Ladies And Gentlemen, I Give You The Health Care Bill
March 21, 2010 | Health Freedom
An Indianapolis doctor’s letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN ) . Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. — Stephen Fraser
Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued! (Papers please!)
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ‘Exchange.’
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans — The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members – your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association – The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn’t get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn’t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin. will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records. (I guess so they can ‘deduct’ their fees)
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” (Yes, it really says that!) ( a ‘fee’ instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn’t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in — you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that’s not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor’s time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally– the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for “private” HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e…re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission — the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want — rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of ’special needs people!’ Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a “Tele-Health Advisory Committee.” (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates “Advance-Care Planning Consult.” (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it’s mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an “approved” list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called ‘assisted suicide.’)(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on “end-of-life.” (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced-care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn’t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end – of-life! (Again — no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully,
Stephen E. Fraser, MD
Dear Reader,
I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this email to as many people as you can reach. The Power of the People can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations
__._,_.___
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
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Social Securty Title IV-E Pays for Foster Care!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html
Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: March 24, 2010
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
TWITTER
COMMENTS(152)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE
The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.
Simple Steps to Fix Social Security
What Congress can do to keep the program stable.
Post a Comment »
Multimedia
Graphic
Shrinking Sooner Than Expected
Related
Times Topic: Social Security (US)
Read All Comments (152) »
This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to theCongressional Budget Office.
Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of theSocial Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.
The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.
Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.
“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.
That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.
Still, Mr. Greenspan, who later became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said: “I think very much the same issue exists today. Because of the size of the contraction in economic activity, unless we get an immediate and sharp recovery, the revenues of the trust fund will be tracking lower for a number of years.”
The Social Security Administration is expected to issue in a few weeks its own numbers for the current year within the annual report from its board of trustees. The administration has six board members: three from the president’s cabinet, two representatives of the public and the Social Security commissioner.
Though Social Security uses slightly different methods, the official numbers are expected to roughly track the Congressional projections, which were one page of a voluminous analysis of the federal budgetproposed by President Obama in January.
Mr. Goss said Social Security’s annual report last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016 because economists expected a quicker, stronger recovery from the crisis. Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.
The trustees did foresee, in late 2008, that the recession would be severe enough to deplete Social Security’s funds more quickly than previously projected. They moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041. Mr. Goss declined to reveal the contents of the forthcoming annual report, but said people should not expect the date to lurch forward again.
The long-term costs of Social Security present further problems for politicians, who are already struggling over how to reduce the nation’s debt. The national predicament echoes that of many European governments, which are facing market pressure to re-examine their commitments to generous pensions over extended retirements.
The United States’ soaring debt — propelled by tax cuts, wars and large expenditures to help banks and the housing market — has become a hot issue as Democrats gauge their vulnerability in the coming elections. President Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to examine the debt problem, including Social Security, and make recommendations on how to trim the nation’s debt by Dec. 1, a few weeks after the midterm Congressional elections.
Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,” the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.
Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year.
For accounting purposes, the system’s accumulated revenue is placed in Treasury securities.
In a year like this, the paper gains from the interest earned on the securities will more than cover the difference between what it takes in and pays out.
Mr. Goss, the actuary, emphasized that even the $29 billion shortfall projected for this year was small, relative to the roughly $700 billion that would flow in and out of the system. The system, he added, has a balance of about $2.5 trillion that will take decades to deplete. Mr. Goss said that large cushion could start to grow again if the economy recovers briskly.
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.
After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.
Mr. Greenspan recalled in an interview that the sour economy of the late 1970s had taken the program close to insolvency when the commission he led set to work in 1982. It had no contingency reserve then, and the group had to work quickly. He said there were only three choices: raise taxes, lower benefits or bail out the program by tapping general revenue.
The easiest choice, politically, would have been “solving the problem with the stroke of a pen, by printing the money,” Mr. Greenspan said. But one member of the commission, Claude Pepper, then a House representative, blocked that approach because he feared it would undermine Social Security, changing it from a respected, self-sustaining old-age program into welfare.
Mr. Greenspan said that the same three choices exist today — though there is more time now for the painful deliberations.
“Even if the trust fund level goes down, there’s no action required, until the level of the trust fund gets to zero,” he said. “At that point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts.”
Stephanie Strom contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on March 25, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: March 24, 2010
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
COMMENTS(152)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
REPRINTS
SHARE
The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.
Simple Steps to Fix Social Security
What Congress can do to keep the program stable.
Post a Comment »
Multimedia
Graphic
Shrinking Sooner Than Expected
Related
Times Topic: Social Security (US)
Read All Comments (152) »
This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to theCongressional Budget Office.
Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of theSocial Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.
The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.
Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.
“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.
That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.
Still, Mr. Greenspan, who later became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said: “I think very much the same issue exists today. Because of the size of the contraction in economic activity, unless we get an immediate and sharp recovery, the revenues of the trust fund will be tracking lower for a number of years.”
The Social Security Administration is expected to issue in a few weeks its own numbers for the current year within the annual report from its board of trustees. The administration has six board members: three from the president’s cabinet, two representatives of the public and the Social Security commissioner.
Though Social Security uses slightly different methods, the official numbers are expected to roughly track the Congressional projections, which were one page of a voluminous analysis of the federal budgetproposed by President Obama in January.
Mr. Goss said Social Security’s annual report last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016 because economists expected a quicker, stronger recovery from the crisis. Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.
The trustees did foresee, in late 2008, that the recession would be severe enough to deplete Social Security’s funds more quickly than previously projected. They moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041. Mr. Goss declined to reveal the contents of the forthcoming annual report, but said people should not expect the date to lurch forward again.
The long-term costs of Social Security present further problems for politicians, who are already struggling over how to reduce the nation’s debt. The national predicament echoes that of many European governments, which are facing market pressure to re-examine their commitments to generous pensions over extended retirements.
The United States’ soaring debt — propelled by tax cuts, wars and large expenditures to help banks and the housing market — has become a hot issue as Democrats gauge their vulnerability in the coming elections. President Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to examine the debt problem, including Social Security, and make recommendations on how to trim the nation’s debt by Dec. 1, a few weeks after the midterm Congressional elections.
Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,” the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.
Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year.
For accounting purposes, the system’s accumulated revenue is placed in Treasury securities.
