Foster-care policy oppressive, critics say
BY LINDSAY KINES, TIMES COLONIST MAY 12, 2010
Foster children are sometimes kept in care longer than necessary because of an “oppressive” government policy that can render their parents homeless, legal advocates say.
West Coast LEAF and Pivot Legal Society want Ombudsperson Kim Carter to investigate the policy, which they say discriminates against impoverished women and aboriginals.
Under the policy, parents on welfare lose part of their shelter allowance if their child is taken into the temporary care of the government. A single mother with one child would lose nearly $200 a month — a 34 per cent cut — and be forced to find a place to live for as little as $375.
“So you can imagine in a city like Vancouver or Victoria, finding a place is extremely difficult on that low a shelter allowance,” said Kasari Govender, a lawyer with West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund.
The advocates argue that parents end up homeless or living in such shabby conditions that they can’t get their children back — even if they’ve taken steps to deal with whatever problems caused social workers to remove the kids in the first place.
“It results in children staying in foster care for a longer period of time,” the advocates wrote in an official complaint to Carter’s office. “It could even result in a parent losing custody of their child permanently.”
Govender said the policy, which has been in place for years, has the potential to harm hundreds of people, since one in three child removals involve a family on welfare.
The advocates argue that, in effect, the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, which controls welfare payments, is undercutting the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which is trying to keep families together. The complaint says society will pay the price since children in the foster-care system fare worse than those raised by their parents.
Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman was unavailable for comment yesterday. The ministry issued a brief statement noting that its workers have the discretion to allow families to keep their full shelter rate for up to three months after a child is taken into temporary care.
But Pivot and West Coast LEAF say the extension is of little use, since most child-protection matters take longer than that to resolve. By the time the child-protection issues are settled in court, the parent could already be homeless and unable to get their child back, the complaint says.
Liza McDowell, an advocate at the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre, which is participating in the complaint, said women who are fighting to stay clean and sober in some cases lose their children, then their house, then all of their family’s possessions.
“Even if the best intentions of the ministry is to return the children, the children can’t be returned unless you find a home,” she said. “Sometimes, in the worst-case scenario, a woman might spiral down again and that’s something that we really would like to prevent.”
lkines@tc.canwest.co
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Foster+care+policy+oppressive+critics/3020418/story.html#ixzz0noE49lIN
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, May 13, 2010
2nd report blames system in tragic case of 7-year-old's suicide
2nd report blames system in tragic case of 7-year-old's suicide
Foster-care administrators failed to help a 7-year-old child who had been molested -- and failed to act forcefully when his emotional health deteriorated, a child-welfare panel said.
Related Content
Florida suspends Miami psychiatrist in boy's overdose death
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
CMARBIN@MIAMIHERALD.COM
A task force studying the suicide of a 7-year-old Broward foster child has once again blasted the state's child-welfare system -- this time for failing to adequately treat Gabriel Myers for the sexual abuse he had suffered, and for failing to prevent him from acting out sexually against other children.
The Gabriel Myers Work Group -- appointed by Department of Children & Families Secretary George Sheldon to investigate Gabriel's April 16, 2009 death -- is set to release its second report Friday. A copy of the report obtained by The Miami Herald shows the task force identified scores of shortcomings in the state's care of the boy.
``The child welfare system is not effectively assisting children with sexual behavior problems, or their families,'' the report concludes.
Brought from Ohio to Broward County by his mother, Gabriel was taken into state care after his mom was found surrounded by illegal narcotics and slumped over in her car in a parking lot, Gabriel later told authorities he had been repeatedly molested by an older boy in Ohio.
The 28-page report is the second by the Gabriel Myers Work Group, which in August 2009 released a 26-page report that focused largely on the state's reliance on mental-health drugs to control unruly foster children.
In that report, task-force members admitted what critics had claimed for years: State child-welfare authorities frequently used powerful mind-altering drugs to manage troubled youngsters, rather than treat their anger and sadness.
Gabriel had good reason to be sad, the panel has said. He had been told he was not going to return any time soon to his mother; he had been shipped back and forth to different foster homes after being removed from his uncle's home; and he was being regularly punished as his behavior became more difficult.
Recommendations from a mental-health assessment or from mental-health professionals ``were not effectively communicated or implemented,'' the report says, adding that Gabriel might have benefited from seeing a professional behavioral assistant, though none was ever recruited.
And though child-welfare workers were well-aware that Gabriel had begun to act out against other children -- a common occurence among children who are sexually abused -- it appears administrators at Broward County Schools were never alerted to the possibility he might abuse other children, the report says.
``The case itself was replete with missed opportunities to more effectively serve the needs of this child,'' the new report says. ``Numerous warning signs that Gabriel was in crisis were evident but were not addressed adequately or in a timely manner.''
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1626780/second-report-also-blames-system.html#ixzz0noCccEwH
Foster-care administrators failed to help a 7-year-old child who had been molested -- and failed to act forcefully when his emotional health deteriorated, a child-welfare panel said.
Related Content
Florida suspends Miami psychiatrist in boy's overdose death
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
CMARBIN@MIAMIHERALD.COM
A task force studying the suicide of a 7-year-old Broward foster child has once again blasted the state's child-welfare system -- this time for failing to adequately treat Gabriel Myers for the sexual abuse he had suffered, and for failing to prevent him from acting out sexually against other children.
The Gabriel Myers Work Group -- appointed by Department of Children & Families Secretary George Sheldon to investigate Gabriel's April 16, 2009 death -- is set to release its second report Friday. A copy of the report obtained by The Miami Herald shows the task force identified scores of shortcomings in the state's care of the boy.
``The child welfare system is not effectively assisting children with sexual behavior problems, or their families,'' the report concludes.
Brought from Ohio to Broward County by his mother, Gabriel was taken into state care after his mom was found surrounded by illegal narcotics and slumped over in her car in a parking lot, Gabriel later told authorities he had been repeatedly molested by an older boy in Ohio.
The 28-page report is the second by the Gabriel Myers Work Group, which in August 2009 released a 26-page report that focused largely on the state's reliance on mental-health drugs to control unruly foster children.
In that report, task-force members admitted what critics had claimed for years: State child-welfare authorities frequently used powerful mind-altering drugs to manage troubled youngsters, rather than treat their anger and sadness.
