Woman accused in death of 3-year-old adopted son
Associated Press
04/02/10 9:40 PM EDT
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. — A 39-year-old woman is in jail after authorities accused her of being responsible for the head injury that killed her 3-year-old adopted son.
The El Paso County Sheriff's Office says Michelle Dosdall, of Peyton, Colo., faces first-degree murder and child abuse charges for the death of the boy, who was taken off life support Wednesday after being declared brain dead. Sheriff's officials say Dosdall surrendered to authorities Friday and is being held without bail.
Dosdall told a detective that the boy, Tristan, was neglected in foster care before she adopted him and that he needed to do exercises as part of his physical therapy. Dosdall says sometimes the boy would go limp and fall backward, hitting his head on the carpet, when he didn't want to do the exercises.
___
Information from: The Gazette, http://www.gazette.com
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/woman-accused-in-death-of-3-year-old-adopted-son-89814477.html#ixzz0kT91xUEH
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/woman-accused-in-death-of-3-year-old-adopted-son-89814477.html
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
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Staffordshire Social Services
April 4, 2010
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 6:14 pm
Dear Liam,
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH
You may recall that we sent you our analysis of our first 50 or so child protection cases when you first started looking at problems with medical expert witnesses. We read your most helpful document on supply and training of expert witnesses with interest, and responded to the questionnaire, and have seen your brief summary of responses. We are now preparing our second round of comments as NICE stakeholders on diagnosis of child abuse (greatly concerned, incidentally, at the truncated definition of the amended scope).
Medical opinions, however, are but a part of the system which impacts on children and parents. We are now so concerned at the adverse effects of child protection procedures in the UK that we felt we had to write to you. As a group which runs a national help line, we are seeing how serious, long-lasting and widespread the adverse effects of these expensive interventions are. Since, as advocates, and occasional Family Court witnesses, we see many case and court files, we know how questionable and inaccurate are the allegations, interpretation and documentation from which many investigations spring. Sometimes it is unclear where the trail began, and a surprising number seem to start after justified consumer complaints have been made about health care or other staff.
When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: ‘when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.’ We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.
Community information grapevines work, and effectively circulate information about what people see as the growing risk of being investigated or labelled as a dangerous parent after contact with medical care. The risk is not merely perceived: it is real, and the consequences are devastating. Damage to the whole family structure (sometimes the extended family network and its support structure), to parental confidence and self-esteem, to children’s sense of security and safety, and their sense of security that their parents can and will protect them – these are very serious adverse effects. Often we find it is the most sensitive parents, to whom family life means everything, who are most damaged. We also have many concerns about damage we have seen to authority of black parents vis-a-vis their children, many of whom are already coping with multiple racial prejudice problems. As we have pointed out to NICE as stakeholders in their consultation of diagnosis of child abuse, such potential for harm must now be considered, and it is long overdue. The sheer cultural incompetence of many social workers has to be seen to be believed.
The following list is not exhaustive, but gives examples of typical problems. We make no claim for their being representative of the whole picture of child protection activities, of course, since we deal only with those who come to us for help. However, the problems we are finding seem to be echoed by other groups.
FEAR OF ACCESSING MEDICAL CARE – Nowadays parents call us and ask for advice when their children have accidents, because they are afraid to go to A & E, and they know we run a totally confidential service. We cannot give such advice as we are not qualified to do so. We have been in existence for well over 40 years and can recall no such requests until about four years ago. There is now no health professional, or official help line, parents feel they can safely ask for help. All agencies, including NHS direct, will report anything they regard as suspicious. Innocent parents who have had one brush with the system, or social services investigation, or whose friends, relatives or neighbours have, now find the risk of avoiding treatment preferable to the risk of damage to the whole family of going for help.
DISTRUST OF HEALTH VISITORS – Mothers are opting out of seeing health visitors, and are advising friends not to see them, after they, or someone they know, has had a similar encounter. Those who feel obliged to do so, tell them as little as possible. One incident and they tell us ‘I’ve made sure everyone in the village knows not to trust her.’ In some areas, however, merely opting out of seeing a health visitor (maybe because they don’t like her, or find her advice or manner unhelpful) is cause for referral to social services in itself – thereby confirming the increasingly common perception of them as the ‘health police’. Those who do see the health visitor are highly circumspect about the information they give.
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATIONS – Small babies with a tiny bruise are automatically given whole-body X-rays at an early stage. (‘Those who don’t cruise, rarely bruise.’ – ‘rarely’ being interpreted as ‘never’). The likely cause has sometimes proved to be equipment such as a baby-carrier or push-chair. Sometimes a boisterous older sibling – a toddler – is suspected but this cannot be proved. The parents, not unreasonably, are now continually worried about the future possibility of leukaemia. As these whole-body X-rays are now so common, (there should be a database of such exposures) the likelihood of this in some children must be increasing.
CONCEALMENT OF POSTNATAL MENTAL ILLNESS – As at least two studies have shown, mothers are lying in response to the questions on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and they are concealing post natal mental illness, for fear of social service intervention. We knew this from our help line, long before the research appeared. A formerly useful, validated, screening tool no longer works. This is alarming since suicide is the largest cause of deaths associated with childbirth. We are dealing with seriously ill women, and we know that contact with child protection services only worsens their state but it is as if no-one cares. One immediately suicidal mother was told by her GP ‘We don’t have to worry now: the baby is safely in care.’ Everyone concentrates on safety of the baby, though statistically the chances of the mother killing herself are very much greater.
The known serious long-term adverse effects for a child of losing a parent through suicide are not even considered. We seem to be the only remaining group who see mother and baby as a dyad, and think they need to be treated as such. The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths report cases of suicide which are directly related to women’s fear of social services taking their children – real or imagined, and points out what a large number of children have been orphaned by post-natal suicide. These suicides are, of course, only measured for the first year post-natally, but we have clients at risk, and know of cases, long after that. We have many cases where social services intervention is intensifying and prolonging the very postnatal depression which they are seeing as the reason to take their babies. We have never yet seen a case where the mother found social worker intervention helpful or supportive. In the last fortnight I have worked with two women who I feel are suicide risks (one acute) solely as a result of social service management. As their babies are now over a year old, their deaths would not be included in the statistics, but we are prepared to give evidence to coroners if the worst happens.
There are no Paternal Death statistics. Naturally postnatal mental illness in mothers is our major concern, but we are hearing of more and more cases of fathers tipped into depression by child protection investigations. The intervention itself is frequently toxic to mental health, and greatly damaging to self-esteem, which is particularly important where it is fragile to begin with, or families are already dealing with racism.
LOSS OF BREASTFEEDING – Many mothers whose babies were precipitately removed, (they, and we, suspect as potential adoption material to meet targets) but had to be returned when a case could not be made, grieve for the loss of breastfeeding, with its long term benefits for mother and child, and for the damage to bonding. If and when children are returned, they are unable to re-establish it. One woman recently told us of the profound difference in feelings towards her two children, the first of which was affected by child protection actions and threat of removal, and the second, which had a happy normal birth. It is a story we have heard from a number of others. Even the threat of intervention or suspicion can cause serious damage in the sensitive postnatal period, and we have vivid descriptions from parents.
