause for hope it was working. Then the picture changed. The idea that instead of providing services the system as a whole should move to the model of generating income took hold as the concept of privatization was widely adopted by government. Privatization, introduced during the Reagan Years, was pushed by think tanks that saw government, a corporation itself, as the logical partner for other large corporate interests. Children, roads, military services, each of these and more were recalibrated to provide income to those in control. In this way, the problem with social services created an opening that in the late 1990s allowed the least ethical to profit from the pain of others.

PL 105-89 (HR 867), passed into law November 19, 1997, was intended to ensure that children who could not be reunited with their birth families could be placed in loving homes. But those entrusted to carry out the desperately needed changes found the measure enabled a very different agenda. CPS agents and caseworkers could be trained to look at their industry as a profit center. The system began to view children as product to be harvested and parents as barriers to be demolished.

The system became a template for kidnapping, carried out by barely educated caseworkers who were told that they made the law. This itself had become a tenet of belief held by those in power as the foundations of Constitutional law continued to be eroded by a judiciary who graduated from law school ignorant of America’s foundational documents. The shift from Constitutional law to statute and whim of court, low-level government employee, and law enforcement is documented in “The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook,” published by the National Center for State Courts in1999.

The stage was set and the feeding frenzy was about to begin.

The process goes through three stages of slow death; ripped from their families the children are bewildered, afraid, vulnerable to the system. The process hinges on secrecy and an asserted immunity from accountability for all involved. Power, through the official but unacknowledged transfer from the Constitution to government by statute, code and whim, renders all of those outside government vulnerable. Caught in that process parents lose track of all the things that brought happiness and normality to their lives. Years later this will mark them. Most will never recover.

This is the story of three families. Each of their stories is still in motion because the pain never stops.

Stage One

Manatee County, Florida has long made a business of stealing children. Families who settle there do not know that, however. They are attracted to the weather, the beauty of the area. If they knew they would never settle anyplace in Florida, which is arguably has the most corrupt CPS system in the nation. The County is run by a Board of Commissioners who meet at this well polished table.

Children are a commodity for which there is a steady and growing market both in the United States and across the world. Child sex-slaves arrive in Europe and elsewhere from unspecified locations; children taken from homes routinely end up in the porn industry. It has been going on for many years but since it did not impact most of us it was easy to ignore. But as counties across the country have cycled down into bankruptcy the need to pump harder for every buck to be made has become more compelling. Today it is not just the most vulnerable who are targeted but families that would before have been passed over as too well connected. In Manatee County the pumping is in fast forward.

Monday, June 2nd 2008

The two young sons of the Roberts were dropped off at the home of their babysitter, Christina Holbrook, residence11534 57th Street Circle East, Parrish, Florida. Both parents work. Michelle and James Roberts are both veterans of the US Navy who met while in service to their country. Both came from families with long and honorable histories of serving in the military.

Their oldest son, had been disciplined by his father the day before for jumping up and down on his baby brother, a potentially life-threatening activity. Spanking was the kind of discipline James himself experienced as a child growing up in Tennessee. The spanking had left a slight bruise.

CPS arrived at the babysitter’s home at 9:30am. They proceeded to strip the two boys and photograph them in the nude, questioning them for an hour. This was a bewildering and frightening experience for the boys.

The first James and Michelle heard of this was when Michelle received a phone call at 3:30pm from Alicia Habib. Habib presented herself as an agent for Child Protective Services, demanding that the couple present themselves for an ‘interview’. No criminal complaint was presented. But the process of intimidation and fear was launched.

Here, Michelle and James find out, to their shock, that the kids have been stripped and photographed. Left feeling as if the ground had been cut out from under them they endured with shock the moment when the deputy sheriff read James his Miranda rights. He was not charged; no criminal complaint was served. Michelle is interviewed. They are given orders. Michelle is to be present when James saw their children. CPS is moving towards building paperwork to take the children away from their parents.

During the interview they were shown the photos taken of their naked children by the deputy. The children’s faces were frozen in tears. He did not show them all the photos, keeping them under the paperwork. Michelle found his behavior intimidating. As the photos were shown he questioned her about their use of discipline.