In a year like this, the paper gains from the interest earned on the securities will more than cover the difference between what it takes in and pays out.
Mr. Goss, the actuary, emphasized that even the $29 billion shortfall projected for this year was small, relative to the roughly $700 billion that would flow in and out of the system. The system, he added, has a balance of about $2.5 trillion that will take decades to deplete. Mr. Goss said that large cushion could start to grow again if the economy recovers briskly.
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.
After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.
Mr. Greenspan recalled in an interview that the sour economy of the late 1970s had taken the program close to insolvency when the commission he led set to work in 1982. It had no contingency reserve then, and the group had to work quickly. He said there were only three choices: raise taxes, lower benefits or bail out the program by tapping general revenue.
The easiest choice, politically, would have been “solving the problem with the stroke of a pen, by printing the money,” Mr. Greenspan said. But one member of the commission, Claude Pepper, then a House representative, blocked that approach because he feared it would undermine Social Security, changing it from a respected, self-sustaining old-age program into welfare.
Mr. Greenspan said that the same three choices exist today — though there is more time now for the painful deliberations.
“Even if the trust fund level goes down, there’s no action required, until the level of the trust fund gets to zero,” he said. “At that point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts.”
Stephanie Strom contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on March 25, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Woman Accused Of Branding Foster Son, 9
Woman Accused Of Branding Foster Son, 9
Jocelyn Louis, 72, Allegedly Used Potato Masher To Burn Boy
POSTED: 4:24 pm CDT July 30, 2009
UPDATED: 6:37 pm CDT July 30, 2009
MIDWEST CITY, Okla. --
A Midwest City woman is accused of child abuse for allegedly branding her 9-year-old foster son.
Foster Mother Accused Of Branding Boy, 9
Join Our u local Community
Get Wireless Alerts!
Investigators said that earlier this month, Jocelyn Louis, 72, heated up a potato masher and used it to burn the boy on his arms and legs. Police said the foster mother did not stop even after the first series of burns.
"He goes back to his bedroom, starts to cry. She comes back and says, 'I'm not finished with you yet,' and does it again," said Midwest City Police Chief Brandon Clabes.
Police in Midwest City are awaiting arrest warrants on Louis before they take her into custody.
Eyewitness News 5 tried to contact Louis, but nobody answered the door at her home.
Authorities said she runs a diner off Northwest 10th Street in Midwest City. The restaurant was locked and deserted on Thursday despite hours posted suggesting it should be open.
Police said the boy is in Department of Human Services custody.
http://www.koco.com/news/20229110/detail.html
Jocelyn Louis, 72, Allegedly Used Potato Masher To Burn Boy
POSTED: 4:24 pm CDT July 30, 2009
UPDATED: 6:37 pm CDT July 30, 2009
MIDWEST CITY, Okla. --
A Midwest City woman is accused of child abuse for allegedly branding her 9-year-old foster son.
Foster Mother Accused Of Branding Boy, 9
Join Our u local Community
Get Wireless Alerts!
Investigators said that earlier this month, Jocelyn Louis, 72, heated up a potato masher and used it to burn the boy on his arms and legs. Police said the foster mother did not stop even after the first series of burns.
"He goes back to his bedroom, starts to cry. She comes back and says, 'I'm not finished with you yet,' and does it again," said Midwest City Police Chief Brandon Clabes.
Police in Midwest City are awaiting arrest warrants on Louis before they take her into custody.
Eyewitness News 5 tried to contact Louis, but nobody answered the door at her home.
Authorities said she runs a diner off Northwest 10th Street in Midwest City. The restaurant was locked and deserted on Thursday despite hours posted suggesting it should be open.
Police said the boy is in Department of Human Services custody.
http://www.koco.com/news/20229110/detail.html
Free house, car available for aspiring foster parents
Free house, car available for aspiring foster parents
By TONY HOLT
Hernando Today
Published: July 31, 2009
BROOKSVILLE - There is a unique opportunity out there for two couples who have lost their homes and jobs.
A nonprofit organization is offering two local couples a free house and car. All they need is a foster license and a willingness to care for up to five children.
Fostering Hope Florida is searching for two active married couples to become foster parents and live in one of the Hope Houses in New Port Richey and Spring Hill.
"We're still looking for the best couples, the best families," said Gloria West-Lawson, of Fostering Hope Florida out of Clearwater. "We're going to interview at least six couples in the next 90 days."
To become a licensed foster parent and to be eligible for the program, a couple must complete a 10-week training course - Model Approach Parenting Partnership (MAPP).
The couples do not raise the children alone. They receive assistance six hours per week, per child, said West-Lawson, who is the president of Fostering Hope and sits on the executive committee.
"They live there for free in exchange for caring for the children," she said. "They get to stay at home and be parents."
The program has been endorsed by the Hernando County Foster and Adoptive Association, which helps assign parents for local foster kids, West-Lawson said.
Fostering Hope serves Hernando, Pasco and Pinellas counties. It's a nonprofit organization that relies on donations and grants for its funding, according to its Web site.
It currently has Hope Houses in Hernando and Pasco, but its goal for this year is to raise $40,000 for a down payment on a home in Pinellas County.
Those who would like to learn more about the program can e-mail West-Lawson at gloria@fosteringhopeflorida.com.
Reporter Tony Holt can be reached at 352-544-5283 or wholt@hernandotoday.com.
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/jul/31/ha-free-house-car-available-for-aspiring-foster-pa/
By TONY HOLT
Hernando Today
Published: July 31, 2009
BROOKSVILLE - There is a unique opportunity out there for two couples who have lost their homes and jobs.
A nonprofit organization is offering two local couples a free house and car. All they need is a foster license and a willingness to care for up to five children.
Fostering Hope Florida is searching for two active married couples to become foster parents and live in one of the Hope Houses in New Port Richey and Spring Hill.
"We're still looking for the best couples, the best families," said Gloria West-Lawson, of Fostering Hope Florida out of Clearwater. "We're going to interview at least six couples in the next 90 days."
To become a licensed foster parent and to be eligible for the program, a couple must complete a 10-week training course - Model Approach Parenting Partnership (MAPP).
The couples do not raise the children alone. They receive assistance six hours per week, per child, said West-Lawson, who is the president of Fostering Hope and sits on the executive committee.
