The Camera Doesn't Lie: Ultrasound Changes American Opinion on Abortion
by Bradley Mattes
May 21, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group. Mattes is a veteran of the pro-life cause, with over 33 years of educational, political and humanitarian experience.
The success of our labor is becoming more evident every day. For the third time in a row, a Gallup poll shows more Americans are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice. Gallup titled their analysis, “The New Normal on Abortion.” And they're right.
It’s no longer normal to think an unborn baby is disposable. Even the liberal Slate Magazine had to acknowledge that young people have wised up to the facts.
“My generation has seen ultrasound photos of ourselves and our siblings,” one young pro-lifer told the reporter, “so it’s sort of hard to put the ‘fetuses are just a clump of tissues’ line past us.”
As the saying goes, the camera doesn't lie. When young women considering an abortion see an ultrasound of their baby, about 80 percent choose to continue the pregnancy. Pro-abortion arguments crumble when they see a beating heart and tiny, growing body.
That’s why it’s so encouraging that more than a dozen states are considering ultrasound legislation. The bills require abortion facilities to give women the option of an ultrasound before the deadly procedure takes place. Of course pro-abortion activists are battling the proposals with all the venom they can muster. Suddenly, they're no longer for choice—not when the choice is for women to see their unborn babies.
But just as we wouldn't deny a cancer patient access to vital X-Rays, these mothers should be given the opportunity to review all medical information relevant to their procedure.
Abortion facilities already use ultrasounds to determine the size and age of the baby. The problem is that they are notorious for turning the screen away from a mother’s eyes. They know that if she sees the child, she'll likely run out that door and never come back. So they simply hide the information for the sake of hard cold cash.
Now that so many states are stepping up to the plate to deal with this blatantly unethical practice, women are one step closer to being given a life-changing (and often life-saving) choice. That makes this a brighter day in America.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6355.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
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Washington Planned Parenthood Overlooks Abortion Safety Standards for Women
Washington Planned Parenthood Overlooks Abortion Safety Standards for Women
by Dan Kennedy
May 21, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Dan Kennedy is the executive director of Human Life of Washington, a statewide pro-life group.
Patient safety takes a back seat when it's abortion.
The Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) has proposed rules mandating that physicians who perform any invasive procedure requiring sedation in a non-hospital setting must meet certain safety standards. They list, among other requirements, that the office be accredited by one of several recognized accrediting bodies, such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, CMS, etc.
That is, unless the invasive procedure happens to be abortion. In that case Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation can simply certify that things are A-OK.
And we know how much we can count on those entities to make sure that only the highest standards of patient safety are followed, and that any facility failing to meet those high standards will immediately have its certification revoked.
This kind of blatant exception for the abortion lobby should make all of us angry--no matter your position on abortion.
I have excerpted the appropriate section below, plus the link from which it came (you can also get it from MQAC). The public has until May 25th to comment on these rules and there is a public hearing on them June 3rd.
This rule applies to physicians practicing independently or in a group setting who perform office-based surgery employing one or more of the following levels of sedation or anesthesia:
(a) Moderate sedation or analgesia; or (b) Deep sedation or analgesia; or(c) Major conduction anesthesia.
(5) Accreditation or certification. Within three hundred sixty-five calendar days of the effective date of this rule, a physician who performs a procedure under this rule must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following:
(a) The Joint Commission; (b) The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care; (c) The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory
Surgery Facilities; (d) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; or (e) In lieu of accreditation or certification by one of the above-listed entities, facilities limiting office-based surgery to abortions or abortion-related services may be accredited or certified by either the Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation.
Patient safety should come first. Subsection (e) is not a medical assessment, but a blatant political exception.
You can respond online against these false standards no later than 5-25-10:
https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/policyreview/AddComment.aspx?ID=613
http://www.lifenews.com/state5113.html
by Dan Kennedy
May 21, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Dan Kennedy is the executive director of Human Life of Washington, a statewide pro-life group.
Patient safety takes a back seat when it's abortion.
The Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) has proposed rules mandating that physicians who perform any invasive procedure requiring sedation in a non-hospital setting must meet certain safety standards. They list, among other requirements, that the office be accredited by one of several recognized accrediting bodies, such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, CMS, etc.