Soon Michelle and James will realize that the CPS has no power unless they give it to them. CPS depends on the ignorance of ordinary people. The first phase had begun.

The system ground them out fine; dehumanizing them and working with fine-tuned intention to show them, by its actions, that they had no rights and no recourse. At the end of the week a hearing was set; they were now being launched into the second phase of the process that intended to wrest their children from them. But during those endless days they began to come out of the shock and consider their alternatives. They considered the Constitution and the rights they knew they had both sworn to defend as members of the armed forces of America.

Michelle loaded the two boys in their car and drove them hundreds of miles to the town where James had grown up. There, she left them with their great-grandparents. When you are seven months pregnant no long drive is comfortable, but for her children Michelle would risk anything.

In the car she prayed that she would not miscarry the baby held so close to her heart.

The two young parents are both veterans of the War in Iraq. Each had joined the Navy, after looking forward to serving their country from their early teems. She planned this as her career, since 7th Grade. He, since taking in ROTC in High School.

But they had joined a military that they believed cared for its own and kept its promises; after finding that their small son would be have to be left with someone else while both served in the war zone, they resigned. Their son, Lukas, was born the following October.

Now, they knew what the military is about. To them, they were just bodies to fill slots that civilians could fill at twice the pay. Never previously interested in politics they began to think about how the world was being run.

From the time you join you are told he is your commander and chief. She was not a Bush fan, but you cannot say it without fear of reprisal.

But Florida CPS was not finished with them. Although they did not know it, Habib stood to make nearly $10,000 as her bounty for taking the children, both very adoptable, from their home.

They never could have imagined that the elderly great-grand-parents would be threatened with arrest, but that is what happened. They began studying the Constitution; This, they knew was the real law in America. If they understood it they could use it.

Now they understand that they should never have talked to CPS. If they had not, CPS would have had to leave them alone. CPS uses fear and intimidation to force the appearance that there they have entered into a ‘contract’ with parents. But since a valid contract cannot exist without the elements of disclosure, consent, and equitable exchange this is a fraud. All parents get is bankruptcy, heartbreak, and too often death.

The Case Plan Ploy – Adam Umholtz

Adam comes from a family that lived in a log cabin in Pennsylvania. The cabin was 230 years old. Made of chestnut beams that are from a species that is not extinct the beams were hand hewed and rectangular and criss crossed. Adam’s dad was a pastor for the Southern Home Mission Board. Adam’s younger brother was born there, in the horseshoe shaped valley that was filled with berry bushes and food they grew themselves.

Adam went to school at the Advanced Training Institute of America, now the ATI. Now he is an entrepreneur, or was until his life and family was hijacked by the CPS. Adam’s children were taken from him and his wife on Monday, July 28th, 2007. They were given a case plan that it was impossible to fulfill.

As part of the 72 goals laid out in the plan was one requirement that Adam attend a class for sexual offenders who had served time in prison. This was impossible for Adam to do. Adam is attending a study on successful parents and couples, a study in which he and his wife were invited to participate. Both parents are strong Christians who take their faith seriously. Neither parent has ever been to prison for any cause, much less a sexual offense. The charges were falsified made by a neighbor who was later charged with having committed a sexual offense themselves.

Adam cannot attend the classes available because he has never been to prison and has never been a sexual offender. He is not eligible for the class in any case. So the court told Adam to confess to a crime he did not commit to get his kids back. The court has an agenda. If Adam confesses they have a clear track for severing his parental rights. The lack of justice does not bother the court or the attorney who has urged him to confess to a crime he did not commit. They are all paid through the process that steals children for resale.

Parents are routinely told that to ‘complete their case plan’ they must fulfill requirements that force them to leave jobs that prevent them from attending classes scheduled from 9 – 5 on work days. They are told they cannot be self employed. Every possible block is put in their paths to complete a ‘requirement’ that is pointless in any case. The same pattern is reported by parents across the United States. Angelina Alexander, a parent in California was told she must quit her job as a taxi driver because she was self employed. Yet she had taken the job, the only one she could find, to fulfill the requirements to attend classes. In her case the report that took her small son from her home was from a former boyfriend who had never seen the child. Complaints that the charge was false were ignored as her processing continued.

