April 28, 2010
Parents sue over Russian adoption
Posted: 07:00 AM ET
Alina Cho - Correspondent, CNN's American Morning
Filed under: World
(CNN) – Russian adoptions are firmly in the spotlight right now after the recent story of a Tennessee woman who put her adopted son on a plane by himself to Russia, saying he was too much to handle.
Today, an equally controversial and heart-wrenching case is grabbing national attention. Our Alina Cho went to Virginia where she spoke to an adoptive family who says a Russian orphanage misled them.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/parents-sue-over-russian-adoption/
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 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Foster Child Starves as State Banks Cash
INVESTIGATORS: Foster Child Starves as State Banks Cash
Contributor: Ann Mullen
Email: amullen@wxyz.com
Last Update: 7:00 pm
FOSTER CARE: Investigative producer Ann Mullen explains the story of a child who starved to death
FOSTER CARE: Mother says her son would still be alive if he was kept at home
Slideshow
Johnny's mother tried to get help for her disabled child. Instead, a Michigan agency took him away, collected thousands of dollars to feed him each month... And then he starved to death.
You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News.
(WXYZ) - All she wanted was help caring for her wheel-chair bound son Johnny. The state’s answer was to put him in a foster care facility. Johnny’s mom would have preferred to have someone help her at home, but the state only offers very limited services. A year after Johnny was in foster care, the 10-year old boy starved to death.
We have all heard the horrendous cases of kids who were abused and some who died in Michigan’s foster care system. Our story exposes the state’s financial incentive to keep kids in the foster care system. Federal law sets it up that way—the more kids in the state system, the more money the federal government gives Michigan.
The foster care facilities contracted with the state cash-in too. In Johnny’s case, the foster care facility got $12,000 a month to care for him. It is a heart-wrenching case that illuminates problems in the system, including how difficult it is to get your children out of foster care. Johnny’s mom fought to get him out of the system, but he died before she succeeded.
For several months, the Action News Investigators dug deep into Michigan's tragically flawed foster care system. Along with Johnny's story, we also met a father who fought all the way to the state Supreme Court to get his boys out of the system. The state’s main reason for terminating his parental rights was his finances. We all know people who are struggling in this economy—and as one attorney said, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.
The state is making some changes as a result of a class action lawsuit. A court-appointed monitor now oversees the Department of Human Services. Progress is underway, but some critics say more needs to be done to help parents keep their children rather than put them in a flawed foster care system.
You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News. Watch and let us know what you think of state's foster system and it's ability to care for the children of Michigan.
http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/investigators/story/INVESTIGATORS-Foster-Child-Starves-as-State-Banks/33RT8FVT1k6QZ7-xNruADQ.cspx
Contributor: Ann Mullen
Email: amullen@wxyz.com
Last Update: 7:00 pm
FOSTER CARE: Investigative producer Ann Mullen explains the story of a child who starved to death
FOSTER CARE: Mother says her son would still be alive if he was kept at home
Slideshow
Johnny's mother tried to get help for her disabled child. Instead, a Michigan agency took him away, collected thousands of dollars to feed him each month... And then he starved to death.
You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News.
(WXYZ) - All she wanted was help caring for her wheel-chair bound son Johnny. The state’s answer was to put him in a foster care facility. Johnny’s mom would have preferred to have someone help her at home, but the state only offers very limited services. A year after Johnny was in foster care, the 10-year old boy starved to death.
We have all heard the horrendous cases of kids who were abused and some who died in Michigan’s foster care system. Our story exposes the state’s financial incentive to keep kids in the foster care system. Federal law sets it up that way—the more kids in the state system, the more money the federal government gives Michigan.
The foster care facilities contracted with the state cash-in too. In Johnny’s case, the foster care facility got $12,000 a month to care for him. It is a heart-wrenching case that illuminates problems in the system, including how difficult it is to get your children out of foster care. Johnny’s mom fought to get him out of the system, but he died before she succeeded.
For several months, the Action News Investigators dug deep into Michigan's tragically flawed foster care system. Along with Johnny's story, we also met a father who fought all the way to the state Supreme Court to get his boys out of the system. The state’s main reason for terminating his parental rights was his finances. We all know people who are struggling in this economy—and as one attorney said, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.
The state is making some changes as a result of a class action lawsuit. A court-appointed monitor now oversees the Department of Human Services. Progress is underway, but some critics say more needs to be done to help parents keep their children rather than put them in a flawed foster care system.