That is, unless the invasive procedure happens to be abortion. In that case Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation can simply certify that things are A-OK.
And we know how much we can count on those entities to make sure that only the highest standards of patient safety are followed, and that any facility failing to meet those high standards will immediately have its certification revoked.
This kind of blatant exception for the abortion lobby should make all of us angry--no matter your position on abortion.
I have excerpted the appropriate section below, plus the link from which it came (you can also get it from MQAC). The public has until May 25th to comment on these rules and there is a public hearing on them June 3rd.
This rule applies to physicians practicing independently or in a group setting who perform office-based surgery employing one or more of the following levels of sedation or anesthesia:
(a) Moderate sedation or analgesia; or (b) Deep sedation or analgesia; or(c) Major conduction anesthesia.
(5) Accreditation or certification. Within three hundred sixty-five calendar days of the effective date of this rule, a physician who performs a procedure under this rule must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following:
(a) The Joint Commission; (b) The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care; (c) The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory
Surgery Facilities; (d) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; or (e) In lieu of accreditation or certification by one of the above-listed entities, facilities limiting office-based surgery to abortions or abortion-related services may be accredited or certified by either the Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation.
Patient safety should come first. Subsection (e) is not a medical assessment, but a blatant political exception.
You can respond online against these false standards no later than 5-25-10:
https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/policyreview/AddComment.aspx?ID=613
http://www.lifenews.com/state5113.html
Adopted children face anguish as birth parents stalk them on Facebook
Adopted children face anguish as birth parents stalk them on Facebook
Social networking sites being used to flout rules leading to 'intrusive and unplanned' contact
unhappygrammy-I'm sure it's not the children who are facing anguish at being contacted by their REAL parent's. I'm sure the ones facing the anguish are DCYF's chosen puppet's who've been holding the kids hostage all these year's. Did they really expect the truth would never come out? When you adopt other peoples children,very much wanted children, it's to be expected. Can't they handle a little disruption in their happy little home's? How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
Victoria Macdonald
The Observer, Sunday 23 May 2010
Article history
Teenagers are receiving the messages without knowing the background to their adoption. Photograph: Dave Parker / Alamy/Alamy
The natural parents of adopted children are increasingly using Facebook and other social networking sites to track down their offspring, flouting the usual controls and safeguards.
Adoption agencies are reporting huge numbers of calls from "deeply distressed" adoptive parents whose children have been contacted out of the blue.
Jonathan Pearce, chief executive of Adoption UK, said it was having to deal with the consequences of this "intrusive and unplanned communication", and warned that it was becoming more difficult to guarantee confidentiality to adoptive parents and their children.
At the moment, official contact in adoption is most often made through the "letterbox" process. The adoptive parents send the birth family a letter and photos every year via a social worker or adoption agency intermediary. If the birth parent wants to respond, they also have to go through this route.
However, Facebook and other social networking sites have changed all this. Any scrap of information – a name, location or date of birth – can help biological parents track down their children.
But the agencies warn that the existing rules protect often extremely vulnerable children. Where once adoption tended to involve a young, single woman giving up her unplanned baby, now two-thirds of adopted children have been removed because their parents abused or neglected them. In many cases, the birth parents dispute the removal, blaming social services. One message sent to a child given up some years ago for adoption read: "Hello, I'm your birth father. I have been searching for you ever since you were stolen by social services. You look beautiful. I love you so much."
Another read: "Darling son, I am so happy because I have found you here. I have been looking for ages. Please write back because you've been told lies about me." Many local authorities are now advising adoptive parents not to include photographs in their annual letters, in case these are posted online in an attempt to trace the child.
In a report to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, one adoptive mother said a message to her daughter from the biological mother had had a catastrophic impact on the family. The adoptive mother, who cannot be identified, said: "Our daughter, who is our prime concern, has gone from no contact from her birth family, at the hands of whom she had a difficult start in life, to suddenly finding they are there at the press of a button."
Her daughter had just turned 16 when she received the message in February. She is due to sit her GCSEs shortly, but her adoptive mother said she had gone through a whole range of emotions and that it had "completely thrown her".
The natural mother failed to acknowledge why her daughter had been removed from the family at the age of seven. "She was subjected to abuse and neglect over a long period of time," said her adoptive mother. "But none of that is being acknowledged now."
