Attorney Jailed and Denied Rights for Exposing Corruption US Judicial System, Richard Fine
Alex Jones discusses retaliatory acts against Richard Fine, an attorney with a PhD in international law, for exposing judicial corruption. Fine has been jailed for over 1 year and denied all due process of law. [Juvenile Judges Kids for Cash Scandal AJ refers to is in Luzerne County Pa, not Philly - see my uploaded video US Juvenile Judges Jail Kids...]. UPDATED INFO – Letter to US Supreme Court Justices regarding California Court Corruption and the Financial Crisis Case: Richard I. Fine v Sheriff of County of Los Angeles, Docket # 09A827, Conference Hearing Date 4/23/2010. Apr 19, 2010, by American Homeowners Resource Center. There is a cancer among the judges of California. In the instant case, it is manifested in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Citizens rightly expect judges to be people of probity, but that expectation has been shattered by the revelation that these judges knowingly took more than $300 million of taxpayer money illegally in the last 20 years, and concealed it from the public by not reporting it on Form 700. That expectation was further shattered when citizens learned how these same judges along with California Chief Justice George used court operating money to hire a former state legislator to lobby the California legislature for a grant of immunity and continuation of the illegal payments. The lobbyist secured senator Darryl Steinberg, a former judge, to introduce the necessary legislation – SBX-11. It was tacked onto the Budget Bill at the last …
http://taxattorneyslosangeles.bloxblox.net/attorney-jailed-and-denied-rights-for-exposing-corruption-us-judicial-system-richard-fine/
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 25, 2010
Child Welfare Financing
Child Welfare Financing
Comprised of policymakers, judges, advocates, administrators, academics, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth, the national, non-partisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care was formed to develop recommendations to improve outcomes for children in the foster care system—particularly to expedite the movement of foster children into safe, permanent, nurturing families, and to prevent unnecessary placements in foster care.
In its recommendations, released in May 2004, the Commission focused on reform in two key areas that underlie many of the problems in child welfare today: a federal financing structure that encourages over-reliance on placement of children in foster care, and a court system that lacks sufficient capacity to move children swiftly out of foster care and into permanent families.
Federal Financing Recommendations
Below, we outline the Commission’s financing recommendations and explain challenges to be overcome to better serve children, youth, and their families.
Preserve federal foster care maintenance and adoption assistance as entitlements and expand them to all children, regardless of their birth families’ income and including Indian children and children in the U.S. territories. (NOTE: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 will extend direct IV-E funding to tribes and, over time, will expand eligibility for IV-E adoption assistance. IV-E foster care has not been expanded. To learn more about the law, visit http://www.nacac.org/policy/news.html.)
Currently, the federal government shares in a portion of the cost of foster care for every child whose family income is below the 1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children income standards. In contrast, states are obligated to provide protection to every abused or neglected child, regardless of family income.
Adoption assistance, like foster care protection, is an important support for children with special needs. Public subsidies help strengthen these new families and enable many foster parents to adopt children already in their care by ensuring that they do not lose support as they transition to adoption. Like foster care payments, federal subsidies are available only to income-eligible children.
Unfortunately, a funding system that ties foster care and adoption assistance to outdated income guidelines has resulted in a system in which far fewer children are eligible for Title IV-E federal support. From 1998 to 2005, the average monthly number of foster children receiving IV-E maintenance payments dropped from 53 percent to 46 percent. In some states, the drop is dramatic. As a result, states and localities must share a greater burden for foster care and adoption. In some states, this has severely limited the amount of funding that can go to prevention—or in some cases, has caused cuts in already limited adoption support.
Every abused and neglected child—not just every poor child—deserves protection from both the federal and state governments. Thus, the costs of foster care and adoption for these children should be a partnership between the states and the federal government.
Provide federal guardianship assistance to all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent legal guardian when they cannot return home or be adopted. (NOTE: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 will meet this recommendation. To learn more, visit http://www.nacac.org/policy/news.html.)
Nationally, about 19,250 children live with relative foster parents with no hope of safely returning home or being adopted. And each year thousands of youth age out of care with no legal parents. Many of these children would benefit from subsidized guardianship, which has proven to boost permanency rates, particularly for older children and children of color. Currently, there is no permanent federal funding for guardianship; therefore it is unavailable to many of the children who need it most. Without guardianship, foster children living with relatives are stuck in limbo—unable to sleep over at a friend’s house or get routine medical care without a worker’s permission.