Gabriel had good reason to be sad, the panel has said. He had been told he was not going to return any time soon to his mother; he had been shipped back and forth to different foster homes after being removed from his uncle's home; and he was being regularly punished as his behavior became more difficult.
Recommendations from a mental-health assessment or from mental-health professionals ``were not effectively communicated or implemented,'' the report says, adding that Gabriel might have benefited from seeing a professional behavioral assistant, though none was ever recruited.
And though child-welfare workers were well-aware that Gabriel had begun to act out against other children -- a common occurence among children who are sexually abused -- it appears administrators at Broward County Schools were never alerted to the possibility he might abuse other children, the report says.
``The case itself was replete with missed opportunities to more effectively serve the needs of this child,'' the new report says. ``Numerous warning signs that Gabriel was in crisis were evident but were not addressed adequately or in a timely manner.''
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1626780/second-report-also-blames-system.html#ixzz0noCccEwH
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Foster Children Mistreated, Suit Against City Claims
Foster Children Mistreated, Suit Against City Claims
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: May 12, 2010
A federal lawsuit is seeking to bar New York City from allowing troubled foster-care children to be kept in psychiatric hospitals after doctors have recommended their release, a practice that routinely adds months to a hospitalization despite laws that require such children to be placed in the least restrictive environment possible.
The suit, filed on Wednesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn, claims that the practice means that children who no longer require hospitalization are being kept in locked quarters where they have limited access to schooling, family visits and even walks outside.
The suit also claims that the Administration for Children’s Services, which oversees the care of about 16,000 foster children in New York City, and its subcontractors have been “using certain psychiatric hospitals as if they are detention centers,” sending some children to hospitals for disciplinary reasons, like breaking curfew, running away or getting in fights, rather than for mental health reasons.
A spokeswoman for the city’s Corporation Counsel declined to comment on the suit, saying the city had not yet had a chance to review it.
The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society on behalf of three unnamed foster-care children who are currently hospitalized despite doctors’ recommendations that they be released.
“Every day that it continues, plaintiffs’ extended, wrongful confinement in these institutions is causing them irreparable damage,” the lawsuit says.
One of the children, a 6-year-old boy identified as S. M. who was placed into foster care last year, was hospitalized in Westchester in January, after “misbehavior” in his foster home, according to the complaint. The boy, who was in kindergarten, has been ready for discharge since April 2.
Another child, a 13-year-old boy identified as M. M., remains hospitalized on Long Island, though he was recommended for discharge on Jan. 26.
Legal Aid, a nonprofit group that represents foster-care children in New York, is seeking a preliminary injunction ordering the release of the three children, as well as a court order prohibiting the city from continuing to place foster-care children in hospitals unless doing so is medically necessary, and requiring that less-restrictive placements are made available for any child ready for release within 24 hours. The lawsuit also seeks financial damages.
Legal Aid requested class-action status for the lawsuit and identified two dozen more cases in which it claimed that children were held inappropriately, Nancy Rosenbloom, one of the Legal Aid lawyers handling the case, said. There is a high incidence of mental illness among foster-care children, who have been separated from their families, many after suffering physical or sexual abuse, said Marcia Lowry, executive director of the advocacy group Children’s Rights.
The suit cited a study by the group that estimated that about 14 percent of the foster care children in New York had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in the course of a single year. Under both state and federal law, the city is required to place the children in the “most homelike” environment.
But foster homes, group homes and residential treatment centers can be unable or unwilling to accept children with mental illness or severe behavioral problems. The city has a policy against transferring children discharged from psychiatric hospitals to its Children’s Center, which temporarily houses other children during transition periods, according to Legal Aid.
“Some of these kids do have serious mental-health needs that may require hospitalization,” Ms. Rosenbloom said. “But the point of this case is once they’re ready to get out, they should get out.”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 13, 2010, on page A24 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/nyregion/13acs.html
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: May 12, 2010
A federal lawsuit is seeking to bar New York City from allowing troubled foster-care children to be kept in psychiatric hospitals after doctors have recommended their release, a practice that routinely adds months to a hospitalization despite laws that require such children to be placed in the least restrictive environment possible.
The suit, filed on Wednesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn, claims that the practice means that children who no longer require hospitalization are being kept in locked quarters where they have limited access to schooling, family visits and even walks outside.
The suit also claims that the Administration for Children’s Services, which oversees the care of about 16,000 foster children in New York City, and its subcontractors have been “using certain psychiatric hospitals as if they are detention centers,” sending some children to hospitals for disciplinary reasons, like breaking curfew, running away or getting in fights, rather than for mental health reasons.
A spokeswoman for the city’s Corporation Counsel declined to comment on the suit, saying the city had not yet had a chance to review it.
The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society on behalf of three unnamed foster-care children who are currently hospitalized despite doctors’ recommendations that they be released.
“Every day that it continues, plaintiffs’ extended, wrongful confinement in these institutions is causing them irreparable damage,” the lawsuit says.
One of the children, a 6-year-old boy identified as S. M. who was placed into foster care last year, was hospitalized in Westchester in January, after “misbehavior” in his foster home, according to the complaint. The boy, who was in kindergarten, has been ready for discharge since April 2.
Another child, a 13-year-old boy identified as M. M., remains hospitalized on Long Island, though he was recommended for discharge on Jan. 26.
Legal Aid, a nonprofit group that represents foster-care children in New York, is seeking a preliminary injunction ordering the release of the three children, as well as a court order prohibiting the city from continuing to place foster-care children in hospitals unless doing so is medically necessary, and requiring that less-restrictive placements are made available for any child ready for release within 24 hours. The lawsuit also seeks financial damages.
Legal Aid requested class-action status for the lawsuit and identified two dozen more cases in which it claimed that children were held inappropriately, Nancy Rosenbloom, one of the Legal Aid lawyers handling the case, said. There is a high incidence of mental illness among foster-care children, who have been separated from their families, many after suffering physical or sexual abuse, said Marcia Lowry, executive director of the advocacy group Children’s Rights.
The suit cited a study by the group that estimated that about 14 percent of the foster care children in New York had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in the course of a single year. Under both state and federal law, the city is required to place the children in the “most homelike” environment.