Mainstream Americans are at risk today and have no idea what is coming. In Adam’s case the CPS had targeted the kids because they were homeschooling and because they had building materials in the back yard. Then a malicious neighbor, made sexual allegations. The neighbor was later proven to have lied.

But the fact that all the ‘charges’ were illegal did not stop them from forcing you to undertake the ‘Case Plan.’ There were no charges but they had already taken their eight children out of the home. If the family had known they would have refused to talk to CPS.

Adam and his wife are now approaching bankruptcy although they are better off than many couples because at least they do not have to hide to keep the child still living with them. Most parents face the same problem. Attempts to fulfill the case plan make it impossible to earn a living or are impossible to fulfill. There are no charges. There have been no charges. There will be no charges. As with most couples, they force the father to leave so that they will have a clear shot at grabbing the children from the mother.

CPS has continuously made false allegations, added their youngest child, born after they took the original eight children, to the present case, and over and over ignored the orders of the court. One of their daughters in foster care is suffering from a wound on her foot, acquired in the foster home, for which she is receiving no treatment. The wound continues to fester and they can do nothing.

Although there are no charges Adam and his wife are allowed to see the kids only two hours a week with supervision. And the court continues to threaten to sever their parental rights. Adam does not intend to let that happen.

Adam and his wife are considering their options now that they understand the fraud that has been perpetrated. Those options are growing, along with their understanding of the Constitution and how the system in place has worked to negate their rights.

Phase Three – Severing Parental Rights

Greg Pound and his wife, Malissa, had their parental rights severed in November of 2007. The incident that brought CPS into their lives was a simple accident. A friend’s dog visiting their home bit their baby. It could have happened to anyone; the dog’s owner was desperately sorry, the dog had never harmed anyone before. Accidents happen. There was a time when an accident was treated with offers of assistance, not viewed as the means for grabbing children from their parents and their home. But that was before those in power noticed the opportunity PL 105-89 (HR 867) offered them.

For four years the Pounds saw their children for just two hours a month. Looking at the children, across the barriers built by CPS always reduced them to tears.

The last time the Pounds saw their children was at the YMCA in Pinellas County. That ‘not for profit’ is paid 125 million a year, just for that county, according to Pound who says he has researched the subject exhaustively, to ‘babysit’ kids as they meet their parents in a stark ten by twelve foot room for the two hours they are allowed to be together for those months when they still hoped to be reunited.

The system is intended to separate children, a valuable commodity, from their parents. Mandates to reunite children and parents are consistently ignored as children are processed further and further into the system. What then happens to the children varies, but is in all cases appalling.

Along with the system abuse of families parents attempting to work in the system report that FOIA requests on such routine matters as copies of the Oath of Office and bonds, required by the Constitution, for each judge or elected official or law enforcement officer, are not produced, despite repeated requests. Many ask, over and over again, why such requests should be met with silence and hostility. Parents continue to struggle to regain custody of their children and to exact accountability from those who claim sovereign immunity as government employees from the impact of their acts on ordinary Americans. The claim of sovereign immunity for those employed by government is, according to Constitutional experts such as not employed by government entirely without foundation.

The three families whose cases appear here each report that they will never stop fighting. Each family is presently filing a civil rights suit against those involved in their several cases. In light of yesterday’s revelation on child-sex rings, operating across the United States but very present in their own areas of Florida, their questions are ever more anguished as they deal with the echoing emptiness of homes that once held the laughter of children.

https://www.repairclinic.com/0062.asp?Form=1

Eight Suggestions to Guard You Against CPS

Eight Suggestions to Guard You Against CPS
January 25, 2010 yvonnemason


Foster care, family preservation and civil liberties: When you want to trample on the Fourth Amendment, who ya gonna call?