"They live there for free in exchange for caring for the children," she said. "They get to stay at home and be parents."
The program has been endorsed by the Hernando County Foster and Adoptive Association, which helps assign parents for local foster kids, West-Lawson said.
Fostering Hope serves Hernando, Pasco and Pinellas counties. It's a nonprofit organization that relies on donations and grants for its funding, according to its Web site.
It currently has Hope Houses in Hernando and Pasco, but its goal for this year is to raise $40,000 for a down payment on a home in Pinellas County.
Those who would like to learn more about the program can e-mail West-Lawson at gloria@fosteringhopeflorida.com.
Reporter Tony Holt can be reached at 352-544-5283 or wholt@hernandotoday.com.
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/jul/31/ha-free-house-car-available-for-aspiring-foster-pa/
NYS Comptroller reports Child Protective Services non-compliant with laws more than 50% of the time
NYS Comptroller reports Child Protective Services non-compliant with laws more than 50% of the time
July 16, 8:27 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel Weaver
Comptroller's CPS Report released on June 4, 2009
A report issued in June of this year by the Office of the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Division of Government Accountability reveals that Child Protective Services investigations are not in compliance with New York State laws more than fifty percent of the time.
When a Child Protective Services agency receives a report of suspected child abuse and neglect, it has seven days to determine whether intervention is needed to protect the child against immediate or impending danger of harm, and sixty days to complete its investigation.
The report title, Office of Children and Family Services Oversight of Child Protective Services Outside New York City Report 2007-S-129, covers the years 2006-2007 and states that during those years, Child Protective Services did not meet the seven and sixty day deadlines the majority of the time.
Chemung County had the worst rate of finishing safety assessments within the mandated seven days during 2007, failing to do so 92.3% of the time, with Sullivan County failing to do so 91.1% of the time.
Other counties with high rates of non-compliance were Montgomery County with a 90.4% rate of non-compliance, Onondaga 85.4% and Schenectady County 83.4%.
Hamilton County had the highest rate of non-compliance with the sixty date mandate for completing investigations. Hamilton County failed to complete its investigations within the sixty day limit 95.8% of the time. Chemung and Schenectady counties tied for second place with a rate of 85.6% non-compliance. Allegany County was third with a non-compliance rate of 83.6% followed by Montgomery County with a rate of 81.6%.
The report also reveals that the rate of non-compliance has risen since 1997. In 1997 the rate of non-compliance in the state was 37% for completing the investigations in sixty days and 40% non-compliance for finishing safety assessments in seven days.
The Comptroller's report made three suggestions to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to improve compliance with the law. The Office agreed with the first two recommendations but stated that recommendation three had already been implemented.
"1. Expedite the efforts to explore the application of mobile technology to improve compliance with the seven-day and 60-day requirements.
2. Work with the districts to identify alternatives and best practices to improve compliance with the seven-day and 60-day requirements.
3. As part of the CONNECTIONS system upgrade, develop a capability for monitoring whether the local districts are intervening in a timely and appropriate manner to protect the children who are at risk in the most serious types of CPS cases."
The New York State Office of Children and Family Services has ninety days to report to the Governor, State Comptroller, legislative leaders and fiscal committees detailing its plans for implementing the recommendations in the report.
http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/legally-kidnapped-9/
July 16, 8:27 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel Weaver
Comptroller's CPS Report released on June 4, 2009
A report issued in June of this year by the Office of the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Division of Government Accountability reveals that Child Protective Services investigations are not in compliance with New York State laws more than fifty percent of the time.
When a Child Protective Services agency receives a report of suspected child abuse and neglect, it has seven days to determine whether intervention is needed to protect the child against immediate or impending danger of harm, and sixty days to complete its investigation.
The report title, Office of Children and Family Services Oversight of Child Protective Services Outside New York City Report 2007-S-129, covers the years 2006-2007 and states that during those years, Child Protective Services did not meet the seven and sixty day deadlines the majority of the time.
Chemung County had the worst rate of finishing safety assessments within the mandated seven days during 2007, failing to do so 92.3% of the time, with Sullivan County failing to do so 91.1% of the time.
Other counties with high rates of non-compliance were Montgomery County with a 90.4% rate of non-compliance, Onondaga 85.4% and Schenectady County 83.4%.
Hamilton County had the highest rate of non-compliance with the sixty date mandate for completing investigations. Hamilton County failed to complete its investigations within the sixty day limit 95.8% of the time. Chemung and Schenectady counties tied for second place with a rate of 85.6% non-compliance. Allegany County was third with a non-compliance rate of 83.6% followed by Montgomery County with a rate of 81.6%.
The report also reveals that the rate of non-compliance has risen since 1997. In 1997 the rate of non-compliance in the state was 37% for completing the investigations in sixty days and 40% non-compliance for finishing safety assessments in seven days.
The Comptroller's report made three suggestions to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to improve compliance with the law. The Office agreed with the first two recommendations but stated that recommendation three had already been implemented.
"1. Expedite the efforts to explore the application of mobile technology to improve compliance with the seven-day and 60-day requirements.
2. Work with the districts to identify alternatives and best practices to improve compliance with the seven-day and 60-day requirements.
3. As part of the CONNECTIONS system upgrade, develop a capability for monitoring whether the local districts are intervening in a timely and appropriate manner to protect the children who are at risk in the most serious types of CPS cases."
The New York State Office of Children and Family Services has ninety days to report to the Governor, State Comptroller, legislative leaders and fiscal committees detailing its plans for implementing the recommendations in the report.
http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/legally-kidnapped-9/
IF You Don’t Believe DFCS or CPS which Ever name your Child Protection Services is Not in it for the Money This is a Must Read!
IF You Don’t Believe DFCS or CPS which Ever name your Child Protection Services is Not in it for the Money This is a Must Read!
March 16, 2010 yvonnemason
In doing research for my book on the abuse with in the CPS system I have found many disturbing things. Things that parents of children who have been taken under “alledged charges of deprivation, neglect and there trumped up charges” need to know.
One of the most disturbing things I found was statements made by a Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services by the name of Gary Stangler. This interview was conducted November 21,2002 by Cheryl Barnes of the CPS Watch.