In a number of cases mothers have expressed breast milk and begged social workers to give it to the baby, and they have refused. Others have not openly refused but mothers later discovered it was thrown away. One baby (an adoption target) was recorded by a paediatrician as ‘bottle fed from birth’ though all the notes clearly indicated otherwise. More recently some breast feeding mothers have been asked to express milk by social workers (we suspect as a result of European Court human rights decision on one of our UK cases P, C and S v. UK 16 07 02). They dared not refuse since it might lessen the chance of the baby’s return, but firstly this is often very difficult for the inexperienced primigravida, and the continued lactation (and oxytocin levels) added to their distress at the baby’s absence (a price all lactating mothers pay). It was not a choice those particular mothers would have made. In some cases the stress has caused lactation to fail totally, and the mother is further devastated. This is NOT a case that social workers are ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t', but that their ignorance and the way they use (and mis-use) information to strengthen their case often works adversely for both mother and child.
INCREASED USED OF ALTERNATIVE PRACTITIONERS – After a brush with the system, more families in our files are avoiding orthodox medical care and increasingly turning to alternative practitioners for their own, and their children’s care. Whilst many parents are full of praise for the alternative practitioners they use, we have concerns about lack of paediatric and medical knowledge. I have never forgotten interviewing the mother of a young child who died from diabetes when parents followed such advice. Parents with ongoing medical problems are also foregoing care for themselves because they no longer trust the system.
MORE CHOOSE HOME SCHOOLING – An increasing number of children in our files are being removed from school and are home educated, sometimes after a fairly minor brush with ‘protection’ services, because the educational system (including nursery education) is now seen as part of the surveillance process, which can be influenced by the whims, prejudices and occasionally hostility of individual teachers. Another child was removed from nursery school because the teacher there was questioned by social workers about the parents and is no longer trusted, so it is at home.
MORE SEPARATIONS AND MARITAL BREAKDOWN – We have lost count of the number of marriages and partnerships which have broken down as a result of the intense stress caused by child protection investigations of what turned out to be innocent parents. The children now have an absent father and are largely cared for by the traumatised mother. This loss alone is far more damaging to the child than the potential harm of which parents were initially accused.
REDUCED PROSPERITY AND WELL BEING – We have been surprised to see how often families suffer considerable financial loss and are in reduced circumstances because of intervention. This includes both the poor and the middle class. The stress, and time-consuming nature of trying to fight their corner, takes all their time, and often erodes their health. There is no longer time, or money, to take the children on outings they would once have had, for example. Making photocopies, postage of documents, paying for copies of their records and faxes, and so on, eats into the limited resources of those who have little to spare. Some are prevented from pursuing former careers where local well-circulated, and unproven, suspicions have made them unemployable, yet there is not a shred of evidence that they are unfit.
When social services depart and have closed the files, the family may well have turned in on itself. Sometimes they have felt they could not talk about what is happening to neighbours, friends, or even relatives. Sometimes they fear stigmatisation. Sometimes they are stigmatised. Garbled, distorted stories may have been circulated in schools, clinics, churches, etc. Contact with friends, neighbours, clubs, even relatives, may be reduced sometimes drastically. Their social capital – known to be an important factor in mortality and mortality – has been reduced.
LACK OF HELP FOR THOSE IN NEED – Parents whose children have behavioural or educational difficulties now feel there is no confidential, trustworthy source of help they can go to. It was sometimes those very difficulties (then undiagnosed) which led to the interventions, but when everyone else goes home, the parents are left to cope with them, often now worse than they were before, but with nowhere they can, or dare, turn to.
Parents who cannot avoid the system, because they have disabled children, find themselves in a continual weary battle to preserve their sanity, their integrity and their self-esteem. There is a lot of black humour in our ‘phone calls: we agree they are ‘the lucky ones’ in that their children are so seriously disabled, social services and doctors don’t want to take them (they would be too expensive and risky to keep in care, and are not seen as adoption material) but the perception is that professionals just want to exert power and control everything they do, rather than listening to parents who have found out what works and helping them with basic, simple needs.
Because we run a totally confidential service, and never report anyone to anywhere, we are told a great deal which would be helpful to professionals involved with family care, but which they will never know because now all are required to report suspicions, so none of them is trusted.
CONCEALMENT OF RAPE CONCEPTIONS – Women whose pregnancies are the result of rape are not mentioning this to anyone, though they are desperately in need of support and sensitive care, for fear of social service interference. We are supporting them as best we can, especially since we saw the disastrous effects after a woman confided in her midwife, who reported to social services in another case.
CONCEALMENT OF SEXUAL RISK – Parents who have had a brush with the system withdraw from being part of the watchful community group which helps to protect all children. For example, a number of them have told us about sexual activities of quite young fellow pupils at their children’s school (which now seem surprisingly common) or grooming attempts by local paedophiles. Whereas at one time they would have acted, now they keep quiet in case any activity re-awakens interest in them or their children. They are no longer willing to try to protect other people’s children: they have pulled up the drawbridge. In view of the number of cases we have seen where women who reported paedophiles and ended up being disbelieved or vilified themselves (the assumption that these genuinely concerned mothers were making it up for their own ends, in custody battles etc) we do not blame them.
CONCEALMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- Women who are suffering domestic violence are continuing to conceal it for the same reason. Since we have seen cases of babies removed from such women, even after they have left their violent partners and are coping well, we are not surprised.
CHILD PROTECTION AS SOCIAL CONTROL- Use of child ‘protection’ or threats thereof, are increasingly being used to control parents who are seen as unorthodox, or not completely compliant. (The social worker’s ideal ‘compliant’ mother does not seem to be one who would have the personality to insist that other people don’t smoke near her baby. Yet ’stroppy’ mothers can be advantageous to children, protecting them when they live in difficult social circumstances. Heaven help the disabled child or one with special needs who does not have at least one stroppy parent to fight for him). The message is getting round quickly, and parents are opting out of official sources care even more, or being even more selective on what information they give, and what they conceal.
TOXIC PSYCHIATRIC LABELS- Your recent report confirmed the picture we have from our cases, that psychiatrists greatly outnumber paediatricians as court experts in Family Court cases. Selected experts are invited by social workers to confirm that the parent who complained about the health visitor, or who has criticised or challenged them must have a ‘personality disorder’(not uncommon); this has now replaced the rather discredited Factitious and Induced Illness (frustratingly rare) as the method of choice. Judges do not ask the simple question: what is the baseline of this in the community, and are we to remove the children of all such parents? Where is the evidence that this child is, or has been, at risk from this parent?
The result is that many parents and children, even if not separated and found guilty of no harm, have now acquired permanent damaging labels – widely circulated among shared records – which they, and we, suspect are likely to be a permanent source of prejudice, which do not contribute in any constructive way to their care, support, treatment or interaction with services. Since the condition is widely regarded as untreatable, there is no responsibility on the psychiatrist or the NHS to treat, but there is total freedom by lay and medical personal to disregard what the parents say.
There is a substantial literature on the effect on professional attitudes of any label such as ‘personality disorder’, for example, and how it affects attitudes to the patient and hinders diagnosis and prevents treatment. Yet many families are acquiring these labels as a result of totally unjustified intervention in the first place. In many of our cases specific psychiatrists and psychologists seem to have been called in when social workers were unable to find evidence to prove the case they wanted. Despite our strong suggestions to clients that they should obtain copies of the psychological tests carried out on them, so that conclusions may be challenged, and their validity for different cultures assessed, so far no-one has managed to do so. (Incidentally, we are also concerned at the number of cases where these same professionals then go on to recommend to the court that the family needs exclusive private treatment by themselves at a cost of many thousands of pounds.)