Say you work for a county sheriff’s department and you suspect that a couple is growing marijuana in their home. But you don’t have enough evidence to get a search warrant. As Karl Malden used to say in those American Express commercials: What will do you – what will you do?

The dilemma arose in Sarasota County, Florida. And Sheriff’s deputies there came up with what they thought was the perfect answer: Pretend they were from the one government agency to which that pesky Fourth Amendment never seems to apply. Pretend to be from the agency that can enter any home based on no more than an anonymous telephone tip. Pretend to be from an agency so powerful that, even if technically, people have the right to refuse, they’d be too terrified to invoke it.

Yes, that’s right. The deputies pretended to be from child protective services, in this case, the Florida Department of Children and Families, and they pretended to be looking not for pot, but for child abuse.

According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, the deputies told the couple they were investigating an anonymous tip about a child living in unfit conditions – and, they said, the couple had no right to refuse them entry.

It was all a lie, but once inside they found enough evidence to get a warrant, ultimately they found marijuana plants and drug paraphernalia. A circuit judge has ruled that illegal – and thrown out the tainted evidence. Because, after all, adults have Fourth Amendment rights.

But not children. Laws and court decisions vary from state to state, but as a practical matter, even if, technically, a parent can refuse entry to a child protective services worker, as a practical matter she’ll just run to court, claim that the refusal itself puts the child in imminent danger and get the court not only to let her in, but also to take away the children. (Indeed, she may not even need to go to court – she could simply exercise her “emergency” power to declare the child endangered, call the cops to let her in, and then leave with the child.) FULL STORY

#1
No matter what stage your “case” is in, the Number One (#1) thing YOU MUST DO- Document, Document, Document. This costs nothing and is the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do in your defense. Keep detailed records of who said what, when. ESPECIALLY document face-to-face and conversations on the phone. Record or video tape if you have it. CPS workers “make mistakes”, LIE, and TWIST your words.
See Washington State Extended Families for a nice essay on how to do Documentation.

#2
If there is a lawyer in your area who HATES CPS and knows how to put up a DEFENSE, hire him now and help him defend you. If you have to sell the car, mortgage the house, clean out your retirement fund, borrow from relatives- pay his retainer.

NOTE- If you ARE a LAWYER who wants to learn HOW, see-
Legal Information

If you get a court-appointed attorney, you may or may not receive a “vigorous defense”. About the standard pay they receive is $500 total, so the pay is no motivation to them. You might get a young, idealistic one fresh from law school, and he may be pretty aggressive. Some older ones who are not calloused may also really go to bat for you and the children and provide Competent Counsel. In all cases, Help him defend you

Also see Make Your Court-Appointed Attorney Work For YOU at fightcps.com

NEW! August 8, 2008 How I Found Attorney Who “Hates” CPS

If there is NO such lawyer (there’s not very many), or you are penniless,

~you are going to have to learn how to DO IT YOURSELF in pro per or pro se ~

Be aware that some “courts” may be so “unencumbered by the Constitution” that a lawyer “may” risk his Bar License by providing a “vigorous defense”. (See What Happens in the FOG)

There are also stories about CPS KIDNAPPING THE LAWYER’S CHILDREN AND ASSASSINATING HIS CHARACTER TOO. We have heard of CPS doing the same thing to JUDGES, Doctors, Police officers, other CPS people (Whistle-Blowers), and even State Representatives who challenge CPS’ lies and fascist activities.

That’s why just filing your papers with the court clerk may be the only way to GET THE TRUTH ON THE RECORD. That is why the “Sui Juris” method was developed.