But foster homes, group homes and residential treatment centers can be unable or unwilling to accept children with mental illness or severe behavioral problems. The city has a policy against transferring children discharged from psychiatric hospitals to its Children’s Center, which temporarily houses other children during transition periods, according to Legal Aid.
“Some of these kids do have serious mental-health needs that may require hospitalization,” Ms. Rosenbloom said. “But the point of this case is once they’re ready to get out, they should get out.”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 13, 2010, on page A24 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/nyregion/13acs.html
State must pay juvenile care centers Contested payments for 2004-06
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/state-must-pay-juvenile-care-centers#comment-124015
State must pay juvenile care centers
Contested payments for 2004-06
By Daniel Barrick / Monitor staff
May 12, 2010
A judge has ordered the state to pay more than $3.5 million to a group of nonprofit centers that care for juvenile delinquents and abused children.
The ruling in Merrimack County Superior Court last week, affirming earlier court decisions, found that the state had underpaid the centers when reimbursing them for providing court-mandated care for the children. The payments under dispute span several years, dating back to 2004. And last week's ruling, by Judge David Sullivan, comes at a precarious financial time for the state. Lawmakers are in the midst of negotiations to close a $200 million budget gap, making any unforeseen expense especially unwelcome.
A lawyer with the attorney general's office said the state may appeal the decision.
The case centers on a lawsuit brought by a group of seven nonprofit residential child-care facilities that are certified by the state to provide services to troubled children. The state relies on the centers to carry out court-mandated care for the children and reimburses them at prearranged rates for those services. The rates under dispute are established by a formula set by state rules. In their suit, the centers said that the Department of Health and Human Services had underpaid them for those expenses since 2004. Department officials argued that they never received enough money from the Legislature to fully cover those reimbursements.
The centers appealed on several occasions to a state panel, which agreed that they had been underpaid. The state Supreme Court upheld those rulings in 2007 but said it did not have the authority to order the state to pay the centers and told the centers they would have to sue in superior court to get the retroactive payments.
Sullivan's ruling put the amount that the centers were underpaid at slightly more than $3.5 million.
The ruling noted that despite the health department's claims that it did not get enough money from lawmakers to pay the full reimbursements, there was money in other department accounts left over at the end of the budget year. The ruling also offered a rebuke to then-Commissioner John Stephen, noting he boasted of returning money at year's end to the state's treasury. The ruling quotes Stephen, now a Republican candidate for governor, telling a magazine in 2006 that he "lapsed almost $65 million to taxpayers."
"We have a surplus today while providing essential services," Stephen said at the time.
In his ruling, Sullivan refers to that claim as proof that the state had enough money to pay the care providers at their full rate.
"The court finds that . . . it was inappropriate for (the Department of Health and Human Services) to lapse funds to the state before paying its full contractual obligation," the decision reads.
The ruling also said that Stephen failed to seek other options for paying the child-care centers, such as going to the Legislative Fiscal Committee to move money from another account.
Greg Moore, a spokesman for Stephen's campaign, said the initial reimbursement rate under dispute was set several months before Stephen took over as head of the department. He also said the department was unable to fully pay the service providers because lawmakers did not put aside enough money for those services in the budget.
"Because the budget is the last law that's set every year, that's the one you follow," Moore said. "As commissioner, what John did was follow the budget as the prevailing law."
Senior Assistant Attorney General Nancy Smith, who represented the state on the case, said she is reviewing last week's ruling and said the state may appeal the decision.
"We think there are still legal issues that need to be decided," Smith said. "It's still very much an active case."
Last week's court ruling only covers payments made by the state from 2004 to 2006. The centers are also contesting the reimbursements they have received since 2006 in administrative hearings.
Dr. Paul Dann, executive director of NFI North, one of the centers behind the lawsuit, said lower reimbursements from the state have forced his organization to make difficult financial decisions, such as taking out a line of credit and delaying capital improvements. He said the lower state payments have also contributed to a decision by NFI North to temporarily close one of its programs in Bethlehem.
"For us, what's important is that the children get the kind of resources that they need so we can do the work we are mandated to do for the state," Dann said.
State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican who was chairman of the House Finance Committee at the time of the first contested payments, said providers who enter contracts with the state should understand that their reimbursement rates are subject to the amount of money lawmakers decide to put aside in any given year.
"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount."
Lisa Snow Wade, the lawyer representing the child-care centers, said the court's ruling underscored an element of fairness that's expected in the state's dealings with outside groups.
"It's important for the department to recognize that when it sets the rules, it needs to play by the rules," Snow said. "That's all we're asking. If you request us to provide a certain level of service to these children, we need to be able to pay for that. There's kind of a legal and moral obligation to take care of these kids."
EmailComments (12)Share
Print
comments
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Unhappygrammy
By Shannon - 05/12/2010 - 2:49 pm
Where on earth do you get off? I really want to know. Why on earth would you think kids are taken illegally? Is it because I don't know...they were neglected or abused? NO...that can't possibly be it. I was one of those kids that were neglected...my Mom is a schizophrenic with manic depressive tenancies and my dad an alcoholic. I had nobody to care for me to feed me...nobody to make sure I didn't end up ...I had NOTHING...I wasn't fed...wasn't given clean clothing, wasn't brought to the doctor's when I was HIT BY A CAR. But you are right...I was taken illegally. ANYONE can be a parent...so don't go there. When I was in 3rd grade I was placed into a group home. I was there until midyear of my Junior year in High School. I was never placed on medicine, I did see a counselor to help me cope with my life as I knew it and how to grow. My Group home wasn't for troubled kids, there were Staff Members that not only cared for me, but it was their role to be my role models and parental figures. They stayed with us in shifts over night. There are cost with heating a place/staffing a place and feeding a place with LOTS of people there. I am now a grown women with a house, husband and 3 kids. I volunteer in my community,,,I have never done drugs and have always led with my best foot forward. I WOULD NOT have been able to say that today if I wasn't according to you removed from my house ILLEGALLY.
reply report post a new comment
Not all kids taken ILLEGALLY!