As with paediatricians and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, experts who are knowledgeable, are seen as unbiased, and will give evidence for the parent are as scarce as hen’s teeth. When a child has some physical problems, there is hope that the truth that the mother was not wrong in believing her child to be ill, will emerge eventually, through advances in medical knowledge, or even at post mortem. With psychiatric opinion of a parent’s state at the time, what hope is there of rebuttal? The MSBP label carries its own unique trail of damage: anything the mother reports to any authority is not believed – or rather is automatically DISbelieved, by doctors, teachers, the police etc, and we have seen cases of actual endangerment because of this.
Medical opinions can be wrong. Has everyone forgotten that once all the paediatricians and health visitors were ordering mothers to place their babies face down to sleep? We know a number of older mothers who did not ‘comply’ with that – they just liked to watch their babies’ sleeping faces. And maybe some of their children were saved from cot death as a result.
I could go on. But you can see why we are so concerned. Unless both professionals and the courts understand how common, and how serious, the adverse effects of child protection intervention and investigation can be, how can they balance the risks of action versus leaving well alone?
With very best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jean Robinson
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services
cc: Dr. Harry Burns, CMO Scotland, Dr. Tony Jewell, CMO Wales, Dr. Michael McBride CMO Northern Ireland, Dr. Gwyneth Lewis, CEMACH, Beverley Beech, Chair AIMS.
http://www.aims.org.uk/
http://staffordshiresocialservices.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/adverse-effects-of-child-protection-on-public-health/
April 4, 2010
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 6:14 pm
Dear Liam,
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH
You may recall that we sent you our analysis of our first 50 or so child protection cases when you first started looking at problems with medical expert witnesses. We read your most helpful document on supply and training of expert witnesses with interest, and responded to the questionnaire, and have seen your brief summary of responses. We are now preparing our second round of comments as NICE stakeholders on diagnosis of child abuse (greatly concerned, incidentally, at the truncated definition of the amended scope).
Medical opinions, however, are but a part of the system which impacts on children and parents. We are now so concerned at the adverse effects of child protection procedures in the UK that we felt we had to write to you. As a group which runs a national help line, we are seeing how serious, long-lasting and widespread the adverse effects of these expensive interventions are. Since, as advocates, and occasional Family Court witnesses, we see many case and court files, we know how questionable and inaccurate are the allegations, interpretation and documentation from which many investigations spring. Sometimes it is unclear where the trail began, and a surprising number seem to start after justified consumer complaints have been made about health care or other staff.
When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: ‘when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.’ We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.
Community information grapevines work, and effectively circulate information about what people see as the growing risk of being investigated or labelled as a dangerous parent after contact with medical care. The risk is not merely perceived: it is real, and the consequences are devastating. Damage to the whole family structure (sometimes the extended family network and its support structure), to parental confidence and self-esteem, to children’s sense of security and safety, and their sense of security that their parents can and will protect them – these are very serious adverse effects. Often we find it is the most sensitive parents, to whom family life means everything, who are most damaged. We also have many concerns about damage we have seen to authority of black parents vis-a-vis their children, many of whom are already coping with multiple racial prejudice problems. As we have pointed out to NICE as stakeholders in their consultation of diagnosis of child abuse, such potential for harm must now be considered, and it is long overdue. The sheer cultural incompetence of many social workers has to be seen to be believed.
The following list is not exhaustive, but gives examples of typical problems. We make no claim for their being representative of the whole picture of child protection activities, of course, since we deal only with those who come to us for help. However, the problems we are finding seem to be echoed by other groups.
FEAR OF ACCESSING MEDICAL CARE – Nowadays parents call us and ask for advice when their children have accidents, because they are afraid to go to A & E, and they know we run a totally confidential service. We cannot give such advice as we are not qualified to do so. We have been in existence for well over 40 years and can recall no such requests until about four years ago. There is now no health professional, or official help line, parents feel they can safely ask for help. All agencies, including NHS direct, will report anything they regard as suspicious. Innocent parents who have had one brush with the system, or social services investigation, or whose friends, relatives or neighbours have, now find the risk of avoiding treatment preferable to the risk of damage to the whole family of going for help.
DISTRUST OF HEALTH VISITORS – Mothers are opting out of seeing health visitors, and are advising friends not to see them, after they, or someone they know, has had a similar encounter. Those who feel obliged to do so, tell them as little as possible. One incident and they tell us ‘I’ve made sure everyone in the village knows not to trust her.’ In some areas, however, merely opting out of seeing a health visitor (maybe because they don’t like her, or find her advice or manner unhelpful) is cause for referral to social services in itself – thereby confirming the increasingly common perception of them as the ‘health police’. Those who do see the health visitor are highly circumspect about the information they give.
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATIONS – Small babies with a tiny bruise are automatically given whole-body X-rays at an early stage. (‘Those who don’t cruise, rarely bruise.’ – ‘rarely’ being interpreted as ‘never’). The likely cause has sometimes proved to be equipment such as a baby-carrier or push-chair. Sometimes a boisterous older sibling – a toddler – is suspected but this cannot be proved. The parents, not unreasonably, are now continually worried about the future possibility of leukaemia. As these whole-body X-rays are now so common, (there should be a database of such exposures) the likelihood of this in some children must be increasing.
CONCEALMENT OF POSTNATAL MENTAL ILLNESS – As at least two studies have shown, mothers are lying in response to the questions on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and they are concealing post natal mental illness, for fear of social service intervention. We knew this from our help line, long before the research appeared. A formerly useful, validated, screening tool no longer works. This is alarming since suicide is the largest cause of deaths associated with childbirth. We are dealing with seriously ill women, and we know that contact with child protection services only worsens their state but it is as if no-one cares. One immediately suicidal mother was told by her GP ‘We don’t have to worry now: the baby is safely in care.’ Everyone concentrates on safety of the baby, though statistically the chances of the mother killing herself are very much greater.
The known serious long-term adverse effects for a child of losing a parent through suicide are not even considered. We seem to be the only remaining group who see mother and baby as a dyad, and think they need to be treated as such. The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths report cases of suicide which are directly related to women’s fear of social services taking their children – real or imagined, and points out what a large number of children have been orphaned by post-natal suicide. These suicides are, of course, only measured for the first year post-natally, but we have clients at risk, and know of cases, long after that. We have many cases where social services intervention is intensifying and prolonging the very postnatal depression which they are seeing as the reason to take their babies. We have never yet seen a case where the mother found social worker intervention helpful or supportive. In the last fortnight I have worked with two women who I feel are suicide risks (one acute) solely as a result of social service management. As their babies are now over a year old, their deaths would not be included in the statistics, but we are prepared to give evidence to coroners if the worst happens.
There are no Paternal Death statistics. Naturally postnatal mental illness in mothers is our major concern, but we are hearing of more and more cases of fathers tipped into depression by child protection investigations. The intervention itself is frequently toxic to mental health, and greatly damaging to self-esteem, which is particularly important where it is fragile to begin with, or families are already dealing with racism.
LOSS OF BREASTFEEDING – Many mothers whose babies were precipitately removed, (they, and we, suspect as potential adoption material to meet targets) but had to be returned when a case could not be made, grieve for the loss of breastfeeding, with its long term benefits for mother and child, and for the damage to bonding. If and when children are returned, they are unable to re-establish it. One woman recently told us of the profound difference in feelings towards her two children, the first of which was affected by child protection actions and threat of removal, and the second, which had a happy normal birth. It is a story we have heard from a number of others. Even the threat of intervention or suspicion can cause serious damage in the sensitive postnatal period, and we have vivid descriptions from parents.