Mr. Stangler stated, “As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child. All of the federal incentives are in the instituation side
Ms. Barnes had released a report on 11/19/2002 which stated that the State of Missouri had forceibly taken children from their homes even after it had been determined by the State Workers that the children had not been mistreated. Ms Barnes gathered her information from data which had been submitted to the Federal Government by the Division of Family Services. There was a huge 77% of children put in foster care in 2000 and all of those allegations were unsubstantiated. Out of the 11,083 children which were snatched from their homes during 2000 8,583 of those were labeled as “non-victims” this means that all allegations of abuse or neglect were unfounded. Missouri at that time had the highest removal rate in the country.
Ms. Barnes is quoted as saying, “The Missouri rate is almost three time the national average which is already to high.” In 2000 the national average of child removal was at 27%.
The abuse by Missouri Child Protection Services is more tramatic than anything that can happen to a child except for severe abuse or death. No child should be ripped from their parent because of .”reasonable cause” which is what CPS workers use all the time to obtain a “court order ” to remove a child. The permanent damage CPS causes to children in the quest to make money off of the backs of these same children can never be undone. The emotional, mental and psychologial abuse does not justify the $4000.00 the state receives from the Federal Governement under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In fact the title of that Act is an oxymoron. The children and their parents are not safe. They are abused and misused for the money.
Back to Missouri in 2000. Due to the case overload because CPS workers were snatching children who didn’t need to be snatched they failed a two year old child named Dominic James. He had been removed from his home and put in the hands of a “state licensed” caregiver. This caregiver had a history of domestic violence. Which was strange because that was the reason the baby was removed from his own home to begin with. Dominic was killed by his “state Licensed” caregiver. CPS refused to take responsiblity for their complicency in this senseless murder. Their excuse was “they were not able to perform proper background checks due to the large numer of caregivers and children in foster care.” By their own data three fourths of the children they removed from their homes were not victims of abuse or neglect.
Ms. Barnes stated “it would be easier to perform background checks if DFS weren’t removing four times more children than they should be.”
Before Dominic was murdered in foster care another child was also killed in foster care by the name of Constance Porter. She was also two years old. She was not a victim of abuse or neglect by her natural mother. The mother was just homeless. To make matters worse that had already been a hotline call to CPS about the foster home before Constance was placed in it.
The next case I found was an article Titled “Children as Chattel” it was written by Kurt Mundorff. Mr. Mundorff worked for fourteen months as a caseworker for Child Protective Services. His article is not only disturbing it should be used to prosecute CPS workers all across the country for abuse.
He stated, ” I also saw the agency steamroll many dozens of innocent families. They became involved in a system that was capricious, abusive and which seemed to do more harm than good. The only help we offered the children was to place them in foster care; there seemed to be no intention of helping parents. Very quickly, it became clear to me that the “help” of foster care was no help at all.” This was not the worst part. He continued “While I met some warm, caring, foster parents, the vast majority of foster parents I met were obviously in it for the money. The were baby boarders. Foster Parents are not the only people who profit from the child process. I began to see myslef as part of a vast industry of professionals who earn their income by providing services to families and their children. We provided a vast array of services, which I quickly came to realize were ineffective and at times even harmful to the people we were supposed to be helping. Parents also did not see services as helping. Services were a series of hoops they had to jump through to get my agency our of their lives. At each hoop was another professional accepting money from the state. The more hoops the more money.
Mr. Mundorff writes of a horror story involving the money involved and used as an income supplement for a couple and several children. It involved a three year old named Charlie whose mother was drug addicted so he lived with his grandmother for a time. She became physically unable to care for him. Charlie was turned over the the New York Child Services and was placed in foster home after foster home before he went to finally live with the Dawson Family. Ms. Dawson was in her fifities. Mr. Dawson was in his early sixities and she and her husband were looking forward to their “retirement”. They decided they needed to supplement their income so they took in Charlies and two other infants who were both diagnosed as special needs children because they had medical problems. The Dawson knew if they adopted all three of these children they would receive $2000.00 per month in income off the backs of these children.
But things did not go as planned, they began to question if they were indeed a good match for Charlie. They had already contacted the social worker at the adoption agency and told her that they could not control him. They also said they had changed their minds and did not want to adopt him. The adopton/social worker told them if they didn’t take Charlie they couldn’t have the two infants. The exucse she used that because the three were placed together they were now considered siblings even though they were not related. Therefore they all had to be adopted together. This was a lie. They were pressured into adopting Charlie.
Then they began to fear for their lives, they found a knife under Charlie’s pillow and around his room. The accused him of being a liar saying he made them take him to the emergency room for a stomach ache. But there was nothing wrong with him. When they sent the biil to the New York State Medicare they were told it would not be covered because it had been an out of state hospital. This too was a lie.
Mr. Mundorff goes on to explain the contiued trouble the Dawson family had with the state of New York. Mr. Dawson was accused of child abandoment because he left Charlie with the a therapist during a family counsleing appointment. There were a myrid of other problems that the State of New York failed to help with. Charlie was finally taken by another family and they too were subjected to the same abuse in the system.
According to Mr. Mundorff, “Charlie was a child whose life was determined by the subsidies that attached to him. First, the adoption agency received a subsidy for placing him in the home, even though he was not wanted. Later the hospital held him hostgage, refusing to release him, fearful of not being paid, Finally, his therapist, making her living off providing services to the poor children in foster care, attempted to extort fees from the McMahons ( the second family who too him).” A funding stream of federal, state and local dollars attaches to every child entering the welfare system, who support a vast bureaucracy of professionals providing counseling, evaluation, investigation, medical and placement services. Finally, the child is placed with an adoptive or foster care parent.”
Mr. Mundorff contiues “While there are many parents who do this for the most altruistic reasons, they seem to be the exception. The subsisdies for this care are a strong motivator, and many of these families may take the child to subsidize a retirement, and addition to the home, or just to have a little extra money. Certaintly, some poroportion of the childrne who come into contact with the child welfare system are in genuine need of help and can not remain in their homes. But, regardless of her need, when a child enters the system, decisions about her life are reduced to a series of monetary equations. Through this process the child is commodifed, traded back and forth betwen agencies and parents, all providing services in exchange for a piece of the subsisdy pie.”
