RCMP probe infant's death in foster care
CANWEST NEWS SERVICEMARCH 5, 2010
Alberta RCMP have confirmed they are investigating the death of an infant in foster care who died Wednesday.
Little information was available, but it is believed the child was taken to hospital after an incident Monday night.
Yvonne Fritz, Alberta's minister of children and youth services, said the child was younger than two years old.
The minister said the government will also review the death, a probe running parallel to the RCMP investigation.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/RCMP+probe+infant+death+foster+care/2644777/story.html#ixzz0hJnOhv2r
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Stolen Children, Foster Children and Adopted Children -- The Sad Realities of CPS and the Foster Care System
Stolen Children, Foster Children and Adopted Children -- The Sad Realities of CPS and the Foster Care System
Posted: 03 Mar 2010 11:40 PM PST
By: Brenda Alexander
March 4, 2010
© All rights reserved
Note: If you like this article and want to post it on your blog or website, please feel free to do so. You do not need to ask my permission although credit and a link back to me would be appreciated but it's not mandatory. I'm not going for a pulitzer prize here, just stating my feelings in regards to CPS stealing and selling our children.
There's a term that's used by social workers for parents who have fought CPS and regardless of the outcome of their case, they're called "veteran parents." I think that's an apt name as we all know fighting CPS makes us feel like we've been in a war. We have post-traumatic stress disorder as well as any number of other mental health issues. We suffer from depression, anger, frustration, terror and at times we're seriously concerned that we might be paranoid. I'll tell you just like my husband's attorney told us, "just because you're paranoid does not mean that someone isn't out to get you." Never is that more true than when fighting CPS for custody of your children.
There's a myth going around that states if you lose your children to CPS, you must have done something horrible to deserve it. Well, that's just not the reality. The truly abused children are the ones that are allowed to remain in their own homes as they are simply too damaged to bring in any money on the foster/adopt market. CPS only wants the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, genetically sound, healthy children, especially those under the age of 5, as they're the ones in demand. Visit Adopt Us Kids and there's a form on there where you put in a special order for the child of your dreams. Once you've been approved as an adoptive parent (i.e., you have a lot of money), then they find a family with a child that fits the description, removes the child, terminates the parent(s) rights and wham! you got your kid! It's as simple as that. It's a hell of a lot better than having your own cos who knows, you might not get what you want that way but this is a sure-fire way of getting quality children at rock bottom prices. Isn't being online great? Nowhere else but in America can you special order a kid online. We should be so proud!
Now we are going to deal with foster children who are taken not to be adopted out but rather so they can be used as human guinea pigs. Big pharmaceutical companies don't have a ready supply of parents willing to let them experiment on their children so they have to find them somewhere. While I am unable at this time to prove my theory as fact, I am quite convinced that they give social service agencies (CPS) kick backs in the form of grants to place foster children on high powered, dangerous pharmaceuticals, especially anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. It's been proven that anti-depressants cause suicidal thoughts and ideation in children yet they continue placing foster children on these drugs.
Gabriel Myers was one such child. At the age of 7, he got into an argument with his 19 year old baby-sitter and went into the bathroom of his foster care providers and hanged himself from the shower head. He was taking a cocktail of drugs including Symbyax. The following statement came off the website Symbyax.com...
"Antidepressants may increase suicidal thoughts or behaviors in some children, adolescents and young adults especially within the first few months of treatment or when changing the dose. No increased risk has been shown for adults over age 24, and risk decreased for those over age 65. All patients starting therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for new or worsening depression symptoms, suicidal thoughts or behavior, or unusual changes in behavior. Symbyax is not approved for children and adolescents."
It makes no sense to me that he was placed on any drugs, much less this one. Are they just seen as throw-away kids? Children that no one wants? How can anyone with a conscious do this to a child? He was only 7 years old when he died all because some social worker, most likely a sociopath, removed this child from his home supposedly because he was in severe danger only to be placed in a home where he died! Why was the State of Florida NOT held accountable for his death? No one cares except, of course, his real parents. It's not going to make any real difference in how things are done. Foster children are still going to be placed on drugs, parental rights terminated, foster children adopted out and "loved" until they turn 18.
Unfortunately I have read too many blogs and websites created by foster care providers. In one, a foster/adopt mother in Texas made the statement she regretted every adopting her oldest 2 foster children. She called them liars and slangers and posted their pictures up for the world to see. She stated she couldn't wait until they turned 12 so that she could put them in a group home. She said she was a bad mother. Well, duh! Of course she's a bad mother. Actually, she's not even their mother, not in any real sense of the word.
I am the mother of 5 children all with very different personalities. Some were easier than others to raise but they all came with their own set of challenges. I love them all in spite of their faults. My love for them didn't disappear on their 18th birthday. I didn't throw them out of my home. I didn't demand the government give me more money to keep them in my home. In fact, the government didn't give me anything to raise my children. My husband and I had to work to give them what they needed and some of what they wanted.
But that's not the way it is in foster care. Foster care providers are not "parents." Calling them foster mom or dad is politically incorrect. They get anywhere from $600 to $900 per month, per child. They also get WIC (when appropriate), SSI, Medicaid, child support, Title IV-E funding as well as others and when the foster care providers adopt the children, they get a baseline of $4,000 to $6,000. Of course the more "special needs" labels you can attach to the child, the higher your base pay rises. It is not unheard of for some children to bring in upwards of $100,000 from ASFA adoption bonus money alone.
For those who are not familiar with ASFA, it stands for the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1997. Basically it states that if a child has been in the foster care system for 15 out of 22 months and it is determined that the parents aren't doing even the minimal amount of work required to regain custody, they can, at that time, be placed up for adoption. To further this goal, that's when they gave the individual states' the baseline as incentives to find homes for these poor, wretched waifs.
There's a big problem with this law. The very children this law was designed to help are the ones who are still languishing in the foster care system. Most have been in there for at least 10 years. They're switched from foster home to foster home, what few belongings they have are in a plastic bag, and they stay there until either the foster care provider can't take care of them anymore or refuses to take care of them anymore. They act out and have problems bonding with their caretakers. These are the children that are used as human guinea pigs, given all these different drugs and getting tons of money from the drug companies and no one cares what it's doing to them. They're viewed as unwanted, unloved, uncared for and so what if the drugs kill them, they're never going to amount to anything anyway. It will be one less person draining our nation's resources.
The problem with this theory is that they are NOT unloved and unwanted. They have parents who loved them and did the best they could. If even half of the money given to foster care providers was given to biological parents, the vast majority of problems would go away and children could safely remain in their real homes. Substance abuse issues can be handled by sending the whole family into rehab. There's a few out there that take in the entire family, the Salvation Army being one of them. It's a very intense 6 month program and once you've successfully completed that, you move into transitional housing, also known as step-down. You live there for up to 2 years and are eligible for grants to go to school, job placement programs, all sorts of things to help make sure families are staying together. I will be writing an article regarding substance abuse and CPS in a later post so be on the look-out for it.
Another problem I see with foster care is that all these caretakers are swearing that they do it for love. Well, I guess in once sense that's true. They do "love" that money they're raking in. Now, I admit if you have just one foster child in your home, the $600 to $900 per month seems like chump change. However, the average foster home has 5 foster children living there at any point in time. So even if they receive the minimum, that's $3,000 per month, which is a lot more than most biological parents earn together in any given month.
That pays their mortgage, car payment, utilities, and there's right much left over for luxuries. Remember they don't have to pay for food as they get up to $300 per month, per child in food stamps. That varies from home to home though and the food stamps are supposed to go to the foster child only. Of course that's not reasonable. No one expects the families to cook 2 separate meals but it is suppose to equal out at the end of the month.
One of my best friend's has a 17 year old grandson who was adopted out of the foster care system and sneaks away to call her and his mom as often as he can. He called her recently asking if she would buy him a belt because he only had hand-me-down pants and they were 2 sizes too big. The adoptive parents would not buy him a belt. Nor was he allowed to wear his winter coat except when they went out as a family. They live in a very mountainous area. It's cold where they are but he's only allowed a windbreaker to wear to school. He got caught talking to his grandmother the other day and now they're trying to put him in an institution.