As with adoption assistance, guardianship assistance helps families meet the special needs of children who have been abused or neglected. Children in stable foster placements with relatives and other caregivers would benefit from greater federal support for guardianship, allowing them to leave care, eliminate costly caseworker visits, and reduce unnecessary court oversight.
Help states build a range of services that keep children from entering care, enable them to leave care safely, and support permanence by (1) creating a flexible, indexed Safe Children, Strong Families Grant from the current Title IV-B and the administration and training components of Title IV-E, and (2) allowing states to “reinvest” federal and state foster care funds into other child welfare services if they safely reduce their use of foster care.
The vast majority of federal child welfare funding can only be used once children have been removed from their birth families. States have limited ability to invest in efforts to preserve families because only a small percentage of federal funds may be used for prevention. As a result, there are too many children in care who might have been able to stay at home safely or leave placement sooner if states had been able to use more federal dollars for prevention, treatment, and post-permanency services. States should be granted such flexibility.
Flexibility alone, however, is not enough to enable states to build a continuum of services to meet the needs of children who are abused or neglected. Additional federal funding is needed if states are to invest in proven practices to achieve better child outcomes.
(Download a PDF that summarizes this recommendation.)
Encourage innovation by expanding and simplifying the waiver process and providing incentives to states that (1) make and maintain improvements in their child welfare workforce, and (2) increase all forms of safe permanence.
On March 31, 2006, the federal government ended the child welfare waiver program, which gave states flexible use of federal child welfare funds. Since 1996, 18 states used waivers to implement more than two dozen innovative programs. Innovation and flexibility should be encouraged, and successful waiver programs (such as subsidized guardianship) should be replicated.
The federal government now provides states with incentives to achieve permanence only through adoption. Incentives for reunification and guardianship—also good permanency outcomes for children—would provide states with funds to reinvest in success and innovation. Incentives to improve the conditions of frontline workers, also critical to the success of children and families, would encourage states to make investments in their workforce.
Strengthen the current Child and Family Services Review process to increase states’ accountability for improving outcomes for children.
Currently, the federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are the principal tool for assessing how well states and localities meet the goals of safety, permanency, and well-being for foster children. The Pew Commission recommends that the CFSRs use longitudinal data to produce more complete, accurate assessments of states’ progress. The reviews should also more accurately assess child well-being by reporting on children’s health and education status. A review system such as this would better guide child welfare reform.
Key Child Welfare Financing Facts
Federal spending to place children in foster care far surpasses spending to keep families together, and the gap has only grown wider.
In the United States, only 13 percent of federal child welfare dollars can be spent to keep children with their families. Approximately $644.3 million dollars out of a total of $4.9 billion child welfare dollars are flexible and aimed at keeping families together.
Over the last decade, the more flexible pool of federal dollars (Title IV-B) aimed at keeping families together has remained consistently low, while the funding targeted only for children who have entered foster care has grown.
The Title IV-B authorization is $325 million for Subpart 1 and $545 million for Subpart 2, but appropriations are only $286.7 and $454 million respectively.
Federal spending on child welfare remained fairly stable between 2002 and 2004, while state spending increased 6 percent and local spending increased 10 percent.
In 2004, states spent a total of at least $23.3 billion dollars on child welfare services. Of that amount, $11.7 billion were federal funds, $9.1 billion were state funds, and $2.5 billion were local funds.
More than 19,250 foster children cannot return home and are living safely with relatives. Many do not have the option of subsidized guardianship to help them leave foster care to a permanent family.
Although 38 states and the District of Columbia have subsidized guardianship programs, some are operating under time-limited waivers, many are funded with TANF dollars that are not secure from year to year, and most are not supporting children at a level that fully meets their needs.
States are obligated to provide protection to every abused or neglected child regardless of income, but the federal government will only reimburse states for a portion of this work if the child is considered poor under outdated AFDC eligibility requirements, under which fewer and fewer children qualify. About 5,000 children each year are projected to lose federal support for their care due to this outdated income-eligibility requirement.
In 1998, 53 percent of foster children were eligible for federal support, but by 2005, the percentage had dropped to 46 percent—or 35,000 fewer Title IV-E eligible children. This decrease translates into about a $1.9 billion reduction in federal support to the states.