In a number of cases mothers have expressed breast milk and begged social workers to give it to the baby, and they have refused. Others have not openly refused but mothers later discovered it was thrown away. One baby (an adoption target) was recorded by a paediatrician as ‘bottle fed from birth’ though all the notes clearly indicated otherwise. More recently some breast feeding mothers have been asked to express milk by social workers (we suspect as a result of European Court human rights decision on one of our UK cases P, C and S v. UK 16 07 02). They dared not refuse since it might lessen the chance of the baby’s return, but firstly this is often very difficult for the inexperienced primigravida, and the continued lactation (and oxytocin levels) added to their distress at the baby’s absence (a price all lactating mothers pay). It was not a choice those particular mothers would have made. In some cases the stress has caused lactation to fail totally, and the mother is further devastated. This is NOT a case that social workers are ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t', but that their ignorance and the way they use (and mis-use) information to strengthen their case often works adversely for both mother and child.
INCREASED USED OF ALTERNATIVE PRACTITIONERS – After a brush with the system, more families in our files are avoiding orthodox medical care and increasingly turning to alternative practitioners for their own, and their children’s care. Whilst many parents are full of praise for the alternative practitioners they use, we have concerns about lack of paediatric and medical knowledge. I have never forgotten interviewing the mother of a young child who died from diabetes when parents followed such advice. Parents with ongoing medical problems are also foregoing care for themselves because they no longer trust the system.
MORE CHOOSE HOME SCHOOLING – An increasing number of children in our files are being removed from school and are home educated, sometimes after a fairly minor brush with ‘protection’ services, because the educational system (including nursery education) is now seen as part of the surveillance process, which can be influenced by the whims, prejudices and occasionally hostility of individual teachers. Another child was removed from nursery school because the teacher there was questioned by social workers about the parents and is no longer trusted, so it is at home.
MORE SEPARATIONS AND MARITAL BREAKDOWN – We have lost count of the number of marriages and partnerships which have broken down as a result of the intense stress caused by child protection investigations of what turned out to be innocent parents. The children now have an absent father and are largely cared for by the traumatised mother. This loss alone is far more damaging to the child than the potential harm of which parents were initially accused.
REDUCED PROSPERITY AND WELL BEING – We have been surprised to see how often families suffer considerable financial loss and are in reduced circumstances because of intervention. This includes both the poor and the middle class. The stress, and time-consuming nature of trying to fight their corner, takes all their time, and often erodes their health. There is no longer time, or money, to take the children on outings they would once have had, for example. Making photocopies, postage of documents, paying for copies of their records and faxes, and so on, eats into the limited resources of those who have little to spare. Some are prevented from pursuing former careers where local well-circulated, and unproven, suspicions have made them unemployable, yet there is not a shred of evidence that they are unfit.
When social services depart and have closed the files, the family may well have turned in on itself. Sometimes they have felt they could not talk about what is happening to neighbours, friends, or even relatives. Sometimes they fear stigmatisation. Sometimes they are stigmatised. Garbled, distorted stories may have been circulated in schools, clinics, churches, etc. Contact with friends, neighbours, clubs, even relatives, may be reduced sometimes drastically. Their social capital – known to be an important factor in mortality and mortality – has been reduced.
LACK OF HELP FOR THOSE IN NEED – Parents whose children have behavioural or educational difficulties now feel there is no confidential, trustworthy source of help they can go to. It was sometimes those very difficulties (then undiagnosed) which led to the interventions, but when everyone else goes home, the parents are left to cope with them, often now worse than they were before, but with nowhere they can, or dare, turn to.
Parents who cannot avoid the system, because they have disabled children, find themselves in a continual weary battle to preserve their sanity, their integrity and their self-esteem. There is a lot of black humour in our ‘phone calls: we agree they are ‘the lucky ones’ in that their children are so seriously disabled, social services and doctors don’t want to take them (they would be too expensive and risky to keep in care, and are not seen as adoption material) but the perception is that professionals just want to exert power and control everything they do, rather than listening to parents who have found out what works and helping them with basic, simple needs.
Because we run a totally confidential service, and never report anyone to anywhere, we are told a great deal which would be helpful to professionals involved with family care, but which they will never know because now all are required to report suspicions, so none of them is trusted.
CONCEALMENT OF RAPE CONCEPTIONS – Women whose pregnancies are the result of rape are not mentioning this to anyone, though they are desperately in need of support and sensitive care, for fear of social service interference. We are supporting them as best we can, especially since we saw the disastrous effects after a woman confided in her midwife, who reported to social services in another case.
CONCEALMENT OF SEXUAL RISK – Parents who have had a brush with the system withdraw from being part of the watchful community group which helps to protect all children. For example, a number of them have told us about sexual activities of quite young fellow pupils at their children’s school (which now seem surprisingly common) or grooming attempts by local paedophiles. Whereas at one time they would have acted, now they keep quiet in case any activity re-awakens interest in them or their children. They are no longer willing to try to protect other people’s children: they have pulled up the drawbridge. In view of the number of cases we have seen where women who reported paedophiles and ended up being disbelieved or vilified themselves (the assumption that these genuinely concerned mothers were making it up for their own ends, in custody battles etc) we do not blame them.
CONCEALMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- Women who are suffering domestic violence are continuing to conceal it for the same reason. Since we have seen cases of babies removed from such women, even after they have left their violent partners and are coping well, we are not surprised.
CHILD PROTECTION AS SOCIAL CONTROL- Use of child ‘protection’ or threats thereof, are increasingly being used to control parents who are seen as unorthodox, or not completely compliant. (The social worker’s ideal ‘compliant’ mother does not seem to be one who would have the personality to insist that other people don’t smoke near her baby. Yet ’stroppy’ mothers can be advantageous to children, protecting them when they live in difficult social circumstances. Heaven help the disabled child or one with special needs who does not have at least one stroppy parent to fight for him). The message is getting round quickly, and parents are opting out of official sources care even more, or being even more selective on what information they give, and what they conceal.
TOXIC PSYCHIATRIC LABELS- Your recent report confirmed the picture we have from our cases, that psychiatrists greatly outnumber paediatricians as court experts in Family Court cases. Selected experts are invited by social workers to confirm that the parent who complained about the health visitor, or who has criticised or challenged them must have a ‘personality disorder’(not uncommon); this has now replaced the rather discredited Factitious and Induced Illness (frustratingly rare) as the method of choice. Judges do not ask the simple question: what is the baseline of this in the community, and are we to remove the children of all such parents? Where is the evidence that this child is, or has been, at risk from this parent?
The result is that many parents and children, even if not separated and found guilty of no harm, have now acquired permanent damaging labels – widely circulated among shared records – which they, and we, suspect are likely to be a permanent source of prejudice, which do not contribute in any constructive way to their care, support, treatment or interaction with services. Since the condition is widely regarded as untreatable, there is no responsibility on the psychiatrist or the NHS to treat, but there is total freedom by lay and medical personal to disregard what the parents say.
There is a substantial literature on the effect on professional attitudes of any label such as ‘personality disorder’, for example, and how it affects attitudes to the patient and hinders diagnosis and prevents treatment. Yet many families are acquiring these labels as a result of totally unjustified intervention in the first place. In many of our cases specific psychiatrists and psychologists seem to have been called in when social workers were unable to find evidence to prove the case they wanted. Despite our strong suggestions to clients that they should obtain copies of the psychological tests carried out on them, so that conclusions may be challenged, and their validity for different cultures assessed, so far no-one has managed to do so. (Incidentally, we are also concerned at the number of cases where these same professionals then go on to recommend to the court that the family needs exclusive private treatment by themselves at a cost of many thousands of pounds.)