These two articles just confirm that fact that Child Protective Services and all those involved with them from Judges, lawyers, foster parents, adoptive parents, professionals are in it for the money. They don’t care about the families they destory , the children whose lives they ruin and when they are ruined these children become ingrained in the system for life.
I have been accused by Jackson County GA, DFCS of writing blogs saying that they have snatched my three granddaughters, Shawna Thomason, Carly and Sara Wilfawn. Well they are right. I have said it and will continue to say it. They have snatched them to sell.
Mr. Mundorff stated “The thirteenth amendment may be an appropriate tool for reform. In fact, Federal District Courty Judge Jack B. Weinstein suggested in Nicholson V Williams that, “The exact language of the Thirteenth Amendment could be construed to cover children forceibly and unnecessarily removed without due process and the consigned to the control of foster parents.”
This is indeed scary. I will post another blog on the Thirteenth Amendment and Mr. Mundorff’s findings.
Categories: Abuse by CPS, UncategorizedTags: yvonne mason, Abuse by CPS, Title IV-E Funding, the money cops makes off children, abuse in the cps system
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/if-you-dont-believe-dfcs-or-cps-which-ever-name-your-child-protection-services-is-not-in-it-for-the-money-this-is-a-must-read/
March 16, 2010 yvonnemason
In doing research for my book on the abuse with in the CPS system I have found many disturbing things. Things that parents of children who have been taken under “alledged charges of deprivation, neglect and there trumped up charges” need to know.
One of the most disturbing things I found was statements made by a Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services by the name of Gary Stangler. This interview was conducted November 21,2002 by Cheryl Barnes of the CPS Watch.
Mr. Stangler stated, “As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child. All of the federal incentives are in the instituation side
Ms. Barnes had released a report on 11/19/2002 which stated that the State of Missouri had forceibly taken children from their homes even after it had been determined by the State Workers that the children had not been mistreated. Ms Barnes gathered her information from data which had been submitted to the Federal Government by the Division of Family Services. There was a huge 77% of children put in foster care in 2000 and all of those allegations were unsubstantiated. Out of the 11,083 children which were snatched from their homes during 2000 8,583 of those were labeled as “non-victims” this means that all allegations of abuse or neglect were unfounded. Missouri at that time had the highest removal rate in the country.
Ms. Barnes is quoted as saying, “The Missouri rate is almost three time the national average which is already to high.” In 2000 the national average of child removal was at 27%.
The abuse by Missouri Child Protection Services is more tramatic than anything that can happen to a child except for severe abuse or death. No child should be ripped from their parent because of .”reasonable cause” which is what CPS workers use all the time to obtain a “court order ” to remove a child. The permanent damage CPS causes to children in the quest to make money off of the backs of these same children can never be undone. The emotional, mental and psychologial abuse does not justify the $4000.00 the state receives from the Federal Governement under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In fact the title of that Act is an oxymoron. The children and their parents are not safe. They are abused and misused for the money.
Back to Missouri in 2000. Due to the case overload because CPS workers were snatching children who didn’t need to be snatched they failed a two year old child named Dominic James. He had been removed from his home and put in the hands of a “state licensed” caregiver. This caregiver had a history of domestic violence. Which was strange because that was the reason the baby was removed from his own home to begin with. Dominic was killed by his “state Licensed” caregiver. CPS refused to take responsiblity for their complicency in this senseless murder. Their excuse was “they were not able to perform proper background checks due to the large numer of caregivers and children in foster care.” By their own data three fourths of the children they removed from their homes were not victims of abuse or neglect.
Ms. Barnes stated “it would be easier to perform background checks if DFS weren’t removing four times more children than they should be.”
Before Dominic was murdered in foster care another child was also killed in foster care by the name of Constance Porter. She was also two years old. She was not a victim of abuse or neglect by her natural mother. The mother was just homeless. To make matters worse that had already been a hotline call to CPS about the foster home before Constance was placed in it.
The next case I found was an article Titled “Children as Chattel” it was written by Kurt Mundorff. Mr. Mundorff worked for fourteen months as a caseworker for Child Protective Services. His article is not only disturbing it should be used to prosecute CPS workers all across the country for abuse.
He stated, ” I also saw the agency steamroll many dozens of innocent families. They became involved in a system that was capricious, abusive and which seemed to do more harm than good. The only help we offered the children was to place them in foster care; there seemed to be no intention of helping parents. Very quickly, it became clear to me that the “help” of foster care was no help at all.” This was not the worst part. He continued “While I met some warm, caring, foster parents, the vast majority of foster parents I met were obviously in it for the money. The were baby boarders. Foster Parents are not the only people who profit from the child process. I began to see myslef as part of a vast industry of professionals who earn their income by providing services to families and their children. We provided a vast array of services, which I quickly came to realize were ineffective and at times even harmful to the people we were supposed to be helping. Parents also did not see services as helping. Services were a series of hoops they had to jump through to get my agency our of their lives. At each hoop was another professional accepting money from the state. The more hoops the more money.
Mr. Mundorff writes of a horror story involving the money involved and used as an income supplement for a couple and several children. It involved a three year old named Charlie whose mother was drug addicted so he lived with his grandmother for a time. She became physically unable to care for him. Charlie was turned over the the New York Child Services and was placed in foster home after foster home before he went to finally live with the Dawson Family. Ms. Dawson was in her fifities. Mr. Dawson was in his early sixities and she and her husband were looking forward to their “retirement”. They decided they needed to supplement their income so they took in Charlies and two other infants who were both diagnosed as special needs children because they had medical problems. The Dawson knew if they adopted all three of these children they would receive $2000.00 per month in income off the backs of these children.
But things did not go as planned, they began to question if they were indeed a good match for Charlie. They had already contacted the social worker at the adoption agency and told her that they could not control him. They also said they had changed their minds and did not want to adopt him. The adopton/social worker told them if they didn’t take Charlie they couldn’t have the two infants. The exucse she used that because the three were placed together they were now considered siblings even though they were not related. Therefore they all had to be adopted together. This was a lie. They were pressured into adopting Charlie.
Then they began to fear for their lives, they found a knife under Charlie’s pillow and around his room. The accused him of being a liar saying he made them take him to the emergency room for a stomach ache. But there was nothing wrong with him. When they sent the biil to the New York State Medicare they were told it would not be covered because it had been an out of state hospital. This too was a lie.