See, he will be turning 18 in November. He is going home. There's a new law that gives foster care providers their monthly stipend on up to the age of 21 IF they allow the children to stay past their 18th birthdays. Of course his adopted parents want to continue receiving money for him so they're trying to get him diagnosed as incompetent so he can't legally leave his foster care provider's home. Gone now are the days when monthly checks stopped at the time of adoption. No, they continue receiving a monthly check until the child turns 18 or 21, depending. How many biological parents do you personally know that have kicked their children out of their home, with no job, no money and nowhere to go on their 18th birthdays? I'm guessing none because that's how many I personally know. We don't magically stop loving our children on their 18th birthdays. Some children do move out but that's their choice, not ours. Many go on to college and live on campus or with roommates. Some even go back-packing in Europe. However, the vast majority of children not going to college are staying at home well past their 18th birthdays. There's nothing wrong with insisting they go to work and pay rent either. It teaches them fiscal responsibility. I just find it so amazing though that the love for a foster child just one day stops. How people can be like that and still sleep at night is beyond me. My oldest just turned 30 and I still love him. I always will and he, like all the others, have a place to live if they ever need it. Why? Because I'm their mother, that's why. It's what we do.
One last thing I want to touch on in this article is that the definition of child abuse and neglect varies from state to state, city to city, and county to county. Where it's legal and okay to spank your child here, it's illegal over there. The definitions are subjective and vague. They're left open to interpretation by the social worker in charge of your case. If you get one that's bitter and angry over a failed marriage, then he or she may take that out on you and your family. Often they try to force parents to separate in order for one of them to regain custody. They claim you're being physically and/or verbally abused and since it's impossible to prove a negative, there's very little you can do to combat these claims in court.
Social workers have absolute immunity from perjury. They can lie, twist facts, exaggerate and fabricate evidence and even if you can prove their lies, they're never held accountable. They make you think they have more power than law enforcement personnel and demand entry into your home without a warrant. It is vital for every family to know what their rights are, what to do and what NOT to do if CPS comes knocking. Don't wait until they investigate because then it's too late. No one is immune. I'm sure Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods thought they were immune too but they know differently now.
So if you have a friend, family member, neighbor or co-worker who is fighting CPS for their children, rather than being judgmental, find out what they're investigating and why. The vast majority of abuse allegations are done so maliciously and falsely. A lot of people make these calls to get even but it's the children you would be hurting the most. Don't look for ways to get even, look for ways to forgive. That's much healthier for all in the long run.
Posted: 03 Mar 2010 11:40 PM PST
By: Brenda Alexander
March 4, 2010
© All rights reserved
Note: If you like this article and want to post it on your blog or website, please feel free to do so. You do not need to ask my permission although credit and a link back to me would be appreciated but it's not mandatory. I'm not going for a pulitzer prize here, just stating my feelings in regards to CPS stealing and selling our children.
There's a term that's used by social workers for parents who have fought CPS and regardless of the outcome of their case, they're called "veteran parents." I think that's an apt name as we all know fighting CPS makes us feel like we've been in a war. We have post-traumatic stress disorder as well as any number of other mental health issues. We suffer from depression, anger, frustration, terror and at times we're seriously concerned that we might be paranoid. I'll tell you just like my husband's attorney told us, "just because you're paranoid does not mean that someone isn't out to get you." Never is that more true than when fighting CPS for custody of your children.
There's a myth going around that states if you lose your children to CPS, you must have done something horrible to deserve it. Well, that's just not the reality. The truly abused children are the ones that are allowed to remain in their own homes as they are simply too damaged to bring in any money on the foster/adopt market. CPS only wants the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, genetically sound, healthy children, especially those under the age of 5, as they're the ones in demand. Visit Adopt Us Kids and there's a form on there where you put in a special order for the child of your dreams. Once you've been approved as an adoptive parent (i.e., you have a lot of money), then they find a family with a child that fits the description, removes the child, terminates the parent(s) rights and wham! you got your kid! It's as simple as that. It's a hell of a lot better than having your own cos who knows, you might not get what you want that way but this is a sure-fire way of getting quality children at rock bottom prices. Isn't being online great? Nowhere else but in America can you special order a kid online. We should be so proud!
Now we are going to deal with foster children who are taken not to be adopted out but rather so they can be used as human guinea pigs. Big pharmaceutical companies don't have a ready supply of parents willing to let them experiment on their children so they have to find them somewhere. While I am unable at this time to prove my theory as fact, I am quite convinced that they give social service agencies (CPS) kick backs in the form of grants to place foster children on high powered, dangerous pharmaceuticals, especially anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. It's been proven that anti-depressants cause suicidal thoughts and ideation in children yet they continue placing foster children on these drugs.
Gabriel Myers was one such child. At the age of 7, he got into an argument with his 19 year old baby-sitter and went into the bathroom of his foster care providers and hanged himself from the shower head. He was taking a cocktail of drugs including Symbyax. The following statement came off the website Symbyax.com...
"Antidepressants may increase suicidal thoughts or behaviors in some children, adolescents and young adults especially within the first few months of treatment or when changing the dose. No increased risk has been shown for adults over age 24, and risk decreased for those over age 65. All patients starting therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for new or worsening depression symptoms, suicidal thoughts or behavior, or unusual changes in behavior. Symbyax is not approved for children and adolescents."
It makes no sense to me that he was placed on any drugs, much less this one. Are they just seen as throw-away kids? Children that no one wants? How can anyone with a conscious do this to a child? He was only 7 years old when he died all because some social worker, most likely a sociopath, removed this child from his home supposedly because he was in severe danger only to be placed in a home where he died! Why was the State of Florida NOT held accountable for his death? No one cares except, of course, his real parents. It's not going to make any real difference in how things are done. Foster children are still going to be placed on drugs, parental rights terminated, foster children adopted out and "loved" until they turn 18.
Unfortunately I have read too many blogs and websites created by foster care providers. In one, a foster/adopt mother in Texas made the statement she regretted every adopting her oldest 2 foster children. She called them liars and slangers and posted their pictures up for the world to see. She stated she couldn't wait until they turned 12 so that she could put them in a group home. She said she was a bad mother. Well, duh! Of course she's a bad mother. Actually, she's not even their mother, not in any real sense of the word.
I am the mother of 5 children all with very different personalities. Some were easier than others to raise but they all came with their own set of challenges. I love them all in spite of their faults. My love for them didn't disappear on their 18th birthday. I didn't throw them out of my home. I didn't demand the government give me more money to keep them in my home. In fact, the government didn't give me anything to raise my children. My husband and I had to work to give them what they needed and some of what they wanted.
But that's not the way it is in foster care. Foster care providers are not "parents." Calling them foster mom or dad is politically incorrect. They get anywhere from $600 to $900 per month, per child. They also get WIC (when appropriate), SSI, Medicaid, child support, Title IV-E funding as well as others and when the foster care providers adopt the children, they get a baseline of $4,000 to $6,000. Of course the more "special needs" labels you can attach to the child, the higher your base pay rises. It is not unheard of for some children to bring in upwards of $100,000 from ASFA adoption bonus money alone.
For those who are not familiar with ASFA, it stands for the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1997. Basically it states that if a child has been in the foster care system for 15 out of 22 months and it is determined that the parents aren't doing even the minimal amount of work required to regain custody, they can, at that time, be placed up for adoption. To further this goal, that's when they gave the individual states' the baseline as incentives to find homes for these poor, wretched waifs.
There's a big problem with this law. The very children this law was designed to help are the ones who are still languishing in the foster care system. Most have been in there for at least 10 years. They're switched from foster home to foster home, what few belongings they have are in a plastic bag, and they stay there until either the foster care provider can't take care of them anymore or refuses to take care of them anymore. They act out and have problems bonding with their caretakers. These are the children that are used as human guinea pigs, given all these different drugs and getting tons of money from the drug companies and no one cares what it's doing to them. They're viewed as unwanted, unloved, uncared for and so what if the drugs kill them, they're never going to amount to anything anyway. It will be one less person draining our nation's resources.
The problem with this theory is that they are NOT unloved and unwanted. They have parents who loved them and did the best they could. If even half of the money given to foster care providers was given to biological parents, the vast majority of problems would go away and children could safely remain in their real homes. Substance abuse issues can be handled by sending the whole family into rehab. There's a few out there that take in the entire family, the Salvation Army being one of them. It's a very intense 6 month program and once you've successfully completed that, you move into transitional housing, also known as step-down. You live there for up to 2 years and are eligible for grants to go to school, job placement programs, all sorts of things to help make sure families are staying together. I will be writing an article regarding substance abuse and CPS in a later post so be on the look-out for it.