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:34 pm
I didn't say All kids are taken illegally. But a huge majority are. DCYF needs to concentrate on the children that ARE truly being abused and neglected. But they don't. Many children are still suffering abuse and neglect in their homes, because DCYF does NOT step in to help these children. Calls for help are unheeded.They are too busy railroading MANY INNOCENT parents! From your statement, you definitely were one of the children who needed help. Back when you were a child, DCYF did NOT step in and take kids fraudulently. But they do now thank's to the Adoption Promotion Act. For every child taken and placed in foster care, the State receives incentive money. Then for every child placed for adoption, the state is rewarded with more Federal money. In your day it wasn't about the money. Today it's all about the money, not the best interests of a child!
edit reply report post a new comment
Thanks
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:34 pm
Thanks for that comment Shannon. People need to hear about what the State really does for kids. Congratulations on your success, and I wish you continued good fare.
Why Should Parents Pay When their Children Were Taken ILLEGALLY?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 8:34 am
Isn't three hundred dollars per day, per child just a bit expensive to pay for a child placed in a childrens home? It doesn't take half that amount of money to care for a child. When the court orders placement for these children, why should the parent pay? It wasn't the parents choice. If the court and DHHS want to keep removing children from their families ILLEGALLY, why shouldn't the state get stuck with the bill? The state fails to admit that the Federal government pays them an astronomical amount of money for every child removed from families and then even more money for every child adopted out to strangers. They also fail to mention that many of these children placed in childrens homes and on psychiatric drugs, had NO psychiatric issues before being illegally removed from their families. Don't let the state fool you. They are making millions off these un-abused, non-neglected children. If they want to continue to take these children under false allegations, let them pay!
reply report post a new comment
Uh huh...
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:25 pm
Sorry, but that's just nuts. Exactly how is the State making money when it must pay for out-of-home care of these kids (group homes and foster homes), and pay the salaries of the case managers working with the kids?
The federal money you're referring to is "match" money. When the state expends money in certain categories, like residential care, the federal government matches the amount spent. In other words, if the bill is $100 a day, the state pays half and the federal government pays half. Exactly how does the state make money that way?
reply report post a new comment
More than match money
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:40 pm
Why is a child placed in foster care, instead of with relatives? Because the Federal government pays the state for every child placed in foster care. Placing the child with relatives, the state would lose money. Then the federal government pays more money for each child adopted. Foster strangers get monthly payments, even after adoption. There is no match. Your tax dollars are paying for kids taken and placed in foster care. The more kids DCYF takes, the more money they get!
edit reply report post a new comment
Why do some laws get ignored but others can't be touched
By jim... - 05/12/2010 - 6:31 am
"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount." So why can the city and state not say to workers you will not be getting everything in the union contract. We just do not have the money. Here the state makes a LAW and then just decides not to do it. The Union may have a contract but these people have a state law. OH wait - these kids don't vote...
reply report post a new comment
Obligation to care for children
By kraftypat - 05/12/2010 - 5:16 am
Aren't the parents of these children under an obligation to pay for the care of these children? There is not a single word in this article that even hints that maybe the parents are the responsible party. Can't the state bill the parents? Granted, some parents are not able to pay anything, but shouldn't the state make the attempt to collect the money from the parents?
What is wrong with this picture!
Pat Kraft
reply report post a new comment
The article was not clear
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:32 pm
NFI North is a residential center for kids removed from their homes. I presume the other providers in the lawsuit are similar programs. It's not like the Boys & Girls club where kids go during the day.
Kids are in these programs due to abuse or neglect, or because their delinquent behavior cannot be managed in their own homes.
By the way, the State DOES bill parents for services. Most courts order parents to reimburse the state for services provided to their kids, within their means to do so - sort of like calculating child support. However, very few parents have the means to completely pay back the services that have been provided. The state gets back a fairly small percent.
reply report post a new comment
Services?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:56 pm New
Services are NOT provided before a child is taken. There are some parents who are billed by the state for foster care, but for the most part, children are usually taken from families who can't afford their own Lawyer. DCYF knows these people can't afford to fight back. These parent's are given court-appointed Lawyer's, paid for by the DCYF fund. Being paid by DCYF, most of these Lawyer's do absolutely NOTHING for the accused parent. They even admit they are working for the court. It's no wonder all parents lose at the parental rights termination hearings in NH . No if's ands or buts. Parents are told long before the TPR that they are NOT getting their child back. The Lawyer's even tell them they are Not going to win, because it's already set in stone. It doesn't matter that innocence is proven. The Judge just writes the opposite of the testimony present in cout and get's away with it. No parent in NH wins a TPR against DCYF and the NH Supreme Court Appeals are NEVER reversed. Ask any social wrecker. Their the one's that made this statement to me. I was also told, DCYF can do whatever they want, because our government gave them the power to do so. So why waste money on TPR's and appeals, when the parent loses no matter what? Why even have Judges when DCYF tell's them what to do. Makes no sense. DCYF has more power than the Judges.
edit reply report post a new comment
Parents should pay
By stewie - 05/12/2010 - 12:53 pm
A lot of of towns also have youth centers and directors for troubled youths, which is good, but bad for my wallet. There are handful of youths that are always in need of these services while the taxpayers are forced to pay for it.
Why can't the parents pay for the service themselves? If my children need this kind of service then I should have to pay for it myself. Just like I pay for everything else for them. My children are my responsibility, and if they need interventions because they made the wrong decision, then this falls into my lap as a parent.
But unfortunately the taxpaying parents seem to have to continue to pay these bills for all the other parents, for these services and others, because too many parents are divorced or can't afford it. This is the way it will always be....we will always have to pay for other peoples mistakes. Why should people pay for their own mistakes when the town and state is more than willing to pick up the tab with taxpayers money? No incentive to be a hands on, moral, traditional family these days....
BTW I do NOT put children with severe disabilities in with these groups of children that are in need of services due to their own bad judgement. I do not have a problem helping families that are in need due to no fault of their own. And I do not think parents should have to pay if they are NOT allowed to make decisions for their own children. To many broken homes where some parents DO NOT have a choice on how their own children are raised. Too many vindictive, bitter parents out there that do not have their children's best interest in mind. Too many single parents that think they could raise their children without the support of both parents. Having kids seems to be a "fun thing to do at the time" for some and a" pawn in a game", for others.
What is wrong with this government and all their decisions? The government seems to reward bad parents.