Mr. Mundorff goes on to explain the contiued trouble the Dawson family had with the state of New York. Mr. Dawson was accused of child abandoment because he left Charlie with the a therapist during a family counsleing appointment. There were a myrid of other problems that the State of New York failed to help with. Charlie was finally taken by another family and they too were subjected to the same abuse in the system.
According to Mr. Mundorff, “Charlie was a child whose life was determined by the subsidies that attached to him. First, the adoption agency received a subsidy for placing him in the home, even though he was not wanted. Later the hospital held him hostgage, refusing to release him, fearful of not being paid, Finally, his therapist, making her living off providing services to the poor children in foster care, attempted to extort fees from the McMahons ( the second family who too him).” A funding stream of federal, state and local dollars attaches to every child entering the welfare system, who support a vast bureaucracy of professionals providing counseling, evaluation, investigation, medical and placement services. Finally, the child is placed with an adoptive or foster care parent.”
Mr. Mundorff contiues “While there are many parents who do this for the most altruistic reasons, they seem to be the exception. The subsisdies for this care are a strong motivator, and many of these families may take the child to subsidize a retirement, and addition to the home, or just to have a little extra money. Certaintly, some poroportion of the childrne who come into contact with the child welfare system are in genuine need of help and can not remain in their homes. But, regardless of her need, when a child enters the system, decisions about her life are reduced to a series of monetary equations. Through this process the child is commodifed, traded back and forth betwen agencies and parents, all providing services in exchange for a piece of the subsisdy pie.”
These two articles just confirm that fact that Child Protective Services and all those involved with them from Judges, lawyers, foster parents, adoptive parents, professionals are in it for the money. They don’t care about the families they destory , the children whose lives they ruin and when they are ruined these children become ingrained in the system for life.
I have been accused by Jackson County GA, DFCS of writing blogs saying that they have snatched my three granddaughters, Shawna Thomason, Carly and Sara Wilfawn. Well they are right. I have said it and will continue to say it. They have snatched them to sell.
Mr. Mundorff stated “The thirteenth amendment may be an appropriate tool for reform. In fact, Federal District Courty Judge Jack B. Weinstein suggested in Nicholson V Williams that, “The exact language of the Thirteenth Amendment could be construed to cover children forceibly and unnecessarily removed without due process and the consigned to the control of foster parents.”
This is indeed scary. I will post another blog on the Thirteenth Amendment and Mr. Mundorff’s findings.
Categories: Abuse by CPS, UncategorizedTags: yvonne mason, Abuse by CPS, Title IV-E Funding, the money cops makes off children, abuse in the cps system
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/if-you-dont-believe-dfcs-or-cps-which-ever-name-your-child-protection-services-is-not-in-it-for-the-money-this-is-a-must-read/
IF You Don’t Believe DFCS or CPS which Ever name your Child Protection Services is Not in it for the Money This is a Must Read!
IF You Don’t Believe DFCS or CPS which Ever name your Child Protection Services is Not in it for the Money This is a Must Read!
March 16, 2010 yvonnemason
In doing research for my book on the abuse with in the CPS system I have found many disturbing things. Things that parents of children who have been taken under “alledged charges of deprivation, neglect and there trumped up charges” need to know.
One of the most disturbing things I found was statements made by a Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services by the name of Gary Stangler. This interview was conducted November 21,2002 by Cheryl Barnes of the CPS Watch.
Mr. Stangler stated, “As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child. All of the federal incentives are in the instituation side
Ms. Barnes had released a report on 11/19/2002 which stated that the State of Missouri had forceibly taken children from their homes even after it had been determined by the State Workers that the children had not been mistreated. Ms Barnes gathered her information from data which had been submitted to the Federal Government by the Division of Family Services. There was a huge 77% of children put in foster care in 2000 and all of those allegations were unsubstantiated. Out of the 11,083 children which were snatched from their homes during 2000 8,583 of those were labeled as “non-victims” this means that all allegations of abuse or neglect were unfounded. Missouri at that time had the highest removal rate in the country.
Ms. Barnes is quoted as saying, “The Missouri rate is almost three time the national average which is already to high.” In 2000 the national average of child removal was at 27%.
The abuse by Missouri Child Protection Services is more tramatic than anything that can happen to a child except for severe abuse or death. No child should be ripped from their parent because of .”reasonable cause” which is what CPS workers use all the time to obtain a “court order ” to remove a child. The permanent damage CPS causes to children in the quest to make money off of the backs of these same children can never be undone. The emotional, mental and psychologial abuse does not justify the $4000.00 the state receives from the Federal Governement under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In fact the title of that Act is an oxymoron. The children and their parents are not safe. They are abused and misused for the money.
Back to Missouri in 2000. Due to the case overload because CPS workers were snatching children who didn’t need to be snatched they failed a two year old child named Dominic James. He had been removed from his home and put in the hands of a “state licensed” caregiver. This caregiver had a history of domestic violence. Which was strange because that was the reason the baby was removed from his own home to begin with. Dominic was killed by his “state Licensed” caregiver. CPS refused to take responsiblity for their complicency in this senseless murder. Their excuse was “they were not able to perform proper background checks due to the large numer of caregivers and children in foster care.” By their own data three fourths of the children they removed from their homes were not victims of abuse or neglect.
Ms. Barnes stated “it would be easier to perform background checks if DFS weren’t removing four times more children than they should be.”
Before Dominic was murdered in foster care another child was also killed in foster care by the name of Constance Porter. She was also two years old. She was not a victim of abuse or neglect by her natural mother. The mother was just homeless. To make matters worse that had already been a hotline call to CPS about the foster home before Constance was placed in it.
The next case I found was an article Titled “Children as Chattel” it was written by Kurt Mundorff. Mr. Mundorff worked for fourteen months as a caseworker for Child Protective Services. His article is not only disturbing it should be used to prosecute CPS workers all across the country for abuse.