If you don’t get anything ON THE RECORD, you will likely have
NO appealable issues in the future. See this and ESPECIALLY THIS

What Happens in the FOG- Beginning with an anonymous hotline “tip” of suspected abuse, a parent enters a gray area of American jurisprudence. And it is not “murky” to his benefit.
Child Abuse, when alleged, is not a criminal matter. It is blithely characterized as a “Civil” matter, much the same as a lawsuit to collect on a breach of contract. Thus, the Constitutional protections afforded in a criminal case are not necessarily extended to those accused of Child Abuse. Full Article

~ INNOCENCE IS NO DEFENSE ~
Don’t kid yourself.
This is not the Happy, Fair Courts

To fully understand what Family Courts REALLY ARE- see Volksgerichtshof
Never forget to ask the “judge” if you are in a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF DUE PROCESS
They cannot answer you honestly, because YOU ARE NOT

~By the way~
When the Nazi’s picked up the Jews
and sent them to Concentration Camps, they called it
Schutzhaft, literally translated “Protective Custody”

#3
Write your own version of history in a Sworn Affidavit
and FILE IT with the Court, the CPS, the DA, and whoever else that has ANYTHING to do with your case.
You are SWEARING to the truthfulness of your statements. The CPS witches aren’t swearing to ANYTHING (what is SACRED to them that they COULD swear on? The Humanist Manifesto II?)

You had better be telling the truth with no “embellishments” and citing FACTS you can back up with evidence or witnesses’ sworn statements. Say NOTHING self-incriminating. If you have something to hide, you aren’t going to lie your way out of it.

Grammar Quick Help Class 101 How your papers LOOK matters!

The importance of your Sworn Affidavit cannot be over- emphasized!
THE ONLY WAY you have appealable “issues” in the future
is to get your facts ON THE RECORD in court.

#4
SHUT UP— SHUT UP— SHUT UP!
Quit talking with the CPS monsters. You are waiving your FIFTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and Miranda Rights every time you answer a question.
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” — Miller v. U.S. Source: 230 F 2d 486, 489

Personal and phone conversations are where “mistakes” (inventions and fabrications) happen when THEY write their report about the conversations. Words you say float up into the rafters and come back twisted against you. If you feel you have to talk with them, record it or videotape it. And don’t forget to DOCUMENT it.

CPS is NOT your friend!

Women especially fall into this trap. Especially in cases where a child is ALLEGEDLY abused or molested by a family member.

DO NOT pour your heart out to a CPS worker or CPS contractor Mental Illness clinician.

Do that, and you will join the ranks of “co-perpetrator” lamenting “I was so, so foolish. I was an IDIOT. I thought they were there to HELP me. I thought the CPS worker CARED. I thought I had PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY with the psych shithead.”

CPS will use every word you say to make your child a Legal Orphan, because THAT’S what they are being PAID for.
Ignore or forget this at your and your children’s EXTREME PERIL.

August 21, 2008 NEW CASELAW

Case Name: U.S. v. Craighead, District: 9 Cir , Case #: 07-1-135
Opinion Date: 8/21/2008 , DAR #: 13245
Case Holding:
Interrogations occurring inside the home are custodial, requiring Miranda advisements under the Fifth Amendment, if the circumstances turn it into one of a “police-dominated” atmosphere.

Speaking personally, if there was no cop there, I would darn sure turn it into a “police dominated atmosphere”, by calling 911 and report that my home was being trespassed under the Color of Law with no Warrant.

If they DO have a warrant, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP.

#5
BE POLITE! The highest crime you can commit is “Contempt of Social Worker”. We have reports of POLICEMEN telling people that the Constitutional Rights and Miranda Rights are only for TV, and what they are doing is “The Real World”.
See The Oath of Office
EVERY OATH of OFFICE in the USA includes “support the Constitution”

Since many of them seem like childish morons, SOCIOPATHIC, and plainly nasty with no discernable social “skills”, this can be a difficult task.

“I would love to answer your question, but I cannot do that without violating my Fifth Amendment Rights and my Miranda Rights”

“I would love to let you in my house to look around without a Search Warrant. But I cannot do that without violating my Fourth Amendment Rights”

“There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you.” –William Hazlitt

We believe the court-ordered psych exam is a violation of your 5th Amendment rights. Don’t entertain the folly that psychiatrists are your friend. No, you do not enjoy professional “confidentiality” with them. They are the foremost tool of character assassination.

#6
Insist on LETTERS to and from the agencies. They can’t alter their words printed on paper that have been mailed to you. Nor can they alter your words either. KEEP COPIES of your letters to them.