Approximately 6,500 Native American children are in foster care across the United States, most under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. Native American tribes that administer their own child welfare systems, however, are not eligible for Title IV-E funds unless they have a cooperative agreement with the states.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) spending for child welfare services decreased between 2002 and 2004 in 40 states. These funding streams are not dedicated or guaranteed for child welfare services.
Medicaid and SSBG are two sources of funding that have been available to support children, but both continue to lose their value for serving children in the child welfare system. In Medicaid, targeted case management services have been severely limited in recent years and authorizations for SSBG have fallen from $2.5 billion in 1995 to $1.7 billion today.
NACAC's Family and Youth Engagement Project
Since 2005, NACAC has been proud to be a part of a team of child advocates working to raise awareness about the valuable reform recommendations made by the Pew Commission. In the videos below, NACAC features the stories of former foster youth, birth parents, adoptive parents, and relative caregivers to highlight the need for reform and way in which the Pew Commission's recommendations could improve outcomes for children, youth, and families. Click here to download a copy of the video companion guide. To request a DVD and a hard copy of the guide, send an e-mail with your name and address to chrstinaromo@nacac.org.
For more information about child welfare financing, download Child Welfare Financing 101, NACAC's research brief on the topic.
Introduction
Promoting Permanent Families
Expanding Adoption Assistance
Implementing Subsidized Guardianship
Increasing Funding Flexibility
Reforming the Courts
Conclusion
Credits
http://www.nacac.org/policy/financing.html
Comprised of policymakers, judges, advocates, administrators, academics, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth, the national, non-partisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care was formed to develop recommendations to improve outcomes for children in the foster care system—particularly to expedite the movement of foster children into safe, permanent, nurturing families, and to prevent unnecessary placements in foster care.
In its recommendations, released in May 2004, the Commission focused on reform in two key areas that underlie many of the problems in child welfare today: a federal financing structure that encourages over-reliance on placement of children in foster care, and a court system that lacks sufficient capacity to move children swiftly out of foster care and into permanent families.
Federal Financing Recommendations
Below, we outline the Commission’s financing recommendations and explain challenges to be overcome to better serve children, youth, and their families.
Preserve federal foster care maintenance and adoption assistance as entitlements and expand them to all children, regardless of their birth families’ income and including Indian children and children in the U.S. territories. (NOTE: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 will extend direct IV-E funding to tribes and, over time, will expand eligibility for IV-E adoption assistance. IV-E foster care has not been expanded. To learn more about the law, visit http://www.nacac.org/policy/news.html.)
Currently, the federal government shares in a portion of the cost of foster care for every child whose family income is below the 1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children income standards. In contrast, states are obligated to provide protection to every abused or neglected child, regardless of family income.
Adoption assistance, like foster care protection, is an important support for children with special needs. Public subsidies help strengthen these new families and enable many foster parents to adopt children already in their care by ensuring that they do not lose support as they transition to adoption. Like foster care payments, federal subsidies are available only to income-eligible children.
Unfortunately, a funding system that ties foster care and adoption assistance to outdated income guidelines has resulted in a system in which far fewer children are eligible for Title IV-E federal support. From 1998 to 2005, the average monthly number of foster children receiving IV-E maintenance payments dropped from 53 percent to 46 percent. In some states, the drop is dramatic. As a result, states and localities must share a greater burden for foster care and adoption. In some states, this has severely limited the amount of funding that can go to prevention—or in some cases, has caused cuts in already limited adoption support.
Every abused and neglected child—not just every poor child—deserves protection from both the federal and state governments. Thus, the costs of foster care and adoption for these children should be a partnership between the states and the federal government.
Provide federal guardianship assistance to all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent legal guardian when they cannot return home or be adopted. (NOTE: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 will meet this recommendation. To learn more, visit http://www.nacac.org/policy/news.html.)
Nationally, about 19,250 children live with relative foster parents with no hope of safely returning home or being adopted. And each year thousands of youth age out of care with no legal parents. Many of these children would benefit from subsidized guardianship, which has proven to boost permanency rates, particularly for older children and children of color. Currently, there is no permanent federal funding for guardianship; therefore it is unavailable to many of the children who need it most. Without guardianship, foster children living with relatives are stuck in limbo—unable to sleep over at a friend’s house or get routine medical care without a worker’s permission.