Another problem I see with foster care is that all these caretakers are swearing that they do it for love. Well, I guess in once sense that's true. They do "love" that money they're raking in. Now, I admit if you have just one foster child in your home, the $600 to $900 per month seems like chump change. However, the average foster home has 5 foster children living there at any point in time. So even if they receive the minimum, that's $3,000 per month, which is a lot more than most biological parents earn together in any given month.
That pays their mortgage, car payment, utilities, and there's right much left over for luxuries. Remember they don't have to pay for food as they get up to $300 per month, per child in food stamps. That varies from home to home though and the food stamps are supposed to go to the foster child only. Of course that's not reasonable. No one expects the families to cook 2 separate meals but it is suppose to equal out at the end of the month.
One of my best friend's has a 17 year old grandson who was adopted out of the foster care system and sneaks away to call her and his mom as often as he can. He called her recently asking if she would buy him a belt because he only had hand-me-down pants and they were 2 sizes too big. The adoptive parents would not buy him a belt. Nor was he allowed to wear his winter coat except when they went out as a family. They live in a very mountainous area. It's cold where they are but he's only allowed a windbreaker to wear to school. He got caught talking to his grandmother the other day and now they're trying to put him in an institution.
See, he will be turning 18 in November. He is going home. There's a new law that gives foster care providers their monthly stipend on up to the age of 21 IF they allow the children to stay past their 18th birthdays. Of course his adopted parents want to continue receiving money for him so they're trying to get him diagnosed as incompetent so he can't legally leave his foster care provider's home. Gone now are the days when monthly checks stopped at the time of adoption. No, they continue receiving a monthly check until the child turns 18 or 21, depending. How many biological parents do you personally know that have kicked their children out of their home, with no job, no money and nowhere to go on their 18th birthdays? I'm guessing none because that's how many I personally know. We don't magically stop loving our children on their 18th birthdays. Some children do move out but that's their choice, not ours. Many go on to college and live on campus or with roommates. Some even go back-packing in Europe. However, the vast majority of children not going to college are staying at home well past their 18th birthdays. There's nothing wrong with insisting they go to work and pay rent either. It teaches them fiscal responsibility. I just find it so amazing though that the love for a foster child just one day stops. How people can be like that and still sleep at night is beyond me. My oldest just turned 30 and I still love him. I always will and he, like all the others, have a place to live if they ever need it. Why? Because I'm their mother, that's why. It's what we do.
One last thing I want to touch on in this article is that the definition of child abuse and neglect varies from state to state, city to city, and county to county. Where it's legal and okay to spank your child here, it's illegal over there. The definitions are subjective and vague. They're left open to interpretation by the social worker in charge of your case. If you get one that's bitter and angry over a failed marriage, then he or she may take that out on you and your family. Often they try to force parents to separate in order for one of them to regain custody. They claim you're being physically and/or verbally abused and since it's impossible to prove a negative, there's very little you can do to combat these claims in court.
Social workers have absolute immunity from perjury. They can lie, twist facts, exaggerate and fabricate evidence and even if you can prove their lies, they're never held accountable. They make you think they have more power than law enforcement personnel and demand entry into your home without a warrant. It is vital for every family to know what their rights are, what to do and what NOT to do if CPS comes knocking. Don't wait until they investigate because then it's too late. No one is immune. I'm sure Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods thought they were immune too but they know differently now.
So if you have a friend, family member, neighbor or co-worker who is fighting CPS for their children, rather than being judgmental, find out what they're investigating and why. The vast majority of abuse allegations are done so maliciously and falsely. A lot of people make these calls to get even but it's the children you would be hurting the most. Don't look for ways to get even, look for ways to forgive. That's much healthier for all in the long run.
Drug War On Moms Toddler, Newborn Wrongly Torn From Family in Stepped-Up Screening of Pregnant Women
US CA: Drug War On Moms
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n631/a04.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Jun 2008
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.dailynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Author: Troy Anderson
DRUG WAR ON MOMS
Toddler, Newborn Wrongly Torn From Family in Stepped-Up Screening of Pregnant Women
Awakened by late-night pounding and his doorbell ringing, Palmdale resident Jesus Bejarano found a social worker and two sheriff's deputies demanding he turn over his 20-month-old daughter, Kelly.
The social worker said Bejarano's 29-year-old wife, Cheila Herrera, had tested positive for amphetamines and PCP at Antelope Valley Hospital after giving birth to the couple's son a week earlier. Their son, Jesse, who was born prematurely and was still at the hospital, had already been placed in protective custody.
"It was terrible," Herrera said of the Feb. 14 ordeal. "It was pretty shocking to us. We didn't know what to do or say. We called my mom, saying, 'They are taking our baby away.'
"We started calling friends, but no one we know has gone through something like this. We were crying. We thought, oh my God, they took our baby."
Last month, the couple sued Los Angeles County government for unspecified damages, saying Herrera had never used drugs and the social worker ignored a battery of expensive tests that proved the initial drug-test results were wrong.
Experts say the case highlights widespread problems with California's system of drug-testing pregnant mothers, using urine-screening tests that produce false-positives up to 70 percent of the time, and inconsistent compliance by hospitals with a state law designed to regulate the process.
"The system sounds problematic ... because they are doing urine-only screens, and if they are not doing confirmation tests, they are going to have a lot of false positives," said Dr. Barry Lester, a national expert on drug-exposed babies and a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
The Palmdale case comes two decades after concerns about "crack babies" swept tens of thousands of children into child-protective systems across the nation. Today, many medical experts say those concerns were overblown, with children showing no consistent birth defects or brain damage after being born to mothers who tested positive for crack use.
But experts say that in recent years a similar sweep has focused on "meth babies." Up to 80percent of mothers in Los Angeles County whose babies are taken tested positive for methamphetamine, a drug that experts say produces very high rates of false positives.
Removing the Child
In Los Angeles County, the number of infants removed from mothers who tested positive for drugs at hospitals nearly tripled from 209 in 2003 to 568 last year, according to county data. California officials said they do not track similar figures statewide.
"Nine times out of 10, they remove the child," said Martha Molina Aviles, deputy to Supervisor Gloria Molina. "So we have been asking the ( Department of Children and Family Services ) a lot more questions about substance-abuse issues.
"How do they test? Are they randomly testing? What kind of tests are they doing? We certainly would support, whenever possible, to do confirmatory tests."
Under California legislation passed in 1990, it is against the law for a children's services agency to take a baby from a mother based solely on a single, positive drug test.
The law says there also must be proof the baby is at risk of abuse or neglect. And the law requires hospitals to conduct an assessment of the mother to determine if the baby is at risk before calling children's services authorities.
Known as the Presley Bill, the legislation came after a sudden increase in hospital reports to child welfare authorities of perinatal substance abuse.
But in a 1994 analysis on behalf of the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, reviewers found widespread misunderstanding of the law, no mechanism to monitor implementation and a lack of funding for training or technical assistance for counties and hospitals.
"It's like the wild, wild West out here," said Beverly Hills attorney L. Wallace Pate, who is representing the Palmdale couple in their suit against the county.
"Nobody is following the law. The judges seem to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war on women.
"They are telling moms, 'You tested positive for drugs, you are a bad mom, and we are going to take your kids away.' But under the law, the mom has to be abusive or negligent in the care of the baby." Principal Deputy County Counsel Rosemarie Belda said she couldn't comment on the Palmdale couple's lawsuit because it involves pending litigation.
But officials at the Department of Children and Family Services and the Interagency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect said that, despite the state legislation, hospitals are not consistently filling out the required assessment forms.
"Some hospitals are not submitting these protocol forms at all," ICAN Executive Director Deanne Tilton Durfee said.
Issue of Liability
DCFS and hospital officials say physicians have discretion whether to request a second screening test for pregnant mothers who test positive for drugs.
But James Lott, executive vice president of the Hospital Association of Southern California, said most hospitals in the county are not performing the assessments before calling the DCFS because, if something adverse happens to the baby or the assessment is inadequate, the hospital could be held legally liable.