Maybe there are no parents,
By Honest Abe - 05/12/2010 - 6:03 am
Maybe there are no parents, or the parents are living on welfare or in prison themselves. What then?
State must pay juvenile care centers
Contested payments for 2004-06
By Daniel Barrick / Monitor staff
May 12, 2010
A judge has ordered the state to pay more than $3.5 million to a group of nonprofit centers that care for juvenile delinquents and abused children.
The ruling in Merrimack County Superior Court last week, affirming earlier court decisions, found that the state had underpaid the centers when reimbursing them for providing court-mandated care for the children. The payments under dispute span several years, dating back to 2004. And last week's ruling, by Judge David Sullivan, comes at a precarious financial time for the state. Lawmakers are in the midst of negotiations to close a $200 million budget gap, making any unforeseen expense especially unwelcome.
A lawyer with the attorney general's office said the state may appeal the decision.
The case centers on a lawsuit brought by a group of seven nonprofit residential child-care facilities that are certified by the state to provide services to troubled children. The state relies on the centers to carry out court-mandated care for the children and reimburses them at prearranged rates for those services. The rates under dispute are established by a formula set by state rules. In their suit, the centers said that the Department of Health and Human Services had underpaid them for those expenses since 2004. Department officials argued that they never received enough money from the Legislature to fully cover those reimbursements.
The centers appealed on several occasions to a state panel, which agreed that they had been underpaid. The state Supreme Court upheld those rulings in 2007 but said it did not have the authority to order the state to pay the centers and told the centers they would have to sue in superior court to get the retroactive payments.
Sullivan's ruling put the amount that the centers were underpaid at slightly more than $3.5 million.
The ruling noted that despite the health department's claims that it did not get enough money from lawmakers to pay the full reimbursements, there was money in other department accounts left over at the end of the budget year. The ruling also offered a rebuke to then-Commissioner John Stephen, noting he boasted of returning money at year's end to the state's treasury. The ruling quotes Stephen, now a Republican candidate for governor, telling a magazine in 2006 that he "lapsed almost $65 million to taxpayers."
"We have a surplus today while providing essential services," Stephen said at the time.
In his ruling, Sullivan refers to that claim as proof that the state had enough money to pay the care providers at their full rate.
"The court finds that . . . it was inappropriate for (the Department of Health and Human Services) to lapse funds to the state before paying its full contractual obligation," the decision reads.
The ruling also said that Stephen failed to seek other options for paying the child-care centers, such as going to the Legislative Fiscal Committee to move money from another account.
Greg Moore, a spokesman for Stephen's campaign, said the initial reimbursement rate under dispute was set several months before Stephen took over as head of the department. He also said the department was unable to fully pay the service providers because lawmakers did not put aside enough money for those services in the budget.
"Because the budget is the last law that's set every year, that's the one you follow," Moore said. "As commissioner, what John did was follow the budget as the prevailing law."
Senior Assistant Attorney General Nancy Smith, who represented the state on the case, said she is reviewing last week's ruling and said the state may appeal the decision.
"We think there are still legal issues that need to be decided," Smith said. "It's still very much an active case."
Last week's court ruling only covers payments made by the state from 2004 to 2006. The centers are also contesting the reimbursements they have received since 2006 in administrative hearings.
Dr. Paul Dann, executive director of NFI North, one of the centers behind the lawsuit, said lower reimbursements from the state have forced his organization to make difficult financial decisions, such as taking out a line of credit and delaying capital improvements. He said the lower state payments have also contributed to a decision by NFI North to temporarily close one of its programs in Bethlehem.
"For us, what's important is that the children get the kind of resources that they need so we can do the work we are mandated to do for the state," Dann said.
State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican who was chairman of the House Finance Committee at the time of the first contested payments, said providers who enter contracts with the state should understand that their reimbursement rates are subject to the amount of money lawmakers decide to put aside in any given year.
"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount."
Lisa Snow Wade, the lawyer representing the child-care centers, said the court's ruling underscored an element of fairness that's expected in the state's dealings with outside groups.
"It's important for the department to recognize that when it sets the rules, it needs to play by the rules," Snow said. "That's all we're asking. If you request us to provide a certain level of service to these children, we need to be able to pay for that. There's kind of a legal and moral obligation to take care of these kids."
EmailComments (12)Share
comments
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Unhappygrammy
By Shannon - 05/12/2010 - 2:49 pm
Where on earth do you get off? I really want to know. Why on earth would you think kids are taken illegally? Is it because I don't know...they were neglected or abused? NO...that can't possibly be it. I was one of those kids that were neglected...my Mom is a schizophrenic with manic depressive tenancies and my dad an alcoholic. I had nobody to care for me to feed me...nobody to make sure I didn't end up ...I had NOTHING...I wasn't fed...wasn't given clean clothing, wasn't brought to the doctor's when I was HIT BY A CAR. But you are right...I was taken illegally. ANYONE can be a parent...so don't go there. When I was in 3rd grade I was placed into a group home. I was there until midyear of my Junior year in High School. I was never placed on medicine, I did see a counselor to help me cope with my life as I knew it and how to grow. My Group home wasn't for troubled kids, there were Staff Members that not only cared for me, but it was their role to be my role models and parental figures. They stayed with us in shifts over night. There are cost with heating a place/staffing a place and feeding a place with LOTS of people there. I am now a grown women with a house, husband and 3 kids. I volunteer in my community,,,I have never done drugs and have always led with my best foot forward. I WOULD NOT have been able to say that today if I wasn't according to you removed from my house ILLEGALLY.
reply report post a new comment
Not all kids taken ILLEGALLY!
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:34 pm
I didn't say All kids are taken illegally. But a huge majority are. DCYF needs to concentrate on the children that ARE truly being abused and neglected. But they don't. Many children are still suffering abuse and neglect in their homes, because DCYF does NOT step in to help these children. Calls for help are unheeded.They are too busy railroading MANY INNOCENT parents! From your statement, you definitely were one of the children who needed help. Back when you were a child, DCYF did NOT step in and take kids fraudulently. But they do now thank's to the Adoption Promotion Act. For every child taken and placed in foster care, the State receives incentive money. Then for every child placed for adoption, the state is rewarded with more Federal money. In your day it wasn't about the money. Today it's all about the money, not the best interests of a child!
edit reply report post a new comment
Thanks
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:34 pm
Thanks for that comment Shannon. People need to hear about what the State really does for kids. Congratulations on your success, and I wish you continued good fare.