In another case, a teenage girl was contacted by her biological mother who, in turn, put her in touch with her birth father. The girl was unaware that the man had sexually abused her when she was a young child. The report also cites the case of the adoptive father of one teenage boy who went to meet his birth father after contact was made through Facebook. The boy had been removed from his family because of severe physical abuse when he was a baby.
There are no reliable estimates of how many children have been contacted using social networking sites. But agencies are so concerned that next month the British Association for Adoption and Fostering is to send out new guidance to social workers and adoptive parents.
Dr John Simmonds, the BAAF's director of policy, research and development, said the guidelines recognise that Facebook and other social networking sites are here to stay. "We will have to build them into the fabric of our adoption practice and re-emphasise the importance of children knowing why they were placed for adoption and the circumstances of the birth parents," Dr Simmonds said. "There is nothing we can say to the social networking sites."
Chris Smith, whose children were adopted seven years ago, said he uses social networking sites to "follow them through life", although he has not sent any messages. Smith, who believes his children were unfairly adopted, said he wanted to know about their wellbeing. The annual letter does not tell you about their health or interests, he said.
"Because I know where they are, I can just sit and see some of the photos of their school and of events and know they are doing OK," he explained.
Some agencies now ask birth parents to sign contracts prohibiting them from using social networking sites to make contact. The adoptive mother to whom the Observer spoke said that when she contacted social services for advice they told her to stop their daughter from using social networking sites. "I told them that I did not believe I could do that because she would run away. I can cut back some contact, but not all," she said.
Normally the girl would not have been able to meet her biological family until she was 18. Because of the unexpected contact, her adoptive family is being forced to explore the option of a formal meeting with the birth parents. The mother said this was "far from ideal", but the "genie was out of the bottle".
■ Facebook is expected to introduce changes to its privacy settings as early as this week following attacks by regulators and campaign groups, who claim it has failed to ensure users' privacy.
Those briefed at Facebook's headquarters in the US say the company is to introduce a "master control" that would simplify users' privacy settings. Users would then be able to choose which groups of people they wished to share information with – everyone, friends of friends or just friends. This would replace the current automatic system that shares users' information with third parties and has been criticised for being over-complicated and confusing.
For the full report see Channel 4 News tonight at 6.30pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/23/birth-parents-stalk-adopted-facebook
Social networking sites being used to flout rules leading to 'intrusive and unplanned' contact
unhappygrammy-I'm sure it's not the children who are facing anguish at being contacted by their REAL parent's. I'm sure the ones facing the anguish are DCYF's chosen puppet's who've been holding the kids hostage all these year's. Did they really expect the truth would never come out? When you adopt other peoples children,very much wanted children, it's to be expected. Can't they handle a little disruption in their happy little home's? How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
Victoria Macdonald
The Observer, Sunday 23 May 2010
Article history
Teenagers are receiving the messages without knowing the background to their adoption. Photograph: Dave Parker / Alamy/Alamy
The natural parents of adopted children are increasingly using Facebook and other social networking sites to track down their offspring, flouting the usual controls and safeguards.
Adoption agencies are reporting huge numbers of calls from "deeply distressed" adoptive parents whose children have been contacted out of the blue.
Jonathan Pearce, chief executive of Adoption UK, said it was having to deal with the consequences of this "intrusive and unplanned communication", and warned that it was becoming more difficult to guarantee confidentiality to adoptive parents and their children.
At the moment, official contact in adoption is most often made through the "letterbox" process. The adoptive parents send the birth family a letter and photos every year via a social worker or adoption agency intermediary. If the birth parent wants to respond, they also have to go through this route.
However, Facebook and other social networking sites have changed all this. Any scrap of information – a name, location or date of birth – can help biological parents track down their children.
But the agencies warn that the existing rules protect often extremely vulnerable children. Where once adoption tended to involve a young, single woman giving up her unplanned baby, now two-thirds of adopted children have been removed because their parents abused or neglected them. In many cases, the birth parents dispute the removal, blaming social services. One message sent to a child given up some years ago for adoption read: "Hello, I'm your birth father. I have been searching for you ever since you were stolen by social services. You look beautiful. I love you so much."
