DYFS to pay $4.5M to N.J. boy who was sexually abused by foster parent
By Jim Lockwood/The Star-Ledger
May 12, 2010, 5:38PM
HUDSON COUNTY -- The state Division of Youth and Family Services has agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a boy who was sexually abused by a foster parent when he was 6 years old, according to his attorney.
The boy, now 17, was placed by DYFS in the custody of a Hudson County couple in 1995, and was sexually assaulted between 1996-98, according to a lawsuit against DYFS by the boy and his current guardian.
The foster parents were convicted in Hudson County in 1999 on charges involving the boy; one parent was convicted of sexual assault while the other was convicted of child endangerment, according to public court records.
After being removed from the Hudson County couple’s custody, the boy was transferred to a new foster parent who has since become his adoptive parent, and who filed the lawsuit in 2008 in Passaic County on his behalf alleging negligent placement and supervision by DYFS, according to the lawsuit.
The settlement was reached Monday in Superior Court in Paterson during jury selection for a trial of the case, said the boy’s attorney, Jeffrey Advokat of Morristown. There was no admission of wrongdoing by the state under the settlement and the civil lawsuit now will be dismissed, Advokat said.
Lauren Kidd, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Children and Families that includes DYFS, said the agency does not comment on litigation.
Advokat said the settlement was based upon various factors considering liability and longterm affects of the abuse. The boy has continued to undergo mental-health treatment over the years and has made progress through the counseling, he said.
“You can never put a price tag on what happened, but the amount of money is life-changing for him,” Advokat said. “It will make his life better.”
Settlements of such lawsuits are the norm while having one actually go to trial is unheard of, said Cecilia Zalkind, executive director of the Association for Children, a statewide nonprofit child-welfare advocacy group.
“On a broader level, it’s an issue of accountability and holding a system accountable for what happens to kids,” Zalkind said.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/nj_dyfs_will_pay_45m_to_boy_wh.html
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Recovering Parent Discriminated Against by Nashua, NH DCYF in Order to Steal Newborn
Federal Law's prohibit discrimination against people in recovery, yet this is just another illegal action practiced on parent's by Nashua DCYF.
If we only knew the law before DCYF is thrown into our lives, we might be able to fight the corruption and win.
According to the Legal Action Center: http://lac.org/index.php/lac/webinar_archive
it is illegal for Child Welfare to force a mother out of methadone treatment in order to regain custody of her child. Well that is exactly what Nashua DCYF has done in the kidnapping of my granddaughter Isabella.
My granddaughter was stolen from her mother at birth, due to morphine in the newborn's system. Morphine given to her mother in labor, by IV for nineteen hours, due to complications my daughter suffered during pregnancy. The Assessment worker never investigated. She admitted in Probate Court that she was unaware my daughter was given morphine in labor. My daughter had been in a pregnant womans methadone program in Nashua before the baby's birth. My granddaughter was taken for anticipated "Neglect in the Future."
When the baby was taken, the Assessment worker ordered my daughter into an outpatient methadone program. Two months later, she was court-ordered out of the program and court-ordered medical detox, in order to send her to a transitional facility up north, just to keep her from her family.
My daughter was told by her caseworker, she could NOT detox on her own, as it could kill her. She guaranteed medical detox, as was court-ordered. Two month's later, my daughter was told there was an opening at Odyssey House, where DCYF supposedly wanted to send her with her daughter.
She was given thirteen days to detox off methadone. Then we found out there was NO medical detox in the state of NH! Pretty good. She was court-ordered into a program that didn't exist in this state! I called everywhere, trying to find a medical detox facility. There were a few in Massachusetts that were willing to take her, but her caseworker refused. So she was left to detox on her own. The methadone clinic said they couldn't detox her in thirteen days. It was too dangerous. The Director of Odyssey House stated it takes a good six months to detox anyone off methadone. She was then given until the end of the month, the caseworker knowing the danger she was putting my daughter in. Her court-appointed puppet went along with everything DCYF said. He should have known the law and objected, but he didn't. He never did. He stated, "The court is my Boss." He also stated he didn't fight for my daughter because the state doesn't pay him enough and he has more important client's that aren't junkies.
My daughter tried to detox on her own. She had many medical problems due to the rotten prenatal medical care she received she at the clinic.
The day before my daughter was to be admitted to Odyssey, she had her last dose of methadone, before court. The hearing was a disaster. Her caseworker lied to the Judge. She told him my daughter was not being drug tested and her methadone doses and levels were NOT going down. If she weren't being drug tested, how would the caseworker know the doses and levels weren't going down? The Judge believed the lying caseworker and denied my daughter admittance to Odyssey. What was he thinking? Evidently he wasn't. Why didn't he make sense of the lie she was telling?
My daughter was devastated. All hope of reunification with her daughter was lost.
She was doing extremely well in the methadone program and now she had nothing.
Outside the courtroom, her caseworker seemed quite happy, as she told the foster stranger's,"Don't worry. There's no guarantee C-----'s going anywhere!" My daughter was pushed over the edge, like other parent's screwed over by DCYF!
I then called facilities in Massachusetts to take my daughter and Isabella. Again, I found a few who would take them and was again refused by the caseworker who stated, "There's no way she's taking Isabella out of this state!" It was okay for the foster strangers to take her out of state though, against my daughter's wishes. She was told by the Judge it didn't matter what she wanted. He would court order it and did.
Month's later my daughter's file was released to her. All the drug test result's were in there that showed my daughter WAS being drug tested. They showed her doses and levels WERE going down. The file also contained the caseworker's call log, which showed she was calling the methadone clinic daily, checking on my daughter's doses.
Needless to say, my RECOVERING daughters rights were terminated because she was COURT-ORDERED out of methadone treatment and lied about!
So yes, Nashua DCYF and the Nashua Family Court both discriminated against her.
These people need to be held accountable for their action's!
Children held against their will by MCFD/DCYF/CPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roCu9paZUaM&feature=related
Monday, May 17, 2010
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
Posted by Admin in News on 05 17th, 2010
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
The time to act is NOW. Neither Judd Gregg nor Jeanne Shaheen has signed on to cosponsor this amendment to preserve your parental rights!
You can call Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R) D.C. Office: 202-224-3324
You can call Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s (D) D.C. Office: 202-224-2841
Please contact your Senators and tell them to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because it interferes with families and violates the principle of American self-government. Whatever laws we need to protect children should be made by American legislators, not international committees. Please cosponsor Senate Resolution 519.
Background:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // May 12, 2010 // Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”
In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.
Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.
“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.
Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”
Action Item
Within the next week, we will let you know when to start contacting Senators. This is a very dangerous treaty that if passed would take away parental rights in ways that would prevent you from bringing up and educating your children as you see fit.
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/05/17/resolution-challenges-child-rights-convention/
Posted by Admin in News on 05 17th, 2010
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
The time to act is NOW. Neither Judd Gregg nor Jeanne Shaheen has signed on to cosponsor this amendment to preserve your parental rights!
You can call Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R) D.C. Office: 202-224-3324
You can call Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s (D) D.C. Office: 202-224-2841
Please contact your Senators and tell them to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because it interferes with families and violates the principle of American self-government. Whatever laws we need to protect children should be made by American legislators, not international committees. Please cosponsor Senate Resolution 519.
Background:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // May 12, 2010 // Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”
In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.
Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.
“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.
Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”
Action Item
Within the next week, we will let you know when to start contacting Senators. This is a very dangerous treaty that if passed would take away parental rights in ways that would prevent you from bringing up and educating your children as you see fit.
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/05/17/resolution-challenges-child-rights-convention/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)