He stated, ” I also saw the agency steamroll many dozens of innocent families. They became involved in a system that was capricious, abusive and which seemed to do more harm than good. The only help we offered the children was to place them in foster care; there seemed to be no intention of helping parents. Very quickly, it became clear to me that the “help” of foster care was no help at all.” This was not the worst part. He continued “While I met some warm, caring, foster parents, the vast majority of foster parents I met were obviously in it for the money. The were baby boarders. Foster Parents are not the only people who profit from the child process. I began to see myslef as part of a vast industry of professionals who earn their income by providing services to families and their children. We provided a vast array of services, which I quickly came to realize were ineffective and at times even harmful to the people we were supposed to be helping. Parents also did not see services as helping. Services were a series of hoops they had to jump through to get my agency our of their lives. At each hoop was another professional accepting money from the state. The more hoops the more money.
Mr. Mundorff writes of a horror story involving the money involved and used as an income supplement for a couple and several children. It involved a three year old named Charlie whose mother was drug addicted so he lived with his grandmother for a time. She became physically unable to care for him. Charlie was turned over the the New York Child Services and was placed in foster home after foster home before he went to finally live with the Dawson Family. Ms. Dawson was in her fifities. Mr. Dawson was in his early sixities and she and her husband were looking forward to their “retirement”. They decided they needed to supplement their income so they took in Charlies and two other infants who were both diagnosed as special needs children because they had medical problems. The Dawson knew if they adopted all three of these children they would receive $2000.00 per month in income off the backs of these children.
But things did not go as planned, they began to question if they were indeed a good match for Charlie. They had already contacted the social worker at the adoption agency and told her that they could not control him. They also said they had changed their minds and did not want to adopt him. The adopton/social worker told them if they didn’t take Charlie they couldn’t have the two infants. The exucse she used that because the three were placed together they were now considered siblings even though they were not related. Therefore they all had to be adopted together. This was a lie. They were pressured into adopting Charlie.
Then they began to fear for their lives, they found a knife under Charlie’s pillow and around his room. The accused him of being a liar saying he made them take him to the emergency room for a stomach ache. But there was nothing wrong with him. When they sent the biil to the New York State Medicare they were told it would not be covered because it had been an out of state hospital. This too was a lie.
Mr. Mundorff goes on to explain the contiued trouble the Dawson family had with the state of New York. Mr. Dawson was accused of child abandoment because he left Charlie with the a therapist during a family counsleing appointment. There were a myrid of other problems that the State of New York failed to help with. Charlie was finally taken by another family and they too were subjected to the same abuse in the system.
According to Mr. Mundorff, “Charlie was a child whose life was determined by the subsidies that attached to him. First, the adoption agency received a subsidy for placing him in the home, even though he was not wanted. Later the hospital held him hostgage, refusing to release him, fearful of not being paid, Finally, his therapist, making her living off providing services to the poor children in foster care, attempted to extort fees from the McMahons ( the second family who too him).” A funding stream of federal, state and local dollars attaches to every child entering the welfare system, who support a vast bureaucracy of professionals providing counseling, evaluation, investigation, medical and placement services. Finally, the child is placed with an adoptive or foster care parent.”
Mr. Mundorff contiues “While there are many parents who do this for the most altruistic reasons, they seem to be the exception. The subsisdies for this care are a strong motivator, and many of these families may take the child to subsidize a retirement, and addition to the home, or just to have a little extra money. Certaintly, some poroportion of the childrne who come into contact with the child welfare system are in genuine need of help and can not remain in their homes. But, regardless of her need, when a child enters the system, decisions about her life are reduced to a series of monetary equations. Through this process the child is commodifed, traded back and forth betwen agencies and parents, all providing services in exchange for a piece of the subsisdy pie.”
These two articles just confirm that fact that Child Protective Services and all those involved with them from Judges, lawyers, foster parents, adoptive parents, professionals are in it for the money. They don’t care about the families they destory , the children whose lives they ruin and when they are ruined these children become ingrained in the system for life.
I have been accused by Jackson County GA, DFCS of writing blogs saying that they have snatched my three granddaughters, Shawna Thomason, Carly and Sara Wilfawn. Well they are right. I have said it and will continue to say it. They have snatched them to sell.
Mr. Mundorff stated “The thirteenth amendment may be an appropriate tool for reform. In fact, Federal District Courty Judge Jack B. Weinstein suggested in Nicholson V Williams that, “The exact language of the Thirteenth Amendment could be construed to cover children forceibly and unnecessarily removed without due process and the consigned to the control of foster parents.”
This is indeed scary. I will post another blog on the Thirteenth Amendment and Mr. Mundorff’s findings.
Categories: Abuse by CPS, UncategorizedTags: yvonne mason, Abuse by CPS, Title IV-E Funding, the money cops makes off children, abuse in the cps system
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/if-you-dont-believe-dfcs-or-cps-which-ever-name-your-child-protection-services-is-not-in-it-for-the-money-this-is-a-must-read/
March 16, 2010 yvonnemason
In doing research for my book on the abuse with in the CPS system I have found many disturbing things. Things that parents of children who have been taken under “alledged charges of deprivation, neglect and there trumped up charges” need to know.
One of the most disturbing things I found was statements made by a Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services by the name of Gary Stangler. This interview was conducted November 21,2002 by Cheryl Barnes of the CPS Watch.
Mr. Stangler stated, “As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child. All of the federal incentives are in the instituation side
Ms. Barnes had released a report on 11/19/2002 which stated that the State of Missouri had forceibly taken children from their homes even after it had been determined by the State Workers that the children had not been mistreated. Ms Barnes gathered her information from data which had been submitted to the Federal Government by the Division of Family Services. There was a huge 77% of children put in foster care in 2000 and all of those allegations were unsubstantiated. Out of the 11,083 children which were snatched from their homes during 2000 8,583 of those were labeled as “non-victims” this means that all allegations of abuse or neglect were unfounded. Missouri at that time had the highest removal rate in the country.
Ms. Barnes is quoted as saying, “The Missouri rate is almost three time the national average which is already to high.” In 2000 the national average of child removal was at 27%.
The abuse by Missouri Child Protection Services is more tramatic than anything that can happen to a child except for severe abuse or death. No child should be ripped from their parent because of .”reasonable cause” which is what CPS workers use all the time to obtain a “court order ” to remove a child. The permanent damage CPS causes to children in the quest to make money off of the backs of these same children can never be undone. The emotional, mental and psychologial abuse does not justify the $4000.00 the state receives from the Federal Governement under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In fact the title of that Act is an oxymoron. The children and their parents are not safe. They are abused and misused for the money.