As with paediatricians and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, experts who are knowledgeable, are seen as unbiased, and will give evidence for the parent are as scarce as hen’s teeth. When a child has some physical problems, there is hope that the truth that the mother was not wrong in believing her child to be ill, will emerge eventually, through advances in medical knowledge, or even at post mortem. With psychiatric opinion of a parent’s state at the time, what hope is there of rebuttal? The MSBP label carries its own unique trail of damage: anything the mother reports to any authority is not believed – or rather is automatically DISbelieved, by doctors, teachers, the police etc, and we have seen cases of actual endangerment because of this.
Medical opinions can be wrong. Has everyone forgotten that once all the paediatricians and health visitors were ordering mothers to place their babies face down to sleep? We know a number of older mothers who did not ‘comply’ with that – they just liked to watch their babies’ sleeping faces. And maybe some of their children were saved from cot death as a result.
I could go on. But you can see why we are so concerned. Unless both professionals and the courts understand how common, and how serious, the adverse effects of child protection intervention and investigation can be, how can they balance the risks of action versus leaving well alone?
With very best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jean Robinson
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services
cc: Dr. Harry Burns, CMO Scotland, Dr. Tony Jewell, CMO Wales, Dr. Michael McBride CMO Northern Ireland, Dr. Gwyneth Lewis, CEMACH, Beverley Beech, Chair AIMS.
http://www.aims.org.uk/
http://staffordshiresocialservices.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/adverse-effects-of-child-protection-on-public-health/
Court rules social workers must follow law
This is an article from 2007, yet Social Wreckers in NH still DON'T follow the Law!
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Court rules social workers must follow law
Agencies, cops can't threaten to take kids away from parents asserting rights
Posted: October 25, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
Lawsuit defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio
A federal court has ruled that social workers have to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, and if they don't they may be held liable.
The ruling comes in an Arizona case in which social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff will be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
(Story continues below)
The case is being publicized by the Home School Legal Defense Association because of the involvement of the organization's members, the family of John and Tiffany Loudermilk.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
"The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry… An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation," the HSLDA report said.
Under duress, the family allowed the social workers and deputies inside, who found nothing wrong, the report said.
But as a result of the search, the family sued the social workers and others citing the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights in the search, and violations of their 14th Amendment rights to privacy and family integrity because of the threats.
The judge, acting on motions submitted by the defendants to escape liability, agreed with the family.
"Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children," the judge said.
"Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff's favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law."
Even the assistant attorney general was cited for exerting "coercive pressure" through threats.
"The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent's cooperation is unconstitutional," said James Mason, senior counsel for the HSLDA. "We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country."
"There you have it, [social agencies and workers] cannot threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights and refuse to cooperate," added Thomas Dutkiewicz, of the Connecticut DCF Watch organization.
"Parents do not have to cooperate with DCF whatsoever and DCF employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children," he said. "DCF workers here in Connecticut are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can. All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police."
Now proceeding will be the lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home, but refused to provide it. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide the family their cell telephone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The claim against Rhodes stemmed from her advice to the family that the social workers were not bound by the Fourth Amendment in their intent to search the home.
The judge said verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience…'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44203
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Court rules social workers must follow law
Agencies, cops can't threaten to take kids away from parents asserting rights
Posted: October 25, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
Lawsuit defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio
A federal court has ruled that social workers have to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, and if they don't they may be held liable.
The ruling comes in an Arizona case in which social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff will be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
(Story continues below)
The case is being publicized by the Home School Legal Defense Association because of the involvement of the organization's members, the family of John and Tiffany Loudermilk.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
"The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry… An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation," the HSLDA report said.
Under duress, the family allowed the social workers and deputies inside, who found nothing wrong, the report said.
But as a result of the search, the family sued the social workers and others citing the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights in the search, and violations of their 14th Amendment rights to privacy and family integrity because of the threats.
The judge, acting on motions submitted by the defendants to escape liability, agreed with the family.
"Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children," the judge said.
"Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff's favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law."
Even the assistant attorney general was cited for exerting "coercive pressure" through threats.
"The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent's cooperation is unconstitutional," said James Mason, senior counsel for the HSLDA. "We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country."
"There you have it, [social agencies and workers] cannot threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights and refuse to cooperate," added Thomas Dutkiewicz, of the Connecticut DCF Watch organization.
"Parents do not have to cooperate with DCF whatsoever and DCF employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children," he said. "DCF workers here in Connecticut are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can. All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police."
Now proceeding will be the lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home, but refused to provide it. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide the family their cell telephone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The claim against Rhodes stemmed from her advice to the family that the social workers were not bound by the Fourth Amendment in their intent to search the home.
The judge said verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience…'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44203
Judge says threats to confiscate children may be coercion
Judge says threats to confiscate children may be coercion
(Funny how NH DCYF still gets away with threatening families)
Homeschool family's case against sheriff's office, social services advanced
Posted: April 04, 2010
6:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An Arizona homeschool family's constitutional lawsuit against authorities – including sheriff's deputies, social service workers and even an assistant attorney general – has been advanced by a judge who ruled that a threat to take the family's children into custody could have been perceived as coercion.
It was the second straight strike against authorities who went to the home of John and Tiffany Loudermilk in 2006. WND has previously reported on the case, including when a judge ruled social workers must respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights.
The court decisions have focused on arguments by deputies and social workers, who contend they shouldn't be held liable for their actions.
Earlier, the court ruled that social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
Find out how to keep the faith while in the world. Get "Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus"
U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll at that point ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff would be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
The Loudermilk's are members of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based organization leading their defense.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
Now in a ruling this week, the judge in the case denied a state motion for summary judgment, stating, "The disputed questions of fact on these [consent] issues ... preclude summary judgment."
The ruling means a jury must decide whether the Loudermilks were coerced into allowing social workers and deputies into their home.
The lawsuit dates to March 3, 2006, and the state was trying, according to the HSLDA, to convince the judge that the social workers and deputies were immune from litigation because the family "voluntarily" allowed the investigators into the home.
The HSLDA said, however, that "assertion ... ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry."
"We are grateful that the judge is taking this matter seriously and making sure that a family's right to be together is protected," said Darren Jones, staff attorney with HSLDA. "The Loudermilks are doing a service to all families by their willingness to stand up against unjustified state intervention, not just at the initial contact, but for the four years this case has been going on."
A 2008 analysis of the arguments by HSLDA noted the confrontation between social service agency staff members and the family developed when authorities went to the family's home and demanded entry.
Their reason was a six-week-old anonymous tip that the brand new home was unsafe for children.
The HSLDA analysis then said, "After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
"Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff's deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left," the analysis said.
The family's subsequent lawsuit filed by the HSLDA alleged violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments.
The lawsuit names Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge, in handing authorities their previous courtroom loss, noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide their cell phone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The judge ruled then verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience.'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135893
(Funny how NH DCYF still gets away with threatening families)
Homeschool family's case against sheriff's office, social services advanced
Posted: April 04, 2010
6:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An Arizona homeschool family's constitutional lawsuit against authorities – including sheriff's deputies, social service workers and even an assistant attorney general – has been advanced by a judge who ruled that a threat to take the family's children into custody could have been perceived as coercion.