You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News. Watch and let us know what you think of state's foster system and it's ability to care for the children of Michigan.
http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/investigators/story/INVESTIGATORS-Foster-Child-Starves-as-State-Banks/33RT8FVT1k6QZ7-xNruADQ.cspx
Master of Social Work Program Agreement
Master of Social Work Program Agreement
Title IV-E Internship Program
NH DHHS Division for Children, Youth and Families
UNH Department of Social Work
and
, Grantee/Student
The Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), hereafter referred to as the Agency; the University of New Hampshire Department of Social Work, hereafter referred to as Department; and , hereafter referred to as Grantee/Student, do hereby make and enter into this mutual agreement as specified below:
I. The Agency agrees to:
A. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Title IV-E grant, to pay the tuition for said Grantee/Student who is currently enrolled in the Master of Social Work Program at UNH, and has enough credits to be a senior.
B. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay all mandatory fees (i.e. registration costs) imposed on students by UNH.
C. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay a minimal stipend to the Grantee/Student if the Grantee/Student is a full-time student. This stipend may be used to purchase books, materials, and other necessities required to complete the program.
D. Coordinate, assist and/or arrange practica for the Grantee/Student within a child welfare related agency.
E. If the Grantee/Student is currently employed by the Agency, allow said Grantee/Student to work a “flex time” schedule that will allow attendance to classes and practica as required if during normal work hours of the Agency (8:00 AM-4:30 PM).
F. The DCYF Title IV-E Grant will not support other costs associated with the completion of the program including travel costs to and from classrooms and/or practica.
G. Notify the Grantee/Student of employment opportunities within the Agency that are deemed appropriate and for which the Grantee/Student meets the minimum job qualifications as required by the NH Department of Personnel.
II. The Grantee/Student Agrees to:
A. Participate in the Master of Social Work program and curriculum prescribed by the UNH Department of Social Work, subject to approval by the School’s faculty advisor.
B. Participate in the required courses as outlined for the Child Welfare Program within the Department of Social Work.
C. Refund to the Agency, the previously granted tuition, as well as all mandatory fees and stipends if said Grantee/Student:
a. Fails to complete the course(s), or
b. Receives a grade of C or less in the course(s), or a C+ for a Masters Level
D. Complete a service time commitment to the Agency of one-year full-time employment for each equivalent year of tuition and/or stipend assistance.
E. Grantee/Students that are not current employees of the Agency agree to accept employment within the Agency, if and when offered, in any of its district offices throughout the state when a vacancy is available.
F. Refund the entire amount of tuition and stipends, including an administrative fee of 10% of the total cost expended by the Agency if said Grantee/Student does not accept employment within the Agency or leaves said employment prior to the agreed amount of time stated in Section II, D.
G. No refund will be required if there is not employment opportunity within six (6) months of the Student’s completion of the Program or if the Agency does not hire the student within six (6) months.
H. The Grantee/Student agrees prior to program practicum to adhere to, submit to, and to sign in agreement:
a. That they possess a valid driver’s license, have reliable transportaton and liability insurance
b. A criminal records check
I. DCYF ethics policy:
a. Confidentiality policy
It is important to note that all stipends are dependent on a year-to-date Federal IV-E contract. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that DCYF will finance your entire academic program.
Grantee/Student
Date
DCYF Director or Designee
Date
Chair of the Dept. of Social Work/ Designee
Date
http://www.shhs.unh.edu/sw/docs/CWTG_Agreement_MSW.pdf
Title IV-E Internship Program
NH DHHS Division for Children, Youth and Families
UNH Department of Social Work
and
, Grantee/Student
The Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), hereafter referred to as the Agency; the University of New Hampshire Department of Social Work, hereafter referred to as Department; and , hereafter referred to as Grantee/Student, do hereby make and enter into this mutual agreement as specified below:
I. The Agency agrees to:
A. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Title IV-E grant, to pay the tuition for said Grantee/Student who is currently enrolled in the Master of Social Work Program at UNH, and has enough credits to be a senior.
B. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay all mandatory fees (i.e. registration costs) imposed on students by UNH.
C. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay a minimal stipend to the Grantee/Student if the Grantee/Student is a full-time student. This stipend may be used to purchase books, materials, and other necessities required to complete the program.
D. Coordinate, assist and/or arrange practica for the Grantee/Student within a child welfare related agency.
E. If the Grantee/Student is currently employed by the Agency, allow said Grantee/Student to work a “flex time” schedule that will allow attendance to classes and practica as required if during normal work hours of the Agency (8:00 AM-4:30 PM).
F. The DCYF Title IV-E Grant will not support other costs associated with the completion of the program including travel costs to and from classrooms and/or practica.
G. Notify the Grantee/Student of employment opportunities within the Agency that are deemed appropriate and for which the Grantee/Student meets the minimum job qualifications as required by the NH Department of Personnel.
II. The Grantee/Student Agrees to:
A. Participate in the Master of Social Work program and curriculum prescribed by the UNH Department of Social Work, subject to approval by the School’s faculty advisor.