Why Should Parents Pay When their Children Were Taken ILLEGALLY?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 8:34 am
Isn't three hundred dollars per day, per child just a bit expensive to pay for a child placed in a childrens home? It doesn't take half that amount of money to care for a child. When the court orders placement for these children, why should the parent pay? It wasn't the parents choice. If the court and DHHS want to keep removing children from their families ILLEGALLY, why shouldn't the state get stuck with the bill? The state fails to admit that the Federal government pays them an astronomical amount of money for every child removed from families and then even more money for every child adopted out to strangers. They also fail to mention that many of these children placed in childrens homes and on psychiatric drugs, had NO psychiatric issues before being illegally removed from their families. Don't let the state fool you. They are making millions off these un-abused, non-neglected children. If they want to continue to take these children under false allegations, let them pay!
reply report post a new comment
Uh huh...
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:25 pm
Sorry, but that's just nuts. Exactly how is the State making money when it must pay for out-of-home care of these kids (group homes and foster homes), and pay the salaries of the case managers working with the kids?
The federal money you're referring to is "match" money. When the state expends money in certain categories, like residential care, the federal government matches the amount spent. In other words, if the bill is $100 a day, the state pays half and the federal government pays half. Exactly how does the state make money that way?
reply report post a new comment
More than match money
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:40 pm
Why is a child placed in foster care, instead of with relatives? Because the Federal government pays the state for every child placed in foster care. Placing the child with relatives, the state would lose money. Then the federal government pays more money for each child adopted. Foster strangers get monthly payments, even after adoption. There is no match. Your tax dollars are paying for kids taken and placed in foster care. The more kids DCYF takes, the more money they get!
edit reply report post a new comment
Why do some laws get ignored but others can't be touched
By jim... - 05/12/2010 - 6:31 am
"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount." So why can the city and state not say to workers you will not be getting everything in the union contract. We just do not have the money. Here the state makes a LAW and then just decides not to do it. The Union may have a contract but these people have a state law. OH wait - these kids don't vote...
reply report post a new comment
Obligation to care for children
By kraftypat - 05/12/2010 - 5:16 am
Aren't the parents of these children under an obligation to pay for the care of these children? There is not a single word in this article that even hints that maybe the parents are the responsible party. Can't the state bill the parents? Granted, some parents are not able to pay anything, but shouldn't the state make the attempt to collect the money from the parents?
What is wrong with this picture!
Pat Kraft
reply report post a new comment
The article was not clear
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:32 pm
NFI North is a residential center for kids removed from their homes. I presume the other providers in the lawsuit are similar programs. It's not like the Boys & Girls club where kids go during the day.
Kids are in these programs due to abuse or neglect, or because their delinquent behavior cannot be managed in their own homes.
By the way, the State DOES bill parents for services. Most courts order parents to reimburse the state for services provided to their kids, within their means to do so - sort of like calculating child support. However, very few parents have the means to completely pay back the services that have been provided. The state gets back a fairly small percent.
reply report post a new comment
Services?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:56 pm New
Services are NOT provided before a child is taken. There are some parents who are billed by the state for foster care, but for the most part, children are usually taken from families who can't afford their own Lawyer. DCYF knows these people can't afford to fight back. These parent's are given court-appointed Lawyer's, paid for by the DCYF fund. Being paid by DCYF, most of these Lawyer's do absolutely NOTHING for the accused parent. They even admit they are working for the court. It's no wonder all parents lose at the parental rights termination hearings in NH . No if's ands or buts. Parents are told long before the TPR that they are NOT getting their child back. The Lawyer's even tell them they are Not going to win, because it's already set in stone. It doesn't matter that innocence is proven. The Judge just writes the opposite of the testimony present in cout and get's away with it. No parent in NH wins a TPR against DCYF and the NH Supreme Court Appeals are NEVER reversed. Ask any social wrecker. Their the one's that made this statement to me. I was also told, DCYF can do whatever they want, because our government gave them the power to do so. So why waste money on TPR's and appeals, when the parent loses no matter what? Why even have Judges when DCYF tell's them what to do. Makes no sense. DCYF has more power than the Judges.
edit reply report post a new comment
Parents should pay
By stewie - 05/12/2010 - 12:53 pm
A lot of of towns also have youth centers and directors for troubled youths, which is good, but bad for my wallet. There are handful of youths that are always in need of these services while the taxpayers are forced to pay for it.
Why can't the parents pay for the service themselves? If my children need this kind of service then I should have to pay for it myself. Just like I pay for everything else for them. My children are my responsibility, and if they need interventions because they made the wrong decision, then this falls into my lap as a parent.
But unfortunately the taxpaying parents seem to have to continue to pay these bills for all the other parents, for these services and others, because too many parents are divorced or can't afford it. This is the way it will always be....we will always have to pay for other peoples mistakes. Why should people pay for their own mistakes when the town and state is more than willing to pick up the tab with taxpayers money? No incentive to be a hands on, moral, traditional family these days....
BTW I do NOT put children with severe disabilities in with these groups of children that are in need of services due to their own bad judgement. I do not have a problem helping families that are in need due to no fault of their own. And I do not think parents should have to pay if they are NOT allowed to make decisions for their own children. To many broken homes where some parents DO NOT have a choice on how their own children are raised. Too many vindictive, bitter parents out there that do not have their children's best interest in mind. Too many single parents that think they could raise their children without the support of both parents. Having kids seems to be a "fun thing to do at the time" for some and a" pawn in a game", for others.
What is wrong with this government and all their decisions? The government seems to reward bad parents.
Maybe there are no parents,
By Honest Abe - 05/12/2010 - 6:03 am
Maybe there are no parents, or the parents are living on welfare or in prison themselves. What then?
ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT PART TWO
ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
PART TWO
by
James Roger Brown
HARVESTING CHILDREN FOR CONDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING:
BY THE NUMBERS
“Article 16.3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, English Version, United Nations Department of Public Information.
“When I meet a man I ask myself, 'Is this the man I want my children to
spend their weekends with?'“ Rita Rudner, Comedienne, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations.