"Hospitals don't like being put in this position, and so many hospitals will consider the positive toxicology test all the screening they have to do," Lott said.
"And that will be, can be and often is the sole determinant in regard to referrals ( to DCFS ), and then they let the ( child welfare ) investigators sort the rest of it out.
"The hospitals are erring on the side of safety for the child. And they could be faulted for the screening process. The only objective, fact-based criteria the hospital has is the toxicology test. Screening can be determined to be subjective."
Lott also said he doesn't believe hospitals are violating the law.
"The law does not say you cannot make a referral without having done the screening," Lott said. "It says you should do the screening if you are going to make a referral.
"I know that sounds twisted, but anyone can make a referral without a screening, and it's up to the investigators to decide ( whether to detain the baby )."
Lott also said many hospitals don't always have the laboratory expertise to conduct confirmatory tests. And while dependency court attorneys say they have been requesting more confirmatory tests recently, they acknowledge the practice is still relatively rare.
Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director of DCFS, said his agency is concerned that many hospitals aren't following the law or performing confirmatory drug tests.
"I think oftentimes hospitals want to err on the side of caution, and as mandated reporters they call us immediately," Sophy said. "And somewhere in the process either the confirmation doesn't get done or they never get to the next step ( of assessing the risk of child mistreatment ).
"But the more awareness we can raise, the better off we are in terms of keeping families together."
He also noted his agency is caught in a tough situation: It must decide whether to detain a baby at the hospital, but can't order confirmatory tests at that time because the mother is still under the care of her doctor.
"We can suggest they do a confirmatory test, but they don't always do it," Sophy said. "We don't want to inappropriately take children from their families. The disruption is not worth it. So we try to confirm as much as we can."
If the agency decides to take a baby into custody, after the mother is discharged from the hospital she often is required to undergo weekly drug testing that serves as a confirmatory process, Sophy said. "I'm concerned there are false positives sometimes, but usually there are more false negatives because of the games people play," Sophy said.
"Unless the test is actually witnessed at the hospital, certain games can be played to alter the tests. There are all kinds of ways people can change the results."
But child welfare experts, advocates for pregnant women and attorneys who handle such cases say problems with the system and testing methods are resulting in the unnecessary removal of babies from mothers across the nation.
"Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of families have been undermined by unnecessary child welfare investigations based on nothing more than a single, unconfirmed drug test," said Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City.
And Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va., said similar systemic problems are found across the nation.
"While it may be harmful for a pregnant mother to use marijuana or other drugs, it is far more harmful to that child to have to endure the trauma of foster care," Wexler said.
"This doesn't mean you simply leave a baby with an addict. But it does mean that drug treatment for the mother should be the first choice, instead of foster care for the child. And those are cases where there really is a problem."
Maternal Drug Use
In Los Angeles County, Sophy attributed the near tripling in the number of detained babies to increased drug use by pregnant mothers and a campaign to encourage hospitals to report positive toxicology results.
Sophy said 70 to 80 percent of the cases have involved mothers who tested positive for methamphetamine use, and he said about 40 percent of the mothers are placed in substance-abuse treatment programs.
"About 40 to 60 percent of them end up back as intact families," Sophy said. "We work really hard to get these parents connected to services because we want to reunify them."
ICAN's Durfee said maternal drug abuse in Los Angeles County was the leading cause of accidental death in 2006 among babies and children younger than 5. There were 25 deaths, up from 15 the previous year. Twelve of the deaths were associated with methamphetamine and 12 with cocaine.
But Wexler and Lewis said researchers also have found it difficult for medical examiners to determine whether the deaths resulted directly from substance abuse or from conditions associated with poverty and lack of care before and after birth.
"I'm not saying maternal drug use is harmless," Lewis said. "It can have an influence on fetal growth, birth weight and neurological function.
"But we are saying there are other influences on fetal growth that may be more costly, in terms of their damaging effects, than drug use."
Lisa Fisher, spokeswoman for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, said most medical and addiction experts now say fears have been overblown about the long-term effects of drug exposure on babies.
"I think a lot of people would agree with ( Lester )," Fisher said.
For Bejarano and Herrera, the research is little consolation.
The day after placing the couple's children in agency custody, Pate said a social worker received results of a background check showing the parents had no criminal or child-abuse history.
The social worker also received test results showing Herrera had no drugs in her system, she said.
Still, instead of returning the children to the couple, Pate said the social worker told the parents Kelly could stay with a relative while they participated in a voluntary family reunification plan.
Pate wrote in the lawsuit that, after the couple refused to take part in the reunification program, social workers filed a detention report with the court alleging Herrera had used drugs while pregnant.
The suit alleges DCFS filed a fabricated court petition to illegally detain their children based on a false-positive drug test.
In February, a judge found the grounds for detaining the children were not met and ordered their immediate release from foster care.
In late March, the judge threw the case out of court.
Herrera said she is relieved the ordeal is over, but her daughter still has nightmares and wakes up in the middle of the night screaming.
"Is she thinking of when she was in the DCFS car, and the door closed, and she was driven away from us to be placed in a home with a whole bunch of strangers?" Herrera said.
"Now, even if we are right here at the house and hear the doorbell, we jump. Is it a visitor, or is it someone else?"
[sidebar]
AT ISSUE
Excerpts from California law regarding hospital drug-testing of pregnant mothers and assessment of risk to children:
California Penal Code 11165.13.
A positive toxicology screen at the time of the delivery of an infant is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for reporting child abuse or neglect.
However, any indication of maternal substance abuse shall lead to an assessment of the needs of the mother and child pursuant to Section 123605 of the Health and Safety Code. If other factors are present that indicate risk to a child, then a report shall be made.
However, a report based on risk to a child which relates solely to the inability of the parent to provide the child with regular care due to the parent's substance abuse shall be made only to a county welfare or probation department, and not to a law enforcement agency.
California Health and Safety Code 123605.
( a ) Each county shall establish protocols between county health departments, county welfare departments, and all public and private hospitals in the county, regarding the application and use of an assessment of the needs of, and a referral for, a substance exposed infant to a county welfare department pursuant to Section 11165.13 of the Penal Code.
( b ) The assessment of the needs shall be performed by a health practitioner, as defined in Section 11165.8 of the Penal Code, or a medical social worker. The needs assessment shall be performed before the infant is released from the hospital.
© The purpose of the assessment of the needs is to do all of the following:
( 1 ) Identify needed services for the mother, child, or family, including, where applicable, services to assist the mother caring for her child and services to assist maintaining children in their homes.
( 2 ) Determine the level of risk to the newborn upon release to the home and the corresponding level of services and intervention, if any, necessary to protect the newborn's health and safety, including a referral to the county welfare department for child welfare services.
( 3 ) Gather data for information and planning purposes.
SOURCE: www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n631/a04.html
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n631/a04.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Sun, 29 Jun 2008
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.dailynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Author: Troy Anderson
DRUG WAR ON MOMS
Toddler, Newborn Wrongly Torn From Family in Stepped-Up Screening of Pregnant Women
Awakened by late-night pounding and his doorbell ringing, Palmdale resident Jesus Bejarano found a social worker and two sheriff's deputies demanding he turn over his 20-month-old daughter, Kelly.
The social worker said Bejarano's 29-year-old wife, Cheila Herrera, had tested positive for amphetamines and PCP at Antelope Valley Hospital after giving birth to the couple's son a week earlier. Their son, Jesse, who was born prematurely and was still at the hospital, had already been placed in protective custody.
"It was terrible," Herrera said of the Feb. 14 ordeal. "It was pretty shocking to us. We didn't know what to do or say. We called my mom, saying, 'They are taking our baby away.'
"We started calling friends, but no one we know has gone through something like this. We were crying. We thought, oh my God, they took our baby."
Last month, the couple sued Los Angeles County government for unspecified damages, saying Herrera had never used drugs and the social worker ignored a battery of expensive tests that proved the initial drug-test results were wrong.
Experts say the case highlights widespread problems with California's system of drug-testing pregnant mothers, using urine-screening tests that produce false-positives up to 70 percent of the time, and inconsistent compliance by hospitals with a state law designed to regulate the process.