B. Participate in the required courses as outlined for the Child Welfare Program within the Department of Social Work.
C. Refund to the Agency, the previously granted tuition, as well as all mandatory fees and stipends if said Grantee/Student:
a. Fails to complete the course(s), or
b. Receives a grade of C or less in the course(s), or a C+ for a Masters Level
D. Complete a service time commitment to the Agency of one-year full-time employment for each equivalent year of tuition and/or stipend assistance.
E. Grantee/Students that are not current employees of the Agency agree to accept employment within the Agency, if and when offered, in any of its district offices throughout the state when a vacancy is available.
F. Refund the entire amount of tuition and stipends, including an administrative fee of 10% of the total cost expended by the Agency if said Grantee/Student does not accept employment within the Agency or leaves said employment prior to the agreed amount of time stated in Section II, D.
G. No refund will be required if there is not employment opportunity within six (6) months of the Student’s completion of the Program or if the Agency does not hire the student within six (6) months.
H. The Grantee/Student agrees prior to program practicum to adhere to, submit to, and to sign in agreement:
a. That they possess a valid driver’s license, have reliable transportaton and liability insurance
b. A criminal records check
I. DCYF ethics policy:
a. Confidentiality policy
It is important to note that all stipends are dependent on a year-to-date Federal IV-E contract. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that DCYF will finance your entire academic program.
Grantee/Student
Date
DCYF Director or Designee
Date
Chair of the Dept. of Social Work/ Designee
Date
http://www.shhs.unh.edu/sw/docs/CWTG_Agreement_MSW.pdf
CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT
CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT
NEW MATERIAL POSTED JULY 7, 2005: EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
Download PDF file of EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
PRESS RELEASE
July 3, 2005
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE
Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.
Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:
Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."
The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)
A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:
Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.
Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54
The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)
Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at
http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf (167.2Kb)
http://www.thesociologycenter.com/slavetrade.html
NEW MATERIAL POSTED JULY 7, 2005: EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
Download PDF file of EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
PRESS RELEASE
July 3, 2005
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE
Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.
Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:
Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."
The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)
A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:
Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.
Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54
The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)
Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at
http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf (167.2Kb)
http://www.thesociologycenter.com/slavetrade.html
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
unhappygrammy-Does NH DCYF have a requisite license to advertise our children and grandchildren for Adoption, or are they above the law on this one also?
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
State Statutes Results
New Hampshire
Adoption
Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 273 KB) publication.
Use of Advertisement
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 170-E:39
A child-placing agency licensed or operating under a permit issued by the department may publish advertisements of the services for which it is specifically licensed or issued a permit under this subdivision.
No person who is required to obtain a license or permit under this subdivision may advertise or cause to be published an advertisement soliciting or offering a child for placement unless the person has obtained the requisite license or permit.
Use of Intermediaries/Facilitators
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
State Statutes Results
New Hampshire
Adoption
Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 273 KB) publication.
Use of Advertisement
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 170-E:39
A child-placing agency licensed or operating under a permit issued by the department may publish advertisements of the services for which it is specifically licensed or issued a permit under this subdivision.
No person who is required to obtain a license or permit under this subdivision may advertise or cause to be published an advertisement soliciting or offering a child for placement unless the person has obtained the requisite license or permit.
Use of Intermediaries/Facilitators
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.
The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.
This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.
In 2008:
Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.
In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.
A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.
“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”
He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”
“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”
Posted by Affordable Housing at 3:14 PM
http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.
The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.
This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.
In 2008:
Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.
In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.
A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.
“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”
He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”
“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”
Posted by Affordable Housing at 3:14 PM
http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/
Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order
Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 2:17 AM EDT
Local News HeadlinesMore>>
Nye County Sheriff's Deputy shot & killed in the line of duty identified
McCarran International Airport unveils new parking payment system
19 year old charged with murder in death of teen
Child hit by vehicle near Palomino & Campbell
125 mph winds rip through Reno
Bodies of 2 Las Vegas men possibly found at Zion Nat'l Park
Las Vegas officials hold town hall for senior citizens
Family overcome with emotions at scene of apparent murder-suicide
Rory Reid says AZ immigration law "wrong-headed"
Suspect arrested after shooting at bail bondsman near Durango & Alexander
The last thing law enforcement wants to do is take a child from its parents. Still, they have to do exactly that thousands of times a year. But this story is different because of what they did with the child once they took her away from her mother.
The consensus is, keep a child with it's extended family whenever possible. That's the approach Child Protective Services wants to take. But Monday we met a woman who says they didn't do that in her case, even though they had a court order telling them to.
One thing is absolutely clear. Everybody wants what's best for baby Sara.
"She can't defend herself. She's only three months old," said her mother April Register.
When Child Protective Services was going to take away April's son and daughter, April knew she wanted her mother-in-law to have custody.