It was the second straight strike against authorities who went to the home of John and Tiffany Loudermilk in 2006. WND has previously reported on the case, including when a judge ruled social workers must respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights.
The court decisions have focused on arguments by deputies and social workers, who contend they shouldn't be held liable for their actions.
Earlier, the court ruled that social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family's children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family's home.
Find out how to keep the faith while in the world. Get "Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus"
U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll at that point ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff would be allowed to continue, because the social workers' concerns were based on "an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs' home was uninhabitable."
However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, "without more, does not constitute probable cause."
The Loudermilk's are members of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based organization leading their defense.
"Social workers and sheriff's deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children," the organization said.
Now in a ruling this week, the judge in the case denied a state motion for summary judgment, stating, "The disputed questions of fact on these [consent] issues ... preclude summary judgment."
The ruling means a jury must decide whether the Loudermilks were coerced into allowing social workers and deputies into their home.
The lawsuit dates to March 3, 2006, and the state was trying, according to the HSLDA, to convince the judge that the social workers and deputies were immune from litigation because the family "voluntarily" allowed the investigators into the home.
The HSLDA said, however, that "assertion ... ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry."
"We are grateful that the judge is taking this matter seriously and making sure that a family's right to be together is protected," said Darren Jones, staff attorney with HSLDA. "The Loudermilks are doing a service to all families by their willingness to stand up against unjustified state intervention, not just at the initial contact, but for the four years this case has been going on."
A 2008 analysis of the arguments by HSLDA noted the confrontation between social service agency staff members and the family developed when authorities went to the family's home and demanded entry.
Their reason was a six-week-old anonymous tip that the brand new home was unsafe for children.
The HSLDA analysis then said, "After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks' children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
"Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff's deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left," the analysis said.
The family's subsequent lawsuit filed by the HSLDA alleged violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments.
The lawsuit names Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.
The judge, in handing authorities their previous courtroom loss, noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide their cell phone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.
The judge ruled then verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, "courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including 'when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience.'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135893
Foster kids' future tough
Foster kids' future tough
Adult life hard when they 'age out' of care
BY AMY BENNETT WILLIAMS • AWILLIAMS@NEWS-PRESS.COM • APRIL 7, 2010
1:10 A.M. — If the American Medical Association were to trumpet new research concluding viruses cause disease, the reaction would likely be the same: So? Tell us something we don’t know.
That’s how children’s advocates greeted a national study’s findings that life can be hard for former foster children when they grow up.
Unemployment, homelessness and poor educations plague them at higher rates than they do other young adults, according to research by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and Partners for Our Children at the University of Washington.
The national study, released today, found that of the 30,000 young people who age out of foster care annually, only 6 percent had finished college by age 24, fewer than half had jobs and almost 40 percent had been homeless or “couch-surfed” since leaving foster care.
In Florida, children leave the system at 18, said Nadereh Salim, chief executive officer of the Children’s Network of Southwest Florida, which serves children in state care, but they can get up to $1,200 a month and educational and social help until they’re 23.
That 23rd birthday looms large in Jason York’s mind as he thinks about his future. Now 21, York spent his childhood in foster care, never logging more than a year in a single school.
“It can be kind of heartbreaking growing up among strangers,” he says.
Living alone in an apartment with no airconditioning, York takes computer and graphics classes at High Tech Central in Fort Myers, but worries about what will happen when his stipend dries up.
“I still don’t have any real job skills,” he says. “I know it’s not going to be easy.”
Although the Children’s Network has three independent living specialists who help former foster children with everything from finding an apartment to balancing checkbooks to planning meals, it doesn’t have somewhere for them to live while they’re finding their feet as adults.
That’s a gap Jane Bell and Jam Sommer want to help fill. The two women, a former probation officer and attorney, respectively, want to create a nonprofit residential stepping stone — a place these young adults can live independently with on-site guidance and support.
“My dream is that we’d be able to purchase an efficiency hotel,” says Bell. “That way, we could still provide them with privacy they need — give them a key and place to call their own — while teaching them about life.”
Bell says she’s seen too many “dual kids” — those both in the dependency and the juvenile justice systems who wind up at the Salvation Army, a rescue mission or in jail once they leave foster care.
“If you want someone to end up in corrections as an adult, lock them up as a juvenile,” says Sommer. “All the studies show that’s the surest way to make that happen.”
How, when to help
The idea, says Bell, is to catch them at front end rather than at the back — before they get in trouble with the law, she says. “Plus, it’s much cheaper to do it this way.”
Salim wants to see these young adults housed somewhere affordable, near jobs, shopping, schools and public transportation. She’d also like to see the front end extended even further.
“This study reinforces what we already know: We need to prevent the removal of children and serve them in their own homes. No matter how many mentors you throw at them, the ultimate solution does lies somewhere else.”
Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform puts it this way: “The way you solve the problem of kids aging out is preventing so many of them from aging in,” he says. “No matter how hard you try — and it’s important to try hard — you can only undo so much damage after the fact.”
The key, Wexler says, is not taking children from troubled families, but helping them heal so they can stay together.
“Everybody sympathizes with the 16-year-old who has no future and no skills,” Wexler says, “but, ultimately, the best way to help that child is to help that child’s mother.”
http://www.news-press.com/article/20100407/NEWS01/100406101/1002/Foster-kids--future-tough
Adult life hard when they 'age out' of care
BY AMY BENNETT WILLIAMS • AWILLIAMS@NEWS-PRESS.COM • APRIL 7, 2010
1:10 A.M. — If the American Medical Association were to trumpet new research concluding viruses cause disease, the reaction would likely be the same: So? Tell us something we don’t know.
That’s how children’s advocates greeted a national study’s findings that life can be hard for former foster children when they grow up.
Unemployment, homelessness and poor educations plague them at higher rates than they do other young adults, according to research by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and Partners for Our Children at the University of Washington.
The national study, released today, found that of the 30,000 young people who age out of foster care annually, only 6 percent had finished college by age 24, fewer than half had jobs and almost 40 percent had been homeless or “couch-surfed” since leaving foster care.
In Florida, children leave the system at 18, said Nadereh Salim, chief executive officer of the Children’s Network of Southwest Florida, which serves children in state care, but they can get up to $1,200 a month and educational and social help until they’re 23.
That 23rd birthday looms large in Jason York’s mind as he thinks about his future. Now 21, York spent his childhood in foster care, never logging more than a year in a single school.
“It can be kind of heartbreaking growing up among strangers,” he says.
Living alone in an apartment with no airconditioning, York takes computer and graphics classes at High Tech Central in Fort Myers, but worries about what will happen when his stipend dries up.
“I still don’t have any real job skills,” he says. “I know it’s not going to be easy.”
Although the Children’s Network has three independent living specialists who help former foster children with everything from finding an apartment to balancing checkbooks to planning meals, it doesn’t have somewhere for them to live while they’re finding their feet as adults.
That’s a gap Jane Bell and Jam Sommer want to help fill. The two women, a former probation officer and attorney, respectively, want to create a nonprofit residential stepping stone — a place these young adults can live independently with on-site guidance and support.
“My dream is that we’d be able to purchase an efficiency hotel,” says Bell. “That way, we could still provide them with privacy they need — give them a key and place to call their own — while teaching them about life.”
Bell says she’s seen too many “dual kids” — those both in the dependency and the juvenile justice systems who wind up at the Salvation Army, a rescue mission or in jail once they leave foster care.
“If you want someone to end up in corrections as an adult, lock them up as a juvenile,” says Sommer. “All the studies show that’s the surest way to make that happen.”