#7 Get your records- FOIA/Privacy Act/ Open Records. Anything they FORCE you to sign, sign it “Under Duress”. You can also Rescind your previous signatures.
San Diego Courts Examiner
Gregory Smart
Freedom of Information Act & Public Records Requests
November 14, 7:58 PM

#8
Clean up your house and your life.
Obviously, if your house is a mess or your life is a mess, your CPS worker is going to use every bit of it against you. There is (so far as we know) absolutely NO LAW about “dirty house”, but they make a big deal out of it.
Shacking up with a boyfriend is the path to hell. Boyfriends have NO “natural affection” for your children, and they are the #1 baby rapists and child abusers and killers, at the TOP of any statistical data.

So this is something YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT. Clean up. Quit smoking. Whatever you are doing that you KNOW is wrong, the choice is between your laziness, habits, lifestyle choices, CATS, and YOUR KIDS.

You choose. If you can’t, then don’t complain about what happens.

Also see AFRA Dress Codes. How you dress and conduct yourself in interviews, at court, or with the Mental Illness Clinicians- matters

Eight Suggestions to Guard You Against CPShttp://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/eight-suggestions-to-guard-you-against-cps/

Abusing Children for Profit

Abusing Children for Profit

They abuse children and parents for the federal “fees”

There has been a regular controversy on several of the Internet Discussion Lists to which I subscribe about whether or not to report child abuse to Child Protective Services. In reality, there shouldn’t be any question about it. If children are being abused, CPS should be called in. But under today’s circumstances, there is a very definite question about it. According to Peter Houston on the Witch Hunt List, “There is probably no single institution that commits as much harm to children as the current CPS system. It is often underfunded, understaffed, overworked, overempowered, undermonitored, mistrained, and shielded from the responsibilities for its own actions.”

Many people say: “What choice have we? Should we just leave children to be beaten, maimed, sexually abused, and killed in their homes? But my question is this: Should we allow the child protectors to snatch them from their homes and put them into foster homes where they are beaten, maimed, sexually abused and killed? The fact is, according to the child protectors’ own figures, more children are apt to be abused in foster homes than in their own homes. So what do we do? CPS is our only option. There is nothing else. So maybe we should look into finding an “else.”

But is it an option? Should we allow children to be abused either at their own homes or in foster care? The Child Protection system is not working. It is out of control and routinely victimizes parents and children without cause. It has put numerous people in prison for many years until “wiser heads” prevail and they’re found not guilty and released. They routinely accuse parents, and anybody else they can of abuse and sexual abuse without proof. Courts allow the unsupported opinion of a child protection worker to be considered the same as proof. Prosecutors all over the world falsify cases to put people wrongly accused in prison for a long time. And when it is found that they were innocent after spending many long years in prison, do they apologize? Not even. When this happens the prosecutors claim they “got out on a technicality.”

They take children on the slightest suspicion of abuse, then they subject them (and their parents) to months, even years of “star-chamber” questioning in order to get them to confess, even when they’re clearly not guilty. And after that much questioning of small children particularly, before long they’re parroting what the child savers want them to say, just to make it stop.

Calling CPS when children are abused is a “crap shoot” at best. Some CPS workers are good people who just want to help. But all too many are as conditioned as are the rest of the population. They’re taught that all parents are “potential” abusers and “where there’s smoke, there must be fire.” That they should “err on the side of the child” and take the children as a first option and sort it out later. That this is, in itself, child abuse, doesn’t seem to bother them.

Professor Susan Sarnoff, assistant professor of social work at Ohio University blithely comments: “Children in foster care are often more difficult to deal with.” I wonder why. Could it be that children who are forcibly removed from their loving families and placed with strangers without cause (in a majority of cases) are going to “act out?” When you rip a child from his family he or she is not going to be a “normal child” for a long time afterward. And the longer the children are kept away from their families, the more difficult they will become to handle. You’d think someone who teaches “social work” would know that.