"The system sounds problematic ... because they are doing urine-only screens, and if they are not doing confirmation tests, they are going to have a lot of false positives," said Dr. Barry Lester, a national expert on drug-exposed babies and a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
The Palmdale case comes two decades after concerns about "crack babies" swept tens of thousands of children into child-protective systems across the nation. Today, many medical experts say those concerns were overblown, with children showing no consistent birth defects or brain damage after being born to mothers who tested positive for crack use.
But experts say that in recent years a similar sweep has focused on "meth babies." Up to 80percent of mothers in Los Angeles County whose babies are taken tested positive for methamphetamine, a drug that experts say produces very high rates of false positives.
Removing the Child
In Los Angeles County, the number of infants removed from mothers who tested positive for drugs at hospitals nearly tripled from 209 in 2003 to 568 last year, according to county data. California officials said they do not track similar figures statewide.
"Nine times out of 10, they remove the child," said Martha Molina Aviles, deputy to Supervisor Gloria Molina. "So we have been asking the ( Department of Children and Family Services ) a lot more questions about substance-abuse issues.
"How do they test? Are they randomly testing? What kind of tests are they doing? We certainly would support, whenever possible, to do confirmatory tests."
Under California legislation passed in 1990, it is against the law for a children's services agency to take a baby from a mother based solely on a single, positive drug test.
The law says there also must be proof the baby is at risk of abuse or neglect. And the law requires hospitals to conduct an assessment of the mother to determine if the baby is at risk before calling children's services authorities.
Known as the Presley Bill, the legislation came after a sudden increase in hospital reports to child welfare authorities of perinatal substance abuse.
But in a 1994 analysis on behalf of the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, reviewers found widespread misunderstanding of the law, no mechanism to monitor implementation and a lack of funding for training or technical assistance for counties and hospitals.
"It's like the wild, wild West out here," said Beverly Hills attorney L. Wallace Pate, who is representing the Palmdale couple in their suit against the county.
"Nobody is following the law. The judges seem to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war on women.
"They are telling moms, 'You tested positive for drugs, you are a bad mom, and we are going to take your kids away.' But under the law, the mom has to be abusive or negligent in the care of the baby." Principal Deputy County Counsel Rosemarie Belda said she couldn't comment on the Palmdale couple's lawsuit because it involves pending litigation.
But officials at the Department of Children and Family Services and the Interagency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect said that, despite the state legislation, hospitals are not consistently filling out the required assessment forms.
"Some hospitals are not submitting these protocol forms at all," ICAN Executive Director Deanne Tilton Durfee said.
Issue of Liability
DCFS and hospital officials say physicians have discretion whether to request a second screening test for pregnant mothers who test positive for drugs.
But James Lott, executive vice president of the Hospital Association of Southern California, said most hospitals in the county are not performing the assessments before calling the DCFS because, if something adverse happens to the baby or the assessment is inadequate, the hospital could be held legally liable.
"Hospitals don't like being put in this position, and so many hospitals will consider the positive toxicology test all the screening they have to do," Lott said.
"And that will be, can be and often is the sole determinant in regard to referrals ( to DCFS ), and then they let the ( child welfare ) investigators sort the rest of it out.
"The hospitals are erring on the side of safety for the child. And they could be faulted for the screening process. The only objective, fact-based criteria the hospital has is the toxicology test. Screening can be determined to be subjective."
Lott also said he doesn't believe hospitals are violating the law.
"The law does not say you cannot make a referral without having done the screening," Lott said. "It says you should do the screening if you are going to make a referral.
"I know that sounds twisted, but anyone can make a referral without a screening, and it's up to the investigators to decide ( whether to detain the baby )."
Lott also said many hospitals don't always have the laboratory expertise to conduct confirmatory tests. And while dependency court attorneys say they have been requesting more confirmatory tests recently, they acknowledge the practice is still relatively rare.
Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director of DCFS, said his agency is concerned that many hospitals aren't following the law or performing confirmatory drug tests.
"I think oftentimes hospitals want to err on the side of caution, and as mandated reporters they call us immediately," Sophy said. "And somewhere in the process either the confirmation doesn't get done or they never get to the next step ( of assessing the risk of child mistreatment ).
"But the more awareness we can raise, the better off we are in terms of keeping families together."
He also noted his agency is caught in a tough situation: It must decide whether to detain a baby at the hospital, but can't order confirmatory tests at that time because the mother is still under the care of her doctor.
"We can suggest they do a confirmatory test, but they don't always do it," Sophy said. "We don't want to inappropriately take children from their families. The disruption is not worth it. So we try to confirm as much as we can."
If the agency decides to take a baby into custody, after the mother is discharged from the hospital she often is required to undergo weekly drug testing that serves as a confirmatory process, Sophy said. "I'm concerned there are false positives sometimes, but usually there are more false negatives because of the games people play," Sophy said.
"Unless the test is actually witnessed at the hospital, certain games can be played to alter the tests. There are all kinds of ways people can change the results."
But child welfare experts, advocates for pregnant women and attorneys who handle such cases say problems with the system and testing methods are resulting in the unnecessary removal of babies from mothers across the nation.
"Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of families have been undermined by unnecessary child welfare investigations based on nothing more than a single, unconfirmed drug test," said Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City.
And Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va., said similar systemic problems are found across the nation.
"While it may be harmful for a pregnant mother to use marijuana or other drugs, it is far more harmful to that child to have to endure the trauma of foster care," Wexler said.
"This doesn't mean you simply leave a baby with an addict. But it does mean that drug treatment for the mother should be the first choice, instead of foster care for the child. And those are cases where there really is a problem."
Maternal Drug Use
In Los Angeles County, Sophy attributed the near tripling in the number of detained babies to increased drug use by pregnant mothers and a campaign to encourage hospitals to report positive toxicology results.
Sophy said 70 to 80 percent of the cases have involved mothers who tested positive for methamphetamine use, and he said about 40 percent of the mothers are placed in substance-abuse treatment programs.
"About 40 to 60 percent of them end up back as intact families," Sophy said. "We work really hard to get these parents connected to services because we want to reunify them."
ICAN's Durfee said maternal drug abuse in Los Angeles County was the leading cause of accidental death in 2006 among babies and children younger than 5. There were 25 deaths, up from 15 the previous year. Twelve of the deaths were associated with methamphetamine and 12 with cocaine.
But Wexler and Lewis said researchers also have found it difficult for medical examiners to determine whether the deaths resulted directly from substance abuse or from conditions associated with poverty and lack of care before and after birth.
"I'm not saying maternal drug use is harmless," Lewis said. "It can have an influence on fetal growth, birth weight and neurological function.
"But we are saying there are other influences on fetal growth that may be more costly, in terms of their damaging effects, than drug use."
Lisa Fisher, spokeswoman for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, said most medical and addiction experts now say fears have been overblown about the long-term effects of drug exposure on babies.
"I think a lot of people would agree with ( Lester )," Fisher said.
For Bejarano and Herrera, the research is little consolation.
The day after placing the couple's children in agency custody, Pate said a social worker received results of a background check showing the parents had no criminal or child-abuse history.
The social worker also received test results showing Herrera had no drugs in her system, she said.
Still, instead of returning the children to the couple, Pate said the social worker told the parents Kelly could stay with a relative while they participated in a voluntary family reunification plan.
Pate wrote in the lawsuit that, after the couple refused to take part in the reunification program, social workers filed a detention report with the court alleging Herrera had used drugs while pregnant.
The suit alleges DCFS filed a fabricated court petition to illegally detain their children based on a false-positive drug test.
In February, a judge found the grounds for detaining the children were not met and ordered their immediate release from foster care.
In late March, the judge threw the case out of court.
Herrera said she is relieved the ordeal is over, but her daughter still has nightmares and wakes up in the middle of the night screaming.
"Is she thinking of when she was in the DCFS car, and the door closed, and she was driven away from us to be placed in a home with a whole bunch of strangers?" Herrera said.
"Now, even if we are right here at the house and hear the doorbell, we jump. Is it a visitor, or is it someone else?"
[sidebar]
AT ISSUE
Excerpts from California law regarding hospital drug-testing of pregnant mothers and assessment of risk to children:
California Penal Code 11165.13.
A positive toxicology screen at the time of the delivery of an infant is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for reporting child abuse or neglect.
However, any indication of maternal substance abuse shall lead to an assessment of the needs of the mother and child pursuant to Section 123605 of the Health and Safety Code. If other factors are present that indicate risk to a child, then a report shall be made.