How, when to help
The idea, says Bell, is to catch them at front end rather than at the back — before they get in trouble with the law, she says. “Plus, it’s much cheaper to do it this way.”
Salim wants to see these young adults housed somewhere affordable, near jobs, shopping, schools and public transportation. She’d also like to see the front end extended even further.
“This study reinforces what we already know: We need to prevent the removal of children and serve them in their own homes. No matter how many mentors you throw at them, the ultimate solution does lies somewhere else.”
Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform puts it this way: “The way you solve the problem of kids aging out is preventing so many of them from aging in,” he says. “No matter how hard you try — and it’s important to try hard — you can only undo so much damage after the fact.”
The key, Wexler says, is not taking children from troubled families, but helping them heal so they can stay together.
“Everybody sympathizes with the 16-year-old who has no future and no skills,” Wexler says, “but, ultimately, the best way to help that child is to help that child’s mother.”
http://www.news-press.com/article/20100407/NEWS01/100406101/1002/Foster-kids--future-tough
Study Finds More Woes Following Foster Care
Study Finds More Woes Following Foster Care
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: April 6, 2010
Only half the youths who had turned 18 and “aged out” of foster care were employed by their mid-20s. Six in 10 men had been convicted of a crime, and three in four women, many of them with children of their own, were receiving some form of public assistance. Only six in 100 had completed even a community college degree.
Enlarge This Image
Phil Sussman for The New York Times
Cameron Anderson, 21, who went through several foster homes, completed homework in Tampa, Fla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/us/07foster.html
Times Topic: Foster Care
The dismal outlook for youths who are thrust into a shaky adulthood from the foster care system — now numbering some 30,000 annually — has been documented with new precision by a long-term study released Wednesday, the largest to follow such children over many years.
Researchers studied the outcomes for 602 youths in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, and compared them with their peers who had not been in foster care. Most youths had entered the foster care system in their early teens and then were required to leave it at 18 or, in the case of Illinois, 21.
“We took them away from their parents on the assumption that we as a society would do a better job of raising them,” said Mark Courtney, a social work researcher at the University of Washington who led the study with colleagues from the Partners for Our Children program at Washington and the Chapin Hall center at the University of Chicago. “We’ve invested a lot money and time in their care, and by many measures they’re still doing very poorly.”
Over the last decade, the federal government and many states have started to assist former foster care youths with education grants, temporary housing subsidies and, in some places, extra years of state custody and support. The new data showed that just over half of them are doing reasonably well and benefit from such aid. But they throw a spotlight, researchers said, on two groups that need more sweeping and lasting help.
About one-fourth of the people in the study, mainly women, are receiving public aid and struggling to raise their own children, usually without a high school degree. Researchers found that one in five in a second group, mainly men, are badly floundering, with multiple criminal convictions, low education and incomes and, often, mental health or substance abuse problems.
Once they leave foster care, these most troubled youths often have no reliable adults to advise them or provide emotional support, said Gary Stangler, director of the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, a private foundation. “When these kids make a mistake, it’s life altering, they have nothing to fall back on,” Mr. Stangler said.
Finding a mentor who provides “that backbone you need” has made all the difference, said Cameron Anderson, 21, of Tampa, Fla., who entered foster care at 15 after he got into trouble with the law, then lived in group homes.
Mr. Anderson, who is now in community college and works at a printer cartridge company, receives education and other financial aid that has helped him keep an apartment. But he has made some missteps since moving out on his own, he said, like not paying bills in full so he could buy shoes and hanging out with old friends who were bad influences.
Last fall, he was introduced to a mentor, an investor in Tampa, by a Casey program, Connected by 25. The two now speak daily, Mr. Anderson said, discussing “school and life in general, even to the point where he’ll say, ‘Hey, are you using protection?’ ”
Had he had such a relationship earlier, Mr. Anderson said, “it would have saved me from a ton of bridges I’ve had to cross.”
While younger children are often adopted when their parents’ rights are terminated, fewer prospective parents want to adopt teenagers. Recent research, including the new study, shows that most foster children, even though they have been removed from their homes, maintain ties with a parent or other relative. Some agencies are trying to support such ties or to locate relatives who might adopt the children or provide long-term support.
Illinois, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia now allow youths to remain in foster care to age 21, and some states help with transitional housing.
Congress in 2008 passed a law providing matching money to states that extend foster care to age 21, something that the authors of the study call for. But in the face of large budget deficits, few states have signed on so far.
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: April 6, 2010
Only half the youths who had turned 18 and “aged out” of foster care were employed by their mid-20s. Six in 10 men had been convicted of a crime, and three in four women, many of them with children of their own, were receiving some form of public assistance. Only six in 100 had completed even a community college degree.
Enlarge This Image
Phil Sussman for The New York Times
Cameron Anderson, 21, who went through several foster homes, completed homework in Tampa, Fla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/us/07foster.html
Times Topic: Foster Care
The dismal outlook for youths who are thrust into a shaky adulthood from the foster care system — now numbering some 30,000 annually — has been documented with new precision by a long-term study released Wednesday, the largest to follow such children over many years.
Researchers studied the outcomes for 602 youths in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, and compared them with their peers who had not been in foster care. Most youths had entered the foster care system in their early teens and then were required to leave it at 18 or, in the case of Illinois, 21.
“We took them away from their parents on the assumption that we as a society would do a better job of raising them,” said Mark Courtney, a social work researcher at the University of Washington who led the study with colleagues from the Partners for Our Children program at Washington and the Chapin Hall center at the University of Chicago. “We’ve invested a lot money and time in their care, and by many measures they’re still doing very poorly.”
Over the last decade, the federal government and many states have started to assist former foster care youths with education grants, temporary housing subsidies and, in some places, extra years of state custody and support. The new data showed that just over half of them are doing reasonably well and benefit from such aid. But they throw a spotlight, researchers said, on two groups that need more sweeping and lasting help.
About one-fourth of the people in the study, mainly women, are receiving public aid and struggling to raise their own children, usually without a high school degree. Researchers found that one in five in a second group, mainly men, are badly floundering, with multiple criminal convictions, low education and incomes and, often, mental health or substance abuse problems.
Once they leave foster care, these most troubled youths often have no reliable adults to advise them or provide emotional support, said Gary Stangler, director of the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, a private foundation. “When these kids make a mistake, it’s life altering, they have nothing to fall back on,” Mr. Stangler said.
Finding a mentor who provides “that backbone you need” has made all the difference, said Cameron Anderson, 21, of Tampa, Fla., who entered foster care at 15 after he got into trouble with the law, then lived in group homes.
Mr. Anderson, who is now in community college and works at a printer cartridge company, receives education and other financial aid that has helped him keep an apartment. But he has made some missteps since moving out on his own, he said, like not paying bills in full so he could buy shoes and hanging out with old friends who were bad influences.
Last fall, he was introduced to a mentor, an investor in Tampa, by a Casey program, Connected by 25. The two now speak daily, Mr. Anderson said, discussing “school and life in general, even to the point where he’ll say, ‘Hey, are you using protection?’ ”
Had he had such a relationship earlier, Mr. Anderson said, “it would have saved me from a ton of bridges I’ve had to cross.”
While younger children are often adopted when their parents’ rights are terminated, fewer prospective parents want to adopt teenagers. Recent research, including the new study, shows that most foster children, even though they have been removed from their homes, maintain ties with a parent or other relative. Some agencies are trying to support such ties or to locate relatives who might adopt the children or provide long-term support.