What they’re actually doing is manipulating children and parents for money. Each child who is put into foster care brings hundreds, sometimes even thousands of dollars to the child protectors. Jobs are created and power is gained. “Counselors” go into business with no customers besides the people CPS forces to go to them (Granted, as with the workers themselves, there are those who only want to do good for these children. Unfortunately, they’re in the minority). People go into the “foster care business,” both as foster parents and as foster parent agencies that hire foster parents (with literally no controls on them). Many foster parents blatantly consider being a foster parent as a lucrative business where they can make thousands of dollars a month. A lot more than they could make working outside the home. Many foster homes care for five to fifteen children at a time. They make more money than most people could ever dream of making.

And when the inevitable happens and a child is abused, sexually abused, or even killed in foster care, they use the old excuse that they “don’t have enough money or enough people” to do the job right.

You don’t think this is happening? How about a few case histories?

THE PAMELA GASTON CASE in Oregon where it is alleged that foster parents actually took pornographic pictures of their child, Melissa. Where her child has been (at this writing) in no less that seventeen foster homes. Where the courts routinely rule against these parents in writ after writ or dismiss without hearing. Where Ms. Gaston was charged with trespass just for entering the courthouse, which is, in part, her property. Where the police and the courts apparently are engaging in a vendetta against her for having the temerity to actually name a judge in a suit.

THE “JANE DOE” CASE in Aiken, South Carolina, where a child (under 14) was taken from her family on “suspicion” of abuse, only to be abused while in foster care at the “Helping Hands” facility where she had been placed by the South Carolina Department of Social Services. While there, she was, according to her suit against Helping Hands, forced into a closet and repeatedly sexually assaulted by two adolescent boys. The Aiken Department of Public Safety arrested two boys, then ages 14 and 15, and charged them with the crime. The case has not yet been heard in Aiken County Family Court (when this file was received), said Capt. Tom Galardi of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. The girl is asking the court for an unspecified amount of money for mental and physical injuries from the sexual assault and costs for the birth and upbringing of her child, which she claims was conceived as a result of the attack.

ALBUQUERQUE FOSTER CARE MURDER: In February, 1999, Williette Ulmer, a foster mother, was arrested in the death of a baby in her care and another four-year-old was taken from her home, according to an Albuquerque Journal article by Jeff Jones. The foster mother was arrested on suspicion of child abuse resulting in death, according to police Deputy Chief Sal Baragiola. He also noted that the Medical Investigator had determined that the baby, Alexander Ganadonegro, died as a result of blunt trauma that ruptured his stomach. In the criminal complaint it was noted that Ulmer, 29, was “…the only adult caring for Alexander” about the time of his death and that the ruptured stomach was the result of a “forceful blow” that “would have to be done by someone other than a child.”

THE “ANDY” CASE: A report in the “Arizona Republic” by Karina Bland on December 3, 1998, “Thirteen-year-old Andy wore two or three pairs of underwear under his jeans and slept fully dressed during the months after he got home from spending half a year in foster care. Now 14, Andy averts his eyes when he talks about what happened to him at that Mesa shelter in late 1996 and 1997. ‘Basically,’ he says, sinking down in a cushioned chair in his mother’s office, ‘I was raped.’ Andy had been taken from his mother because child welfare officials said their house was too filthy. Now he is in the middle of a battle over how many Arizona children have suffered sexual abuse after being placed in foster care.

“A court-appointed team of Arizona State University researchers has estimated that Andy may be among as many as 210 Arizona children who experienced abuse in foster homes since the mid-1980s. The team was appointed after a lawsuit was filed in Pima County Superior Court by Tucson attorney Larry Berlin in 1994 on behalf of four children reportedly subjected to abuse. “The state maintains that the claim of so many children being abused in foster care is ludicrous. ‘The numbers being quoted in that lawsuit are totally outrageous,’ says Sally Ordini, spokeswoman for state Child Protective Services. ‘Incidents of sexual abuse in foster care are extremely rare.’ [Yeah, right. Then why do I get two or three new reports of it every day? Why do I have five megs of case reports on abuse in foster care? -RT]