However, a report based on risk to a child which relates solely to the inability of the parent to provide the child with regular care due to the parent's substance abuse shall be made only to a county welfare or probation department, and not to a law enforcement agency.
California Health and Safety Code 123605.
( a ) Each county shall establish protocols between county health departments, county welfare departments, and all public and private hospitals in the county, regarding the application and use of an assessment of the needs of, and a referral for, a substance exposed infant to a county welfare department pursuant to Section 11165.13 of the Penal Code.
( b ) The assessment of the needs shall be performed by a health practitioner, as defined in Section 11165.8 of the Penal Code, or a medical social worker. The needs assessment shall be performed before the infant is released from the hospital.
© The purpose of the assessment of the needs is to do all of the following:
( 1 ) Identify needed services for the mother, child, or family, including, where applicable, services to assist the mother caring for her child and services to assist maintaining children in their homes.
( 2 ) Determine the level of risk to the newborn upon release to the home and the corresponding level of services and intervention, if any, necessary to protect the newborn's health and safety, including a referral to the county welfare department for child welfare services.
( 3 ) Gather data for information and planning purposes.
SOURCE: www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n631/a04.html
Dad held for possessing child pornography was cleared as foster parent
Dad held for possessing child pornography was cleared as foster parent
Padraig O'Morain: How on earth did HSE allow a child pornographer to be a foster parent?
Query:
Herald.ie Web Search
By Cormac Byrne, EXCLUSIVE,
Thursday March 04 2010
A MAN imprisoned for possessing child porn was cleared as a foster parent by gardai and health authorities.
The Dublin dad, in his 60s, was convicted of possessing shocking images.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is currently serving a prison sentence for possession of graphic images depicting children in sexually explicit situations.
Opposition Health spokesman Dr James Reilly today called for all the children in the man’s care to be interviewed to determine if they had been abused.
Fine Gael said that an inquiry should be set up immediately to see “how this man slipped through the net”.
“This is a serious issue in any event and they would have to go back and interview the children to see if they suffered any abuse,” Dr Reilly said.
“There needs to be an investigation to improve the vetting procedure. I’m not trying to lay the blame at anyone’s door but we must address the issues that allowed this man to slip through the net.”
Neighbours confirmed to the Herald that the man had brought up a number of foster children.
“I know of him alright. Suffice to say I hope he doesn't come back,” said a neighbour, who said she is nervous of the man’s release.
But the HSE would not confirm or deny that the man was on the fostering register.
Another neighbour admitted that there were constant rumours about the man’s behaviour towards children in his care.
“I've had a bad feeling about him for years,” said a mother in the area where the man resided.
“Everyone has always been suspicious of him, he would talk to children in the area inappropriately.
“Even from when we were very young, we were always wary about him.
“My child would play in his house with his grandson but I won't be allowing him over there unsupervised or when he's around anymore.”
A local resident who lives very close to the man has warned that the man will not be welcomed back to the area on his release.
“I don't know how he's going to come back and live here,” the neighbour said.
Health authorities are responsible for vetting possible foster carers, who must also gain garda clearance before taking children into their home.
According to the Irish Foster Care Association “the health authority will seek and speak to referees and will also require the applicant's permission to seek Garda clearance on all adult family members residing in the home.
“There are certain offences that will prevent you becoming a foster carer, so if you have ever been convicted of a sexual offence or a violent act towards a child then you will not be able to foster.”
The HSE would not discuss the case to protect the identity of children who may have been fostered by the man and defended its protocol surrounding carers.
“Under the 1991 Childcare Act, the HSE is precluded from discussing the details of any child in its care, including the details of individual foster carers as this may lead to the identification of the child/ren,” they said in a statement to the Herald.
“Where there are concerns, either from the HSE or family perspective, the HSE would review the situation through the foster carer/family Link Worker and the child's Social Worker, and if fostering is considered not to be appropriate, the contract would be terminated, by either the HSE or the foster carer/family.
“The HSE also works very closely with An Garda Siochana which is the other statutory authority with responsibility for childcare.”
This latest revelation comes after it was revealed that children in foster care have made repeated complaints of physical and sexual abuse in the HSE's Dublin north-east region over a period of three years, but none of their alleged abusers has been prosecuted.
The man in this case is not believed to be linked to these cases.
- Cormac Byrne, EXCLUSIVE,
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/dad-held-for-possessing-child-pornography-was-cleared-as-foster-parent-2088352.html
Padraig O'Morain: How on earth did HSE allow a child pornographer to be a foster parent?
Query:
Herald.ie Web Search
By Cormac Byrne, EXCLUSIVE,
Thursday March 04 2010
A MAN imprisoned for possessing child porn was cleared as a foster parent by gardai and health authorities.
The Dublin dad, in his 60s, was convicted of possessing shocking images.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is currently serving a prison sentence for possession of graphic images depicting children in sexually explicit situations.
Opposition Health spokesman Dr James Reilly today called for all the children in the man’s care to be interviewed to determine if they had been abused.
Fine Gael said that an inquiry should be set up immediately to see “how this man slipped through the net”.
“This is a serious issue in any event and they would have to go back and interview the children to see if they suffered any abuse,” Dr Reilly said.
“There needs to be an investigation to improve the vetting procedure. I’m not trying to lay the blame at anyone’s door but we must address the issues that allowed this man to slip through the net.”
Neighbours confirmed to the Herald that the man had brought up a number of foster children.
“I know of him alright. Suffice to say I hope he doesn't come back,” said a neighbour, who said she is nervous of the man’s release.
But the HSE would not confirm or deny that the man was on the fostering register.
Another neighbour admitted that there were constant rumours about the man’s behaviour towards children in his care.
“I've had a bad feeling about him for years,” said a mother in the area where the man resided.
“Everyone has always been suspicious of him, he would talk to children in the area inappropriately.
“Even from when we were very young, we were always wary about him.
“My child would play in his house with his grandson but I won't be allowing him over there unsupervised or when he's around anymore.”
A local resident who lives very close to the man has warned that the man will not be welcomed back to the area on his release.
“I don't know how he's going to come back and live here,” the neighbour said.
Health authorities are responsible for vetting possible foster carers, who must also gain garda clearance before taking children into their home.
According to the Irish Foster Care Association “the health authority will seek and speak to referees and will also require the applicant's permission to seek Garda clearance on all adult family members residing in the home.
“There are certain offences that will prevent you becoming a foster carer, so if you have ever been convicted of a sexual offence or a violent act towards a child then you will not be able to foster.”
The HSE would not discuss the case to protect the identity of children who may have been fostered by the man and defended its protocol surrounding carers.
“Under the 1991 Childcare Act, the HSE is precluded from discussing the details of any child in its care, including the details of individual foster carers as this may lead to the identification of the child/ren,” they said in a statement to the Herald.
“Where there are concerns, either from the HSE or family perspective, the HSE would review the situation through the foster carer/family Link Worker and the child's Social Worker, and if fostering is considered not to be appropriate, the contract would be terminated, by either the HSE or the foster carer/family.
“The HSE also works very closely with An Garda Siochana which is the other statutory authority with responsibility for childcare.”
This latest revelation comes after it was revealed that children in foster care have made repeated complaints of physical and sexual abuse in the HSE's Dublin north-east region over a period of three years, but none of their alleged abusers has been prosecuted.
The man in this case is not believed to be linked to these cases.
- Cormac Byrne, EXCLUSIVE,
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/dad-held-for-possessing-child-pornography-was-cleared-as-foster-parent-2088352.html
Police to investigate toddler's (Foster childs)death as homicide
Police to investigate toddler's death as homicide
The Stollery Children's Hospital.
Updated: Thu Mar. 04 2010 18:04:38
ctvedmonton.ca
The death of a 21-month-old girl who died while in foster care is being investigated as a homicide.
While police have not released the cause of death, the child's biological family says it may be a case of shaken baby syndrome. RCMP are also not releasing the child's name.
CTV News learned the child passed away at the Stollery Children's Hospital Wednesday, two days after an alleged incident at her foster home in the Morinville area.
The biological family tells CTV News the toddler had only been in foster care for about two months. They say the little girl suffered severe brain damage, and that doctors told them the toddler may have been shaken to death.
The province claims privacy laws prevent it from disclosing how long the foster parents have been in the system, or if there are currently other foster children residing in the same home.