Another read: "Darling son, I am so happy because I have found you here. I have been looking for ages. Please write back because you've been told lies about me." Many local authorities are now advising adoptive parents not to include photographs in their annual letters, in case these are posted online in an attempt to trace the child.
In a report to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, one adoptive mother said a message to her daughter from the biological mother had had a catastrophic impact on the family. The adoptive mother, who cannot be identified, said: "Our daughter, who is our prime concern, has gone from no contact from her birth family, at the hands of whom she had a difficult start in life, to suddenly finding they are there at the press of a button."
Her daughter had just turned 16 when she received the message in February. She is due to sit her GCSEs shortly, but her adoptive mother said she had gone through a whole range of emotions and that it had "completely thrown her".
The natural mother failed to acknowledge why her daughter had been removed from the family at the age of seven. "She was subjected to abuse and neglect over a long period of time," said her adoptive mother. "But none of that is being acknowledged now."
In another case, a teenage girl was contacted by her biological mother who, in turn, put her in touch with her birth father. The girl was unaware that the man had sexually abused her when she was a young child. The report also cites the case of the adoptive father of one teenage boy who went to meet his birth father after contact was made through Facebook. The boy had been removed from his family because of severe physical abuse when he was a baby.
There are no reliable estimates of how many children have been contacted using social networking sites. But agencies are so concerned that next month the British Association for Adoption and Fostering is to send out new guidance to social workers and adoptive parents.
Dr John Simmonds, the BAAF's director of policy, research and development, said the guidelines recognise that Facebook and other social networking sites are here to stay. "We will have to build them into the fabric of our adoption practice and re-emphasise the importance of children knowing why they were placed for adoption and the circumstances of the birth parents," Dr Simmonds said. "There is nothing we can say to the social networking sites."
Chris Smith, whose children were adopted seven years ago, said he uses social networking sites to "follow them through life", although he has not sent any messages. Smith, who believes his children were unfairly adopted, said he wanted to know about their wellbeing. The annual letter does not tell you about their health or interests, he said.
"Because I know where they are, I can just sit and see some of the photos of their school and of events and know they are doing OK," he explained.
Some agencies now ask birth parents to sign contracts prohibiting them from using social networking sites to make contact. The adoptive mother to whom the Observer spoke said that when she contacted social services for advice they told her to stop their daughter from using social networking sites. "I told them that I did not believe I could do that because she would run away. I can cut back some contact, but not all," she said.
Normally the girl would not have been able to meet her biological family until she was 18. Because of the unexpected contact, her adoptive family is being forced to explore the option of a formal meeting with the birth parents. The mother said this was "far from ideal", but the "genie was out of the bottle".
■ Facebook is expected to introduce changes to its privacy settings as early as this week following attacks by regulators and campaign groups, who claim it has failed to ensure users' privacy.
Those briefed at Facebook's headquarters in the US say the company is to introduce a "master control" that would simplify users' privacy settings. Users would then be able to choose which groups of people they wished to share information with – everyone, friends of friends or just friends. This would replace the current automatic system that shares users' information with third parties and has been criticised for being over-complicated and confusing.
For the full report see Channel 4 News tonight at 6.30pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/23/birth-parents-stalk-adopted-facebook
Raynard Price "Ask A Foster Parent Anything- Destroying Kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-aVO3HtxI
Can CPS take kids without charging parents?
AFRA EDITORIALS
By Leonard Henderson
Can CPS take kids without charging parents?
May 22, 2010
Yes, absolutely. On the flimsiest premise.
It's an exigent "emergency". It's ALWAYS "In the child's best interest" to be kidnapped from his/her home and doped out of their heads.
See, in the rare chance that the child really is in danger, and if something bad happens, the CPS agent is in for lots of bad press.
But if the child is kidnapped kicking and screaming and hauled to a foster home where he/ she gets immediately beat, raped, or killed, the CPS agent is off the hook. Scot free. And then the state goes into denial, locking info up as "confidential", and does their best to spin the story some way other than THEIR culpability.
Whatever the reason the CPS agent invades a family, she already has the accusation, Hot Line report, or mandated reporter referral. And as far as she is concerned YOU DID IT. Or it's your fault. Or you "should have known". Or just whatever.
The BLAME is on you. And the "evidence" is the accusation.