Illinois, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia now allow youths to remain in foster care to age 21, and some states help with transitional housing.
Congress in 2008 passed a law providing matching money to states that extend foster care to age 21, something that the authors of the study call for. But in the face of large budget deficits, few states have signed on so far.
Federal waiver key to keeping kids out of foster care
Opinion: Federal waiver key to keeping kids out of foster care
APRIL 7, 2010
Our bottom-of-the-barrel approach to managing Florida's basic responsibilities to its citizens has children's advocates on edge — and rightfully so.
It took securing a federal waiver for Florida to snag much-needed stimulus dollars for education last year. Additional federal dollars will be needed again this year, though only the state Senate is acknowledging this reliance.
The ugly truth is that Florida is just scraping by on its own resources, yet there are a number of social-service federal-matching programs that the state cannot afford to lose out on.
One in which we absolutely must do our part is the very successful tool that has helped the state's foster care program enormously, almost turned it around into a national model. Called the "IV-E waiver," it finances a pilot program that allows state agencies and service providers to intervene early in cases of suspected neglect or abuse involving minor children. To retain this waiver, Florida legislators must keep $4.1 million in nonrecurring funds that have kept the program going since 2006. The pilot program, however, is set to expire in 2011.
"We can't seek a waiver for a waiver," said Jane Johnson, executive director of the Children's Home Society, explaining that there's no way for Florida to get around seeking this aid. "We're going to pay for these children one way or another, either now or five or 10 years down the road (in corrections)," Ms. Johnson said.
The Children's Home Society is one of the first responders when Florida's Department of Children and Families caseworkers are called to investigate claims of abuse or neglect. Money provided through the IV-E waiver allows CHS and other service providers to intervene in the hours and days following such a call, instead of waiting until after the child has been removed from the home, a situation that is much more grave.
Where the claim would normally tip off a chain of events that could lead to the dissolution of a family, services ranging from counseling to emergency living-expense assistance are paid for using IV-E money, allowing more families to stay together in a safe and healthy way. This approach decreases the number of children living in out-of-home care or being thrust into the child-welfare system.
(2 of 2)
Ms. Johnson, along with David Bundy, president of CHS, point to the numbers as indicators of the IV-E waiver's success.
Before the waiver was granted, 30,000 children were in out-of-home care; that number dropped to 22,000 after the intervention tool was introduced. The average number of adoptions has doubled from 1,500 annually to 3,000 each year. Some 800 older children (teenagers close to aging out of the system, though they lacked adequate preparation to live on their own) received aid from CHS before the waiver; afterward, some 2,000 received aid, including those learning to make their own way through Independent Living Services.
This legislative session could be a tipping point for Florida. The programs legislators chose to adequately fund will determine our ability to bounce back when the economy turns around. Programs tied to federal matching money should be protected to the best of our ability — especially those like the IV-E waiver, which affects the lives of children and families for a generation or more.
Florida cannot afford to let this match be broken. Thousands of dependent children depend on it.
Ms. Johnson, along with David Bundy, president of CHS, point to the numbers as indicators of the IV-E waiver's success.
Before the waiver was granted, 30,000 children were in out-of-home care; that number dropped to 22,000 after the intervention tool was introduced. The average number of adoptions has doubled from 1,500 annually to 3,000 each year. Some 800 older children (teenagers close to aging out of the system, though they lacked adequate preparation to live on their own) received aid from CHS before the waiver; afterward, some 2,000 received aid, including those learning to make their own way through Independent Living Services.
This legislative session could be a tipping point for Florida. The programs legislators chose to adequately fund will determine our ability to bounce back when the economy turns around. Programs tied to federal matching money should be protected to the best of our ability — especially those like the IV-E waiver, which affects the lives of children and families for a generation or more.
Florida cannot afford to let this match be broken. Thousands of dependent children depend on it.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100407/OPINION01/4070307/1006/opinion/Our-Opinion-Federal-waiver-key-to-keeping-kids-out-of-foster-care
APRIL 7, 2010
Our bottom-of-the-barrel approach to managing Florida's basic responsibilities to its citizens has children's advocates on edge — and rightfully so.
It took securing a federal waiver for Florida to snag much-needed stimulus dollars for education last year. Additional federal dollars will be needed again this year, though only the state Senate is acknowledging this reliance.
The ugly truth is that Florida is just scraping by on its own resources, yet there are a number of social-service federal-matching programs that the state cannot afford to lose out on.
One in which we absolutely must do our part is the very successful tool that has helped the state's foster care program enormously, almost turned it around into a national model. Called the "IV-E waiver," it finances a pilot program that allows state agencies and service providers to intervene early in cases of suspected neglect or abuse involving minor children. To retain this waiver, Florida legislators must keep $4.1 million in nonrecurring funds that have kept the program going since 2006. The pilot program, however, is set to expire in 2011.
"We can't seek a waiver for a waiver," said Jane Johnson, executive director of the Children's Home Society, explaining that there's no way for Florida to get around seeking this aid. "We're going to pay for these children one way or another, either now or five or 10 years down the road (in corrections)," Ms. Johnson said.
The Children's Home Society is one of the first responders when Florida's Department of Children and Families caseworkers are called to investigate claims of abuse or neglect. Money provided through the IV-E waiver allows CHS and other service providers to intervene in the hours and days following such a call, instead of waiting until after the child has been removed from the home, a situation that is much more grave.
Where the claim would normally tip off a chain of events that could lead to the dissolution of a family, services ranging from counseling to emergency living-expense assistance are paid for using IV-E money, allowing more families to stay together in a safe and healthy way. This approach decreases the number of children living in out-of-home care or being thrust into the child-welfare system.
(2 of 2)
Ms. Johnson, along with David Bundy, president of CHS, point to the numbers as indicators of the IV-E waiver's success.
Before the waiver was granted, 30,000 children were in out-of-home care; that number dropped to 22,000 after the intervention tool was introduced. The average number of adoptions has doubled from 1,500 annually to 3,000 each year. Some 800 older children (teenagers close to aging out of the system, though they lacked adequate preparation to live on their own) received aid from CHS before the waiver; afterward, some 2,000 received aid, including those learning to make their own way through Independent Living Services.
This legislative session could be a tipping point for Florida. The programs legislators chose to adequately fund will determine our ability to bounce back when the economy turns around. Programs tied to federal matching money should be protected to the best of our ability — especially those like the IV-E waiver, which affects the lives of children and families for a generation or more.
Florida cannot afford to let this match be broken. Thousands of dependent children depend on it.
Ms. Johnson, along with David Bundy, president of CHS, point to the numbers as indicators of the IV-E waiver's success.
Before the waiver was granted, 30,000 children were in out-of-home care; that number dropped to 22,000 after the intervention tool was introduced. The average number of adoptions has doubled from 1,500 annually to 3,000 each year. Some 800 older children (teenagers close to aging out of the system, though they lacked adequate preparation to live on their own) received aid from CHS before the waiver; afterward, some 2,000 received aid, including those learning to make their own way through Independent Living Services.
This legislative session could be a tipping point for Florida. The programs legislators chose to adequately fund will determine our ability to bounce back when the economy turns around. Programs tied to federal matching money should be protected to the best of our ability — especially those like the IV-E waiver, which affects the lives of children and families for a generation or more.
Florida cannot afford to let this match be broken. Thousands of dependent children depend on it.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100407/OPINION01/4070307/1006/opinion/Our-Opinion-Federal-waiver-key-to-keeping-kids-out-of-foster-care
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)