"She's a very strong woman. I trust her entirely," she said.
But they went to a foster family instead. CPS sayes a member of the grandmother's household failed criminal background checks.
5 days later, the 3 month old little girl was out of foster care, and in the hospital.
"When I saw her I saw how bad it really was. She had a diaper rash that was red and swollen that went all the way up her back. She had a deep cut on her knee," aid Register.
April's convinced that her 3 month old daughter was severely neglected, even abused while in foster care. Both Child Protective Services and North Las Vegas Police are investigating that. But no matter what the outcome of those investigations, the question remains: should those kids have been in foster care, or with their grandmother in the first place.
"Very surprised," said Attorney Tom Michaelides of the placement decision. "The reason why is there was no ambiguity in the judge's order."
Michaelides is handling the case for April. He says a family court judge had told CPS to place the kids with their grandmother. But they didn't.
"I've never in 15 years every had anybody completely ignore a judge's order like that. Especially a government agency," he said.
Even after all of that, Child Protective Services is sticking with their original argument. Today the kids were placed with their grandmother. And in court Monday, CPS told the judge, they still think he got it wrong.
Meanwhile, April Register herself is still under investigation for the incident that started all of this. A mistake, she says, that put prescription drugs in the hands of her son, and her son in an emergency room.
People are going ot want to know why are they in the system? We told her.
"They are going to come at me with whatever they can because they're in trouble right now. I'll do whatever it takes to get my kids back," she told us.
Child Protective Services told me, they just don't agree that baby Sara is best off in her grandmother's house. And they have different take on what landed the three-month-old in the hospital too. They say it wasn't abuse, but dehydration.
The foster parent assigned to take care of Sara and her brother brought them back to Child Haven - saying the kids were more than she could handle.
http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=10177951
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 2:17 AM EDT
Local News HeadlinesMore>>
Nye County Sheriff's Deputy shot & killed in the line of duty identified
McCarran International Airport unveils new parking payment system
19 year old charged with murder in death of teen
Child hit by vehicle near Palomino & Campbell
125 mph winds rip through Reno
Bodies of 2 Las Vegas men possibly found at Zion Nat'l Park
Las Vegas officials hold town hall for senior citizens
Family overcome with emotions at scene of apparent murder-suicide
Rory Reid says AZ immigration law "wrong-headed"
Suspect arrested after shooting at bail bondsman near Durango & Alexander
The last thing law enforcement wants to do is take a child from its parents. Still, they have to do exactly that thousands of times a year. But this story is different because of what they did with the child once they took her away from her mother.
The consensus is, keep a child with it's extended family whenever possible. That's the approach Child Protective Services wants to take. But Monday we met a woman who says they didn't do that in her case, even though they had a court order telling them to.
One thing is absolutely clear. Everybody wants what's best for baby Sara.
"She can't defend herself. She's only three months old," said her mother April Register.
When Child Protective Services was going to take away April's son and daughter, April knew she wanted her mother-in-law to have custody.
"She's a very strong woman. I trust her entirely," she said.
But they went to a foster family instead. CPS sayes a member of the grandmother's household failed criminal background checks.
5 days later, the 3 month old little girl was out of foster care, and in the hospital.
"When I saw her I saw how bad it really was. She had a diaper rash that was red and swollen that went all the way up her back. She had a deep cut on her knee," aid Register.
April's convinced that her 3 month old daughter was severely neglected, even abused while in foster care. Both Child Protective Services and North Las Vegas Police are investigating that. But no matter what the outcome of those investigations, the question remains: should those kids have been in foster care, or with their grandmother in the first place.
"Very surprised," said Attorney Tom Michaelides of the placement decision. "The reason why is there was no ambiguity in the judge's order."
Michaelides is handling the case for April. He says a family court judge had told CPS to place the kids with their grandmother. But they didn't.
"I've never in 15 years every had anybody completely ignore a judge's order like that. Especially a government agency," he said.
Even after all of that, Child Protective Services is sticking with their original argument. Today the kids were placed with their grandmother. And in court Monday, CPS told the judge, they still think he got it wrong.
Meanwhile, April Register herself is still under investigation for the incident that started all of this. A mistake, she says, that put prescription drugs in the hands of her son, and her son in an emergency room.
People are going ot want to know why are they in the system? We told her.
"They are going to come at me with whatever they can because they're in trouble right now. I'll do whatever it takes to get my kids back," she told us.
Child Protective Services told me, they just don't agree that baby Sara is best off in her grandmother's house. And they have different take on what landed the three-month-old in the hospital too. They say it wasn't abuse, but dehydration.
The foster parent assigned to take care of Sara and her brother brought them back to Child Haven - saying the kids were more than she could handle.
http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=10177951
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)