As with adoption assistance, guardianship assistance helps families meet the special needs of children who have been abused or neglected. Children in stable foster placements with relatives and other caregivers would benefit from greater federal support for guardianship, allowing them to leave care, eliminate costly caseworker visits, and reduce unnecessary court oversight.
Help states build a range of services that keep children from entering care, enable them to leave care safely, and support permanence by (1) creating a flexible, indexed Safe Children, Strong Families Grant from the current Title IV-B and the administration and training components of Title IV-E, and (2) allowing states to “reinvest” federal and state foster care funds into other child welfare services if they safely reduce their use of foster care.
The vast majority of federal child welfare funding can only be used once children have been removed from their birth families. States have limited ability to invest in efforts to preserve families because only a small percentage of federal funds may be used for prevention. As a result, there are too many children in care who might have been able to stay at home safely or leave placement sooner if states had been able to use more federal dollars for prevention, treatment, and post-permanency services. States should be granted such flexibility.
Flexibility alone, however, is not enough to enable states to build a continuum of services to meet the needs of children who are abused or neglected. Additional federal funding is needed if states are to invest in proven practices to achieve better child outcomes.
(Download a PDF that summarizes this recommendation.)
Encourage innovation by expanding and simplifying the waiver process and providing incentives to states that (1) make and maintain improvements in their child welfare workforce, and (2) increase all forms of safe permanence.
On March 31, 2006, the federal government ended the child welfare waiver program, which gave states flexible use of federal child welfare funds. Since 1996, 18 states used waivers to implement more than two dozen innovative programs. Innovation and flexibility should be encouraged, and successful waiver programs (such as subsidized guardianship) should be replicated.
The federal government now provides states with incentives to achieve permanence only through adoption. Incentives for reunification and guardianship—also good permanency outcomes for children—would provide states with funds to reinvest in success and innovation. Incentives to improve the conditions of frontline workers, also critical to the success of children and families, would encourage states to make investments in their workforce.
Strengthen the current Child and Family Services Review process to increase states’ accountability for improving outcomes for children.
Currently, the federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are the principal tool for assessing how well states and localities meet the goals of safety, permanency, and well-being for foster children. The Pew Commission recommends that the CFSRs use longitudinal data to produce more complete, accurate assessments of states’ progress. The reviews should also more accurately assess child well-being by reporting on children’s health and education status. A review system such as this would better guide child welfare reform.
Key Child Welfare Financing Facts
Federal spending to place children in foster care far surpasses spending to keep families together, and the gap has only grown wider.
In the United States, only 13 percent of federal child welfare dollars can be spent to keep children with their families. Approximately $644.3 million dollars out of a total of $4.9 billion child welfare dollars are flexible and aimed at keeping families together.
Over the last decade, the more flexible pool of federal dollars (Title IV-B) aimed at keeping families together has remained consistently low, while the funding targeted only for children who have entered foster care has grown.
The Title IV-B authorization is $325 million for Subpart 1 and $545 million for Subpart 2, but appropriations are only $286.7 and $454 million respectively.
Federal spending on child welfare remained fairly stable between 2002 and 2004, while state spending increased 6 percent and local spending increased 10 percent.
In 2004, states spent a total of at least $23.3 billion dollars on child welfare services. Of that amount, $11.7 billion were federal funds, $9.1 billion were state funds, and $2.5 billion were local funds.
More than 19,250 foster children cannot return home and are living safely with relatives. Many do not have the option of subsidized guardianship to help them leave foster care to a permanent family.
Although 38 states and the District of Columbia have subsidized guardianship programs, some are operating under time-limited waivers, many are funded with TANF dollars that are not secure from year to year, and most are not supporting children at a level that fully meets their needs.
States are obligated to provide protection to every abused or neglected child regardless of income, but the federal government will only reimburse states for a portion of this work if the child is considered poor under outdated AFDC eligibility requirements, under which fewer and fewer children qualify. About 5,000 children each year are projected to lose federal support for their care due to this outdated income-eligibility requirement.
In 1998, 53 percent of foster children were eligible for federal support, but by 2005, the percentage had dropped to 46 percent—or 35,000 fewer Title IV-E eligible children. This decrease translates into about a $1.9 billion reduction in federal support to the states.
Approximately 6,500 