CPS operates on the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" method. Her job depends on "finding abuse". She isn't an investigator. She doesn't care about the truth. Her job is to feed new warm bodies into the meat grinder.
The state doesn't make any money for "screening out" false allegations. Nor does the state get paid for "fixing families".* No, the state gets paid for kidnapping kids and putting them in foster care. Years ago, somebody coined the term "Perverse Incentive".
If the kid is sufficiently unhappy about his/her being kidnapped, the state has no problem with "diagnosing" the kid as "mentally ill" and the kid will be DOPED. If the kid has a big enough problem with their kidnapping, he/she will be declared "Special Needs", put in Residential Treatment on high levels or multiple drugs. The state gets $12,000 a month for that.
And you, the parent have absolutely nothing to say about it. You get a "Safety Plan" or "Service Plan" whereby you get to take Anger Management classes, Parenting classes, Drug Rehab, or whatever other classes they might have, jumping through their hoops until you get TPR'ed.
The agency may get around to "charging" you later in their unconstitutional court of NO Due Process.
But no, they don't have to "charge" you with anything to kidnap your kids. In fact, it's the kid's new "Civil Right" to be kidnapped by the state. They prefer to kidnap the kids at school, so they don't even have to deal with you until the dirty deed is done. As the old saying goes- possession is 9/10th of the "law".
And then (unless you are extremely rich and can afford a top-notch lawyer who knows how to vigorously defend a CPS case) it's time for you to have to learn How to Fight CPS.
*There is an exception, called a "waiver", being tried in Florida
COMMENT on this story
"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." --Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist
If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU
Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at "How To Fight CPS"-
http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Affidavit-
http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/sworn_affidavit.html
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights Association
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©
"The Voice of America's Families" ©
Have you seen AFRA News Today?
http://familyrights.us/news
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to give legal advice. If you need legal advice, see AFRA's Lawyer Friends who certainly are not pretenders (http://familyrights.us/info/law) I merely relate the things I learned in the past that seemed to work in my own case or things that others have related to me that worked in their cases. I provide information for free and do not expect to receive any form of payment or reward on this side of heaven. Therefore, DO NOT rely on this information as legal advice. Real Legal advice would come from a real lawyer who hates CPS and prepares a VIGOROUS DEFENSE against a negative (proving nothing happened) instead an ATTORNEY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorn) talking you into a plea bargain (http://familyrights.us/bin/The_Problem_with_Plea_Bargaining.htm)
By Leonard Henderson
Can CPS take kids without charging parents?
May 22, 2010
Yes, absolutely. On the flimsiest premise.
It's an exigent "emergency". It's ALWAYS "In the child's best interest" to be kidnapped from his/her home and doped out of their heads.
See, in the rare chance that the child really is in danger, and if something bad happens, the CPS agent is in for lots of bad press.
But if the child is kidnapped kicking and screaming and hauled to a foster home where he/ she gets immediately beat, raped, or killed, the CPS agent is off the hook. Scot free. And then the state goes into denial, locking info up as "confidential", and does their best to spin the story some way other than THEIR culpability.
Whatever the reason the CPS agent invades a family, she already has the accusation, Hot Line report, or mandated reporter referral. And as far as she is concerned YOU DID IT. Or it's your fault. Or you "should have known". Or just whatever.
The BLAME is on you. And the "evidence" is the accusation.
CPS operates on the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" method. Her job depends on "finding abuse". She isn't an investigator. She doesn't care about the truth. Her job is to feed new warm bodies into the meat grinder.
The state doesn't make any money for "screening out" false allegations. Nor does the state get paid for "fixing families".* No, the state gets paid for kidnapping kids and putting them in foster care. Years ago, somebody coined the term "Perverse Incentive".
If the kid is sufficiently unhappy about his/her being kidnapped, the state has no problem with "diagnosing" the kid as "mentally ill" and the kid will be DOPED. If the kid has a big enough problem with their kidnapping, he/she will be declared "Special Needs", put in Residential Treatment on high levels or multiple drugs. The state gets $12,000 a month for that.
And you, the parent have absolutely nothing to say about it. You get a "Safety Plan" or "Service Plan" whereby you get to take Anger Management classes, Parenting classes, Drug Rehab, or whatever other classes they might have, jumping through their hoops until you get TPR'ed.