“So far, no one has specifically identified the 210 children who may have been abused in foster homes. The team of researchers based its estimate on its review of a random sample of 287 CPS cases filed over two six-month periods; 7.3 percent suggested that sexual abuse had occurred while the child was in state custody. The researchers concluded that, based on the random sample and using the same methods, there would be a total of 210 children who had been sexually abused in foster care over a decade. They issued a preliminary report concluding that the state’s computer system should be able to identify the children. The state contends that such incidents of abuse occurred before the children lived in foster homes and that it would be almost impossible to review the half-million case files in search of such allegations [They planned it that way. Anybody wonder why they don't keep statistics about children who are abused, sexually abused, and killed in foster care? -RT]. “The researchers were appointed by Pima County Presiding Judge Michael Brown to look into complaints contained in the 1994 lawsuit. Brown is considering whether to declare the case a class action suit, which ultimately could cost the state millions in restitution. Attorneys predict a decision before the end of the year.

“Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe and co-chairwoman of a joint legislative committee studying child welfare reform, worries that kids taken from their parents by the state are being hurt. ‘Can the state guarantee the safety of the child?’ Knaperek asked. ‘I don’t know that we can.’ Berlin’s lawsuit originally asked for compensation for counseling and other services for four children he says were sexually abused while in state care from 1986 through 1994. ‘These are children who the state removes from their homes because they say they are not safe there, and they put them in places where much more terrible things happen to them,’ Berlin said.

“Andy, for example, was 12 when he was removed from his home and taken to the shelter, which was licensed for boys ages 13 to 18. The next day, he said, a 17-year-old resident shoved a broomstick into his rectum. That boy was arrested and sent to juvenile detention for a year. But, in the months that would follow, another boy would forcibly perform oral sex on Andy. ‘I thought the first time would be the only time, but he did it again and again and again,’ Andy said. ‘I was scared.’

“In the almost six months Andy was in foster care, he said he saw his CPS caseworker face to face just once.”

I could go on and on, clipping from the hundreds of files I have, but I think I’d bore you. It is possible to become inured (bored by) to such stories, even considering the violence to the children, just by the sheer numbers of cases of violence and sexual abuse done to them while they’re “being protected” in foster care. So I’ll let these cases speak for the volumes of files I have from all over the world.

When I set out to help my son get his children back from the “child protectors” so he wouldn’t suffer the same fate I did thirty years ago when they snatched my other two sons from my second wife and used every scam and scheme possible to keep from giving them to me I didn’t know about the “crawling can of worms” I would be opening. I haven’t seen them since. I believed, at the time, that my children and I had been the victims of am adoption ring within the Indianapolis-Marion County social services department. Little did I know that it was more likely an adoption ring run by the social services department to gain the thousands of dollars available from the federal government for each child snatched, for each parent forced to go to “counseling” and “parenting classes,” and for every child they can put up for adoption (One of the doctors involved in my son’s case has said that it is the worst case of child protector abuse he has ever seen.).

There is such a glut of children in foster care now that they’re desperately advertising for adoptive parents. Many of the “cute pictures” I see on the web sites advertising children available for adoption are labeled: “Not yet Available,” since they haven’t yet been able to terminate parental rights with that particular child. But they’ll “do the paperwork” and let you have them as soon as they’re “available.

That they do this completely out in the open and no one but people they’ve victimized notice amazes me. One of the most difficult things to do is to convince someone they have not yet gotten to that they could easily be next, and no amount of “Constitutional rights” will help them. They’ve got the world so well conditioned that it is all but impossible to do so. But people are beginning to wake up. Many child protection services around the world are beginning to have legal problems from their actions (as witness above, and many other files I have). And this “old warrior” is going to be helping in every way I can, as long as I can, to “pop their balloon” so they can’t abuse any more children…or parents. I don’t want to do away with what they do, only do away with the way they do it so that children can reallybe protected instead of being further abused “by the system.”





To find more information click on the “Manual for the Falsely Accused” Report. The information on this site is not legal advice. Before carrying out suggestions found here consult your attorney. To contact me by mail, write to: PO Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247

http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/cps-abuse-children-and-parents-for-federal-fees/