Minister of Children and Youth Services Yvonne Fritz says an internal investigation was ordered immediately following the news that the little girl had been admitted to hospital with critical injuries.
"We will be reviewing the policies, the procedures, the standards. We'll be looking at absolutely every support that we ensured was in place for this foster family and for this child."
RCMP say their investigators will work with provincial officials as they look into the death.
With files from Susan Amerongen
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100304/edm_toddler_100304/20100304/?hub=EdmontonHome
The Stollery Children's Hospital.
Updated: Thu Mar. 04 2010 18:04:38
ctvedmonton.ca
The death of a 21-month-old girl who died while in foster care is being investigated as a homicide.
While police have not released the cause of death, the child's biological family says it may be a case of shaken baby syndrome. RCMP are also not releasing the child's name.
CTV News learned the child passed away at the Stollery Children's Hospital Wednesday, two days after an alleged incident at her foster home in the Morinville area.
The biological family tells CTV News the toddler had only been in foster care for about two months. They say the little girl suffered severe brain damage, and that doctors told them the toddler may have been shaken to death.
The province claims privacy laws prevent it from disclosing how long the foster parents have been in the system, or if there are currently other foster children residing in the same home.
Minister of Children and Youth Services Yvonne Fritz says an internal investigation was ordered immediately following the news that the little girl had been admitted to hospital with critical injuries.
"We will be reviewing the policies, the procedures, the standards. We'll be looking at absolutely every support that we ensured was in place for this foster family and for this child."
RCMP say their investigators will work with provincial officials as they look into the death.
With files from Susan Amerongen
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100304/edm_toddler_100304/20100304/?hub=EdmontonHome
NH Foster Child in Monmouth Co.,NJ foster home suffocates; parents told in court
Baby in Monmouth Co. foster home suffocates; parents told in court
17-month-old boy became trapped between toddler bed and wall, authorities said
BY CHARLES WEBSTER • GANNETT NEW JERSEY • MARCH 4, 2010
BRICK — A 17-month-old boy in the care of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services suffocated overnight in his foster home, and his parents were told of the death when they went to court to try to regain custody of him.
Calel Mayland Wheeler died early Tuesday after apparently becoming trapped between the mattress of the toddler bed in which he was sleeping and the bedroom wall.
His parents, Carmen E. Cotting, 24, and Timothy J. Wheeler, 34, both of Claremont, N.H., are blaming the child welfare agency for their son's death.
"This is negligence," Wheeler said. "DYFS was negligent."
Cotting and Wheeler were scheduled to appear before state Superior Court Judge Robert A. Coogan on Tuesday morning.
"Our intention was to bring our kids home," Cotting said.
Instead, they were ushered into a room off of the courtroom and told the boy had died just hours before.
"Why weren't we called when this first happened?" Wheeler asked. "Why did they wait to tell us in court?"
Cotting says Calel and a 5-year-old son of the couple were placed in DYFS custody on Nov. 2, after she had come to New Jersey from New Hampshire but then was left homeless.
She had become embroiled in legal issues involving Carl Ray Smith, 53, of Laconia, N.H., whom Middletown police have accused of trying to pass a bad $54,000 check.
Police say the check was from a closed account of Cotting's, and she had disposed of it in a Dumpster. Both are facing charges in the case. Smith is in the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold Township on $20,000 bail, and Cotting was released on a summons.
Wheeler said he was unable to take custody of the boys in November because he was in a New Hampshire jail on a simple assault charge. He was released at the end of January.
Meanwhile, the boys were placed in a foster home in Brick. Wheeler said he learned a DYFS worker recently told the foster parents to remove the boy from a crib because it was on a recall list, but a new crib was not brought into the house.
Wheeler says his 17-month-old son apparently was put to sleep with a blanket in a toddler bed Monday night. Around 6 a.m. Tuesday, the boy was found dead in that bed.
Brick Detective William Ruocco and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office Detective Thomas Tiernan handled the investigation into the child's death.
An autopsy determined the death was accidental, caused by positional asphyxia, said Prosecutor's Office Deputy Chief Michael Mohel. He said no foul play is suspected.
Federal and state laws require DYFS to release certain information about child deaths or near-fatalities that result from child abuse or neglect, according to a news release issued by DYFS in July.
A DYFS spokeswoman declined to comment.
"Under state and federal law, only under specific circumstances can we acknowledge or discuss any involvement with a child in the child welfare system," spokeswoman Lauren Kidd said. "At this point, there is no comment or information we can offer."
Wheeler says he was given the same information on the boy's death by DYFS. But the parents want more answers.
"Why did they have a 17-month-old baby in a toddler's bed? And why was a 17-month-old baby alone in a room without a baby monitor? He should have been in a crib," Wheeler said, demanding answers about his son's death.
Instead, Wheeler says DYFS officials tried to get a gag order to keep him from speaking to the media.
He vowed, "Somebody is going to pay for this."
Cotting's father, who lives in in New Hampshire, was awarded temporary custody of the couple's 5-year-old son Wednesday afternoon, and the pair returned to their home state Wednesday evening to begin making arrangements for Calel's funeral.
They are waiting for their youngest son to be picked up by a New Hampshire funeral home.
The couple say they are troubled by the way DYFS handled the situation.
"I knew before they told us because of the way they were acting," Cotting said in explaining the chain of events leading up to DYFS officials giving her the news.
She said a DYFS lawyer told her, before breaking the news, "In 22 years we have never had this happen."
Brick Detective William Ruocco and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office Detective Thomas Tiernan handled the investigation into the child's death.
An autopsy determined the death was accidental, caused by positional asphyxia, said Prosecutor's Office Deputy Chief Michael Mohel. He said no foul play is suspected.
Federal and state laws require DYFS to release certain information about child deaths or near-fatalities that result from child abuse or neglect, according to a news release issued by DYFS in July.
A DYFS spokeswoman declined to comment.
"Under state and federal law, only under specific circumstances can we acknowledge or discuss any involvement with a child in the child welfare system," spokeswoman Lauren Kidd said. "At this point, there is no comment or information we can offer."
Wheeler says he was given the same information on the boy's death by DYFS. But the parents want more answers.
"Why did they have a 17-month-old baby in a toddler's bed? And why was a 17-month-old baby alone in a room without a baby monitor? He should have been in a crib," Wheeler said, demanding answers about his son's death.
Instead, Wheeler says DYFS officials tried to get a gag order to keep him from speaking to the media.
He vowed, "Somebody is going to pay for this."
Cotting's father, who lives in in New Hampshire, was awarded temporary custody of the couple's 5-year-old son Wednesday afternoon, and the pair returned to their home state Wednesday evening to begin making arrangements for Calel's funeral.
They are waiting for their youngest son to be picked up by a New Hampshire funeral home.
The couple say they are troubled by the way DYFS handled the situation.
"I knew before they told us because of the way they were acting," Cotting said in explaining the chain of events leading up to DYFS officials giving her the news.
She said a DYFS lawyer told her, before breaking the news, "In 22 years we have never
had this happen."
Gannett New Jersey staff writer Michelle Sahn contributed to this report.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100304/UPDATES01/100304007/Baby+in+Monmouth+Co.+foster+home+suffocates++parents+told+in+court
17-month-old boy became trapped between toddler bed and wall, authorities said
BY CHARLES WEBSTER • GANNETT NEW JERSEY • MARCH 4, 2010
BRICK — A 17-month-old boy in the care of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services suffocated overnight in his foster home, and his parents were told of the death when they went to court to try to regain custody of him.
Calel Mayland Wheeler died early Tuesday after apparently becoming trapped between the mattress of the toddler bed in which he was sleeping and the bedroom wall.
His parents, Carmen E. Cotting, 24, and Timothy J. Wheeler, 34, both of Claremont, N.H., are blaming the child welfare agency for their son's death.
"This is negligence," Wheeler said. "DYFS was negligent."
Cotting and Wheeler were scheduled to appear before state Superior Court Judge Robert A. Coogan on Tuesday morning.
"Our intention was to bring our kids home," Cotting said.
Instead, they were ushered into a room off of the courtroom and told the boy had died just hours before.
"Why weren't we called when this first happened?" Wheeler asked. "Why did they wait to tell us in court?"