The agency may get around to "charging" you later in their unconstitutional court of NO Due Process.
But no, they don't have to "charge" you with anything to kidnap your kids. In fact, it's the kid's new "Civil Right" to be kidnapped by the state. They prefer to kidnap the kids at school, so they don't even have to deal with you until the dirty deed is done. As the old saying goes- possession is 9/10th of the "law".
And then (unless you are extremely rich and can afford a top-notch lawyer who knows how to vigorously defend a CPS case) it's time for you to have to learn How to Fight CPS.
*There is an exception, called a "waiver", being tried in Florida
COMMENT on this story
"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." --Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist
If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU
Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at "How To Fight CPS"-
http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Affidavit-
http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/sworn_affidavit.html
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights Association
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©
"The Voice of America's Families" ©
Have you seen AFRA News Today?
http://familyrights.us/news
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to give legal advice. If you need legal advice, see AFRA's Lawyer Friends who certainly are not pretenders (http://familyrights.us/info/law) I merely relate the things I learned in the past that seemed to work in my own case or things that others have related to me that worked in their cases. I provide information for free and do not expect to receive any form of payment or reward on this side of heaven. Therefore, DO NOT rely on this information as legal advice. Real Legal advice would come from a real lawyer who hates CPS and prepares a VIGOROUS DEFENSE against a negative (proving nothing happened) instead an ATTORNEY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorn) talking you into a plea bargain (http://familyrights.us/bin/The_Problem_with_Plea_Bargaining.htm)
Saturday, May 22, 2010
NEW HAMPSHIRE ADOPTION FACTS Ready For Some More Lies?
[PDF]NEW HAMPSHIRE ADOPTION FACTS
In 2007, most New Hampshire children left foster care to return home (35%) or ... made available by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, ...
www.nacac.org/policy/statefactsheets/NH.pdf
In 2007, most New Hampshire children left foster care to return home (35%) or ... made available by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, ...
www.nacac.org/policy/statefactsheets/NH.pdf
The impact of foster care on development.
The impact of foster care on development.
Lawrence CR, Carlson EA, Egeland B.
University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Abstract
Foster care is a protective intervention designed to provide out of home placement to children living in at-risk home environments. This study employs prospective longitudinal data (N = 189) to investigate the effects of foster care on the development of child behavior and psychological functioning taking into account baseline adaptation prior to placement and socioeconomic status at the time of placement. Comparisons were made among three groups: children who experienced foster care, those who were maltreated but remained in the home, and children who had not experienced foster care or maltreatment despite their similarly at-risk demographic characteristics. In the current sample, children placed in out of home care exhibited significant behavior problems in comparison to children who received adequate care, and using the same pre- and postplacement measure of adaptation, foster care children showed elevated levels of behavior problems following release from care. Similarly, children placed into unfamiliar foster care showed higher levels of internalizing problems compared with children reared by maltreating caregivers, children in familiar care, and children who received adequate caregiving. Findings suggest that outcomes related to foster care may vary with type of care and beyond the effects associated with maltreatment history, baseline adaptation, and socioeconomic status.
PMID: 16478552 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478552
Lawrence CR, Carlson EA, Egeland B.
University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Abstract
Foster care is a protective intervention designed to provide out of home placement to children living in at-risk home environments. This study employs prospective longitudinal data (N = 189) to investigate the effects of foster care on the development of child behavior and psychological functioning taking into account baseline adaptation prior to placement and socioeconomic status at the time of placement. Comparisons were made among three groups: children who experienced foster care, those who were maltreated but remained in the home, and children who had not experienced foster care or maltreatment despite their similarly at-risk demographic characteristics. In the current sample, children placed in out of home care exhibited significant behavior problems in comparison to children who received adequate care, and using the same pre- and postplacement measure of adaptation, foster care children showed elevated levels of behavior problems following release from care. Similarly, children placed into unfamiliar foster care showed higher levels of internalizing problems compared with children reared by maltreating caregivers, children in familiar care, and children who received adequate caregiving. Findings suggest that outcomes related to foster care may vary with type of care and beyond the effects associated with maltreatment history, baseline adaptation, and socioeconomic status.
PMID: 16478552 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478552
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)