Laying a cornerstone
Structural corruption occurs when employees of a government agency or program are required, as a condition of continued employment, to falsify reports, commit perjury, or engage in other illegal activity to obtain agency funding or meet agency or program goals. Structural corruption is similar to what accountants refer to as “implied corruption” or “implied fraud.”
Sitting down at the table
The tables included in this article are for the benefit of those needing documentation to convince others of the level of fraud and corruption political extremists and allied criminals have brought into government agencies and programs. Some readers have probably suspected children were being exploited by government employees in child “protection” agencies, but have been unable to convince your naive friends. When you inform those naive friends of these articles and they dismiss you with “Ah, he’s just some kind of anti-government militia nut job,” you can print copies, sit them down at the table and show them.
Now, here it is. You’ve got tables.
1. LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR CHILD PROTECTION FRAUD: MANDATED STATE TITLE IV-E FEDERAL FUND CLAIM REPORTS
“And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.” Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:26 NAS Bible
State agencies are required, as a condition of federal funding, to file quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310, “The OMB number may have changed as of October 1999,” George Babbitt, Arkansas Department of Human Services). Among the information State child protection service agencies must report are projections of the average number of children that will be held in State protective custody and State custody for adoption during the reporting period.
Children held in State protective custody have been removed from parental custody. Children held in State custody for adoption have been removed from parental custody and parental rights terminated.
PART TWO
by
James Roger Brown
HARVESTING CHILDREN FOR CONDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING:
BY THE NUMBERS
“Article 16.3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, English Version, United Nations Department of Public Information.
“When I meet a man I ask myself, 'Is this the man I want my children to
spend their weekends with?'“ Rita Rudner, Comedienne, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations.
Laying a cornerstone
Structural corruption occurs when employees of a government agency or program are required, as a condition of continued employment, to falsify reports, commit perjury, or engage in other illegal activity to obtain agency funding or meet agency or program goals. Structural corruption is similar to what accountants refer to as “implied corruption” or “implied fraud.”
Sitting down at the table
The tables included in this article are for the benefit of those needing documentation to convince others of the level of fraud and corruption political extremists and allied criminals have brought into government agencies and programs. Some readers have probably suspected children were being exploited by government employees in child “protection” agencies, but have been unable to convince your naive friends. When you inform those naive friends of these articles and they dismiss you with “Ah, he’s just some kind of anti-government militia nut job,” you can print copies, sit them down at the table and show them.
Now, here it is. You’ve got tables.
1. LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR CHILD PROTECTION FRAUD: MANDATED STATE TITLE IV-E FEDERAL FUND CLAIM REPORTS
“And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.” Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:26 NAS Bible
State agencies are required, as a condition of federal funding, to file quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310, “The OMB number may have changed as of October 1999,” George Babbitt, Arkansas Department of Human Services). Among the information State child protection service agencies must report are projections of the average number of children that will be held in State protective custody and State custody for adoption during the reporting period.
Children held in State protective custody have been removed from parental custody. Children held in State custody for adoption have been removed from parental custody and parental rights terminated.
PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
James Roger Brown
AskTheSociologist@thesociologycenter.com
14 October 2007
Visit Our Website
Mr. James Roger Brown is a sociology of knowledge specialist and intelligence collection and analysis methodologist. He has developed the only existing objective criteria based definition of the ‘best interest of the child’ and serves as a consultant and expert witness on detecting and documenting organized crime methods and procedures integrated into government child protection agencies and programs.
Roger is Director and owner of the Sociology Center.
PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
DRAFT SPEECH FOR JAMES ROGER BROWN
Joseph Campbell used the story of a Samurai in his interview by Bill Moyers about world religions. In ancient Japan the master of a Samurai warrior was assassinated. It became the duty of the Samurai to kill the man responsible. For months he followed the trail of the assassin. After great effort he finally cornered the man and drew his sword to remove the assassin’s head. Before he could strike, the assassin spat in the Samurai’s face.
The Samurai put his sword back in its scabbard and walked away, leaving the man alive. Why did he do that?
It was his duty as the Samurai of his master to hunt down and execute the assassin to obtain justice for his master. When the assassin spat in his face, it became personal. If he had killed the assassin out of personal anger he would not have been carrying out his duty to obtain justice for his master.
Parents of children wrongfully removed from parental custody face the same dilemma. Your parental duty is to obtain justice for your children, not satisfy your personal desire for revenge. If your focus is on reliving and recounting your personal pain at every opportunity or seeking personal revenge, you will be constantly distracted from your duty to obtain justice for your children.
We are rallying here in Washington this August 18th 2007 to become better warriors than the Samurai in this story who could not carry out his duty because he could not control his emotions and stay focused on obtaining justice.
We are here to focus on our parental duties to obtain justice for our children and families. We must set aside our emotional distractions and rise to the occasion. We must change the world in specific ways to obtain that justice. We must restore parental and children’s rights that have been eroded to satisfy greed, perversions and hunger for power over the lives of others.
Everyone who has ever contacted me for help eventually asked two specific questions. The first one I will address is “Why is this happening?”.
One of the two most important insights passed along to me by mentors is this, “Nothing ever really changes, it just gets more sophisticated”. This is true about how the world works. Children have been stolen, enslaved, molested, and murdered throughout recorded history. All that has changed is the technology and pretexts by which it is accomplished.
What is going on is the war between good and evil that we are all familiar with from our respective religions. Early Christians thrown into the arena were given the choice of bowing down to worship the emperor or watch their children devoured by lions. Current Christians are given the choice of bowing down and worshiping child protection services or having their children removed.
For Christian parents, there are two duties that apply, obtaining justice for your children and the obligation to oppose evil in the world.
The second question I am always asked is, “When will this end?”.
The short answer is the end will be at hand when the first politician is elected on a platform to end child protection system corruption.
You are here today to bring that day closer and we have a lot of work to do. We must identify the pressure points to bring about justice for our missing children.
An important pressure point is Congress. We are all here today to get their attention and communicate the specific legal and administrative changes needed to restore the rights of children, parents, and families.
I am personally here today to do some whistle blowing about another pressure point that we must soon address.
In 1981 and 19882 The Family Institute of Virginia conducted a federally funded experiment to determine the effectiveness of family therapy interventions. Pre and post test measurements were made on over 3,000 variables.