Back to Missouri in 2000. Due to the case overload because CPS workers were snatching children who didn’t need to be snatched they failed a two year old child named Dominic James. He had been removed from his home and put in the hands of a “state licensed” caregiver. This caregiver had a history of domestic violence. Which was strange because that was the reason the baby was removed from his own home to begin with. Dominic was killed by his “state Licensed” caregiver. CPS refused to take responsiblity for their complicency in this senseless murder. Their excuse was “they were not able to perform proper background checks due to the large numer of caregivers and children in foster care.” By their own data three fourths of the children they removed from their homes were not victims of abuse or neglect.
Ms. Barnes stated “it would be easier to perform background checks if DFS weren’t removing four times more children than they should be.”
Before Dominic was murdered in foster care another child was also killed in foster care by the name of Constance Porter. She was also two years old. She was not a victim of abuse or neglect by her natural mother. The mother was just homeless. To make matters worse that had already been a hotline call to CPS about the foster home before Constance was placed in it.
The next case I found was an article Titled “Children as Chattel” it was written by Kurt Mundorff. Mr. Mundorff worked for fourteen months as a caseworker for Child Protective Services. His article is not only disturbing it should be used to prosecute CPS workers all across the country for abuse.
He stated, ” I also saw the agency steamroll many dozens of innocent families. They became involved in a system that was capricious, abusive and which seemed to do more harm than good. The only help we offered the children was to place them in foster care; there seemed to be no intention of helping parents. Very quickly, it became clear to me that the “help” of foster care was no help at all.” This was not the worst part. He continued “While I met some warm, caring, foster parents, the vast majority of foster parents I met were obviously in it for the money. The were baby boarders. Foster Parents are not the only people who profit from the child process. I began to see myslef as part of a vast industry of professionals who earn their income by providing services to families and their children. We provided a vast array of services, which I quickly came to realize were ineffective and at times even harmful to the people we were supposed to be helping. Parents also did not see services as helping. Services were a series of hoops they had to jump through to get my agency our of their lives. At each hoop was another professional accepting money from the state. The more hoops the more money.
Mr. Mundorff writes of a horror story involving the money involved and used as an income supplement for a couple and several children. It involved a three year old named Charlie whose mother was drug addicted so he lived with his grandmother for a time. She became physically unable to care for him. Charlie was turned over the the New York Child Services and was placed in foster home after foster home before he went to finally live with the Dawson Family. Ms. Dawson was in her fifities. Mr. Dawson was in his early sixities and she and her husband were looking forward to their “retirement”. They decided they needed to supplement their income so they took in Charlies and two other infants who were both diagnosed as special needs children because they had medical problems. The Dawson knew if they adopted all three of these children they would receive $2000.00 per month in income off the backs of these children.
But things did not go as planned, they began to question if they were indeed a good match for Charlie. They had already contacted the social worker at the adoption agency and told her that they could not control him. They also said they had changed their minds and did not want to adopt him. The adopton/social worker told them if they didn’t take Charlie they couldn’t have the two infants. The exucse she used that because the three were placed together they were now considered siblings even though they were not related. Therefore they all had to be adopted together. This was a lie. They were pressured into adopting Charlie.
Then they began to fear for their lives, they found a knife under Charlie’s pillow and around his room. The accused him of being a liar saying he made them take him to the emergency room for a stomach ache. But there was nothing wrong with him. When they sent the biil to the New York State Medicare they were told it would not be covered because it had been an out of state hospital. This too was a lie.
Mr. Mundorff goes on to explain the contiued trouble the Dawson family had with the state of New York. Mr. Dawson was accused of child abandoment because he left Charlie with the a therapist during a family counsleing appointment. There were a myrid of other problems that the State of New York failed to help with. Charlie was finally taken by another family and they too were subjected to the same abuse in the system.
According to Mr. Mundorff, “Charlie was a child whose life was determined by the subsidies that attached to him. First, the adoption agency received a subsidy for placing him in the home, even though he was not wanted. Later the hospital held him hostgage, refusing to release him, fearful of not being paid, Finally, his therapist, making her living off providing services to the poor children in foster care, attempted to extort fees from the McMahons ( the second family who too him).” A funding stream of federal, state and local dollars attaches to every child entering the welfare system, who support a vast bureaucracy of professionals providing counseling, evaluation, investigation, medical and placement services. Finally, the child is placed with an adoptive or foster care parent.”
Mr. Mundorff contiues “While there are many parents who do this for the most altruistic reasons, they seem to be the exception. The subsisdies for this care are a strong motivator, and many of these families may take the child to subsidize a retirement, and addition to the home, or just to have a little extra money. Certaintly, some poroportion of the childrne who come into contact with the child welfare system are in genuine need of help and can not remain in their homes. But, regardless of her need, when a child enters the system, decisions about her life are reduced to a series of monetary equations. Through this process the child is commodifed, traded back and forth betwen agencies and parents, all providing services in exchange for a piece of the subsisdy pie.”
These two articles just confirm that fact that Child Protective Services and all those involved with them from Judges, lawyers, foster parents, adoptive parents, professionals are in it for the money. They don’t care about the families they destory , the children whose lives they ruin and when they are ruined these children become ingrained in the system for life.
I have been accused by Jackson County GA, DFCS of writing blogs saying that they have snatched my three granddaughters, Shawna Thomason, Carly and Sara Wilfawn. Well they are right. I have said it and will continue to say it. They have snatched them to sell.
Mr. Mundorff stated “The thirteenth amendment may be an appropriate tool for reform. In fact, Federal District Courty Judge Jack B. Weinstein suggested in Nicholson V Williams that, “The exact language of the Thirteenth Amendment could be construed to cover children forceibly and unnecessarily removed without due process and the consigned to the control of foster parents.”
This is indeed scary. I will post another blog on the Thirteenth Amendment and Mr. Mundorff’s findings.
Categories: Abuse by CPS, UncategorizedTags: yvonne mason, Abuse by CPS, Title IV-E Funding, the money cops makes off children, abuse in the cps system
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/if-you-dont-believe-dfcs-or-cps-which-ever-name-your-child-protection-services-is-not-in-it-for-the-money-this-is-a-must-read/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)