Cotting says Calel and a 5-year-old son of the couple were placed in DYFS custody on Nov. 2, after she had come to New Jersey from New Hampshire but then was left homeless.
She had become embroiled in legal issues involving Carl Ray Smith, 53, of Laconia, N.H., whom Middletown police have accused of trying to pass a bad $54,000 check.
Police say the check was from a closed account of Cotting's, and she had disposed of it in a Dumpster. Both are facing charges in the case. Smith is in the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold Township on $20,000 bail, and Cotting was released on a summons.
Wheeler said he was unable to take custody of the boys in November because he was in a New Hampshire jail on a simple assault charge. He was released at the end of January.
Meanwhile, the boys were placed in a foster home in Brick. Wheeler said he learned a DYFS worker recently told the foster parents to remove the boy from a crib because it was on a recall list, but a new crib was not brought into the house.
Wheeler says his 17-month-old son apparently was put to sleep with a blanket in a toddler bed Monday night. Around 6 a.m. Tuesday, the boy was found dead in that bed.
Brick Detective William Ruocco and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office Detective Thomas Tiernan handled the investigation into the child's death.
An autopsy determined the death was accidental, caused by positional asphyxia, said Prosecutor's Office Deputy Chief Michael Mohel. He said no foul play is suspected.
Federal and state laws require DYFS to release certain information about child deaths or near-fatalities that result from child abuse or neglect, according to a news release issued by DYFS in July.
A DYFS spokeswoman declined to comment.
"Under state and federal law, only under specific circumstances can we acknowledge or discuss any involvement with a child in the child welfare system," spokeswoman Lauren Kidd said. "At this point, there is no comment or information we can offer."
Wheeler says he was given the same information on the boy's death by DYFS. But the parents want more answers.
"Why did they have a 17-month-old baby in a toddler's bed? And why was a 17-month-old baby alone in a room without a baby monitor? He should have been in a crib," Wheeler said, demanding answers about his son's death.
Instead, Wheeler says DYFS officials tried to get a gag order to keep him from speaking to the media.
He vowed, "Somebody is going to pay for this."
Cotting's father, who lives in in New Hampshire, was awarded temporary custody of the couple's 5-year-old son Wednesday afternoon, and the pair returned to their home state Wednesday evening to begin making arrangements for Calel's funeral.
They are waiting for their youngest son to be picked up by a New Hampshire funeral home.
The couple say they are troubled by the way DYFS handled the situation.
"I knew before they told us because of the way they were acting," Cotting said in explaining the chain of events leading up to DYFS officials giving her the news.
She said a DYFS lawyer told her, before breaking the news, "In 22 years we have never had this happen."
Brick Detective William Ruocco and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office Detective Thomas Tiernan handled the investigation into the child's death.
An autopsy determined the death was accidental, caused by positional asphyxia, said Prosecutor's Office Deputy Chief Michael Mohel. He said no foul play is suspected.
Federal and state laws require DYFS to release certain information about child deaths or near-fatalities that result from child abuse or neglect, according to a news release issued by DYFS in July.
A DYFS spokeswoman declined to comment.
"Under state and federal law, only under specific circumstances can we acknowledge or discuss any involvement with a child in the child welfare system," spokeswoman Lauren Kidd said. "At this point, there is no comment or information we can offer."
Wheeler says he was given the same information on the boy's death by DYFS. But the parents want more answers.
"Why did they have a 17-month-old baby in a toddler's bed? And why was a 17-month-old baby alone in a room without a baby monitor? He should have been in a crib," Wheeler said, demanding answers about his son's death.
Instead, Wheeler says DYFS officials tried to get a gag order to keep him from speaking to the media.
He vowed, "Somebody is going to pay for this."
Cotting's father, who lives in in New Hampshire, was awarded temporary custody of the couple's 5-year-old son Wednesday afternoon, and the pair returned to their home state Wednesday evening to begin making arrangements for Calel's funeral.
They are waiting for their youngest son to be picked up by a New Hampshire funeral home.
The couple say they are troubled by the way DYFS handled the situation.
"I knew before they told us because of the way they were acting," Cotting said in explaining the chain of events leading up to DYFS officials giving her the news.
She said a DYFS lawyer told her, before breaking the news, "In 22 years we have never
had this happen."
Gannett New Jersey staff writer Michelle Sahn contributed to this report.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100304/UPDATES01/100304007/Baby+in+Monmouth+Co.+foster+home+suffocates++parents+told+in+court
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Idaho Bill Puts Grandparents First For Foster Care of Grandchildren
Idaho Bill Puts Grandparents First For Foster Care of Grandchildren
AARP Strongly Supports Measure Focusing on Family Caring for Children When Parents are Unable or Unwilling
BOISE, Idaho, March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harsh economic times, drugs, abuse, abandonment and incarceration are just some of the reasons 9% of all children live with their grandparents. Now, Idaho is one step closer to a new law to help grandparents gain full legal custody when it's in the child's best interest.
Yesterday, the Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee unanimously voted to move forward with legislation (HB 610), introduced by Representative Sharon Block, to put grandparents and other relatives at the top of the list for consideration as foster parents. The legislation was co-sponsored by Senator Patti Anne Lodge and Representatives Richard Wills and Representative Lynn Luker. AARP strongly supports the "grandparenting" bill.
"AARP commends Representative Block for her leadership in helping to ensure children from broken homes don't have to lead broken lives," said Peggy Munson, Volunteer State President for AARP in Idaho. "This legislation recognizes the unique role grandparents play in their grandchildren's lives – and that sometimes, the best place for children who've already seen difficult times is with family members."
Key provisions of the grandparenting bill include:
Establishing a priority list for foster care, placing fit and willing grandparents and other relatives first in line for consideration.
Expediting the process for foster care approval for relatives when it's in the best interest of the child.
Giving grandparents better standing to become foster parents of their grandchildren when the parent has failed to maintain a relationship with the child for one year.
"Children deserve to have a solid family foundation from which to build upon and this bill works towards that goal," added Munson. "AARP urges the House to approve this bill."
In Idaho nearly 20,000 children live in households headed by over 9,000 grandparents. Nationally, 6.6 million grandchildren live in households headed by grandparents, while another 1.5 million live in homes headed by other relatives. Grandparents raising their grandchildren represent the fastest growing type of family in the nation. In many cases grandparents are responsible for meeting all the child's needs without the legal authorization to do so.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/idaho-bill-puts-grandparents-first-for-foster-care-of-grandchildren-86226702.html
AARP Strongly Supports Measure Focusing on Family Caring for Children When Parents are Unable or Unwilling
BOISE, Idaho, March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harsh economic times, drugs, abuse, abandonment and incarceration are just some of the reasons 9% of all children live with their grandparents. Now, Idaho is one step closer to a new law to help grandparents gain full legal custody when it's in the child's best interest.
Yesterday, the Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee unanimously voted to move forward with legislation (HB 610), introduced by Representative Sharon Block, to put grandparents and other relatives at the top of the list for consideration as foster parents. The legislation was co-sponsored by Senator Patti Anne Lodge and Representatives Richard Wills and Representative Lynn Luker. AARP strongly supports the "grandparenting" bill.
"AARP commends Representative Block for her leadership in helping to ensure children from broken homes don't have to lead broken lives," said Peggy Munson, Volunteer State President for AARP in Idaho. "This legislation recognizes the unique role grandparents play in their grandchildren's lives – and that sometimes, the best place for children who've already seen difficult times is with family members."
Key provisions of the grandparenting bill include:
Establishing a priority list for foster care, placing fit and willing grandparents and other relatives first in line for consideration.
Expediting the process for foster care approval for relatives when it's in the best interest of the child.
Giving grandparents better standing to become foster parents of their grandchildren when the parent has failed to maintain a relationship with the child for one year.
"Children deserve to have a solid family foundation from which to build upon and this bill works towards that goal," added Munson. "AARP urges the House to approve this bill."
In Idaho nearly 20,000 children live in households headed by over 9,000 grandparents. Nationally, 6.6 million grandchildren live in households headed by grandparents, while another 1.5 million live in homes headed by other relatives. Grandparents raising their grandchildren represent the fastest growing type of family in the nation. In many cases grandparents are responsible for meeting all the child's needs without the legal authorization to do so.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/idaho-bill-puts-grandparents-first-for-foster-care-of-grandchildren-86226702.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)