It was the most comprehensive study ever undertaken. There was a control group and three experimental groups administered therapy using the techniques of the three major national therapy franchises at the time. The intent of the experimenters was to prove conclusively that family therapy intervention worked.
The outcome was not what they desired. Data analysis results indicated that family therapy interventions had no positive effect and might have adverse consequences.
You have never heard of this important study because, in violation of federal law and the research contract, no final report was ever written. The adverse data analysis results were never published. No warning was ever issued to the public that family therapy intervention was NOT safe and effective.
What was done at The Family Institute of Virginia was no different than a drug company continuing to sell a drug known to be unsafe and ineffective. We must soon focus our attention on demanding accountability from The Family Institute of Virginia for the dirty secret they have hidden all these years.
How do I know about this study if the results were never published? God has a great sense of irony. I was a member of the research staff. It was my first professional contract as a sociologist. I was hired for my experience in qualitative data analysis. I wrote the data entry code books and assisted with the data analysis.
First we must do what we are here for today, get the attention of Congress. I hope that my professional contributions in the use of paired contradictory hypotheses testing in evidence analysis and my book “The Practical Guide To Identifying The Best Interest Of The Child” will serve as new reliable methodology to replace the junk science and fraud mechanisms that now dominate the child protection system.
To close my comments, I want us to shout something loud enough for all of Washington to hear. I will read it once so you can remember it, then we will shout it in unison.
SAVE THE FAMILY!
SAVE THE CONSTITUTION!
SAVE THE NATION!
AskTheSociologist@thesociologycenter.com
14 October 2007
Visit Our Website
Mr. James Roger Brown is a sociology of knowledge specialist and intelligence collection and analysis methodologist. He has developed the only existing objective criteria based definition of the ‘best interest of the child’ and serves as a consultant and expert witness on detecting and documenting organized crime methods and procedures integrated into government child protection agencies and programs.
Roger is Director and owner of the Sociology Center.
PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
DRAFT SPEECH FOR JAMES ROGER BROWN
Joseph Campbell used the story of a Samurai in his interview by Bill Moyers about world religions. In ancient Japan the master of a Samurai warrior was assassinated. It became the duty of the Samurai to kill the man responsible. For months he followed the trail of the assassin. After great effort he finally cornered the man and drew his sword to remove the assassin’s head. Before he could strike, the assassin spat in the Samurai’s face.
The Samurai put his sword back in its scabbard and walked away, leaving the man alive. Why did he do that?
It was his duty as the Samurai of his master to hunt down and execute the assassin to obtain justice for his master. When the assassin spat in his face, it became personal. If he had killed the assassin out of personal anger he would not have been carrying out his duty to obtain justice for his master.
Parents of children wrongfully removed from parental custody face the same dilemma. Your parental duty is to obtain justice for your children, not satisfy your personal desire for revenge. If your focus is on reliving and recounting your personal pain at every opportunity or seeking personal revenge, you will be constantly distracted from your duty to obtain justice for your children.
We are rallying here in Washington this August 18th 2007 to become better warriors than the Samurai in this story who could not carry out his duty because he could not control his emotions and stay focused on obtaining justice.
We are here to focus on our parental duties to obtain justice for our children and families. We must set aside our emotional distractions and rise to the occasion. We must change the world in specific ways to obtain that justice. We must restore parental and children’s rights that have been eroded to satisfy greed, perversions and hunger for power over the lives of others.
Everyone who has ever contacted me for help eventually asked two specific questions. The first one I will address is “Why is this happening?”.
One of the two most important insights passed along to me by mentors is this, “Nothing ever really changes, it just gets more sophisticated”. This is true about how the world works. Children have been stolen, enslaved, molested, and murdered throughout recorded history. All that has changed is the technology and pretexts by which it is accomplished.
What is going on is the war between good and evil that we are all familiar with from our respective religions. Early Christians thrown into the arena were given the choice of bowing down to worship the emperor or watch their children devoured by lions. Current Christians are given the choice of bowing down and worshiping child protection services or having their children removed.
For Christian parents, there are two duties that apply, obtaining justice for your children and the obligation to oppose evil in the world.
The second question I am always asked is, “When will this end?”.
The short answer is the end will be at hand when the first politician is elected on a platform to end child protection system corruption.
You are here today to bring that day closer and we have a lot of work to do. We must identify the pressure points to bring about justice for our missing children.
An important pressure point is Congress. We are all here today to get their attention and communicate the specific legal and administrative changes needed to restore the rights of children, parents, and families.
I am personally here today to do some whistle blowing about another pressure point that we must soon address.
In 1981 and 19882 The Family Institute of Virginia conducted a federally funded experiment to determine the effectiveness of family therapy interventions. Pre and post test measurements were made on over 3,000 variables.
It was the most comprehensive study ever undertaken. There was a control group and three experimental groups administered therapy using the techniques of the three major national therapy franchises at the time. The intent of the experimenters was to prove conclusively that family therapy intervention worked.
The outcome was not what they desired. Data analysis results indicated that family therapy interventions had no positive effect and might have adverse consequences.
You have never heard of this important study because, in violation of federal law and the research contract, no final report was ever written. The adverse data analysis results were never published. No warning was ever issued to the public that family therapy intervention was NOT safe and effective.
What was done at The Family Institute of Virginia was no different than a drug company continuing to sell a drug known to be unsafe and ineffective. We must soon focus our attention on demanding accountability from The Family Institute of Virginia for the dirty secret they have hidden all these years.
How do I know about this study if the results were never published? God has a great sense of irony. I was a member of the research staff. It was my first professional contract as a sociologist. I was hired for my experience in qualitative data analysis. I wrote the data entry code books and assisted with the data analysis.
First we must do what we are here for today, get the attention of Congress. I hope that my professional contributions in the use of paired contradictory hypotheses testing in evidence analysis and my book “The Practical Guide To Identifying The Best Interest Of The Child” will serve as new reliable methodology to replace the junk science and fraud mechanisms that now dominate the child protection system.
To close my comments, I want us to shout something loud enough for all of Washington to hear. I will read it once so you can remember it, then we will shout it in unison.
SAVE THE FAMILY!
SAVE THE CONSTITUTION!
SAVE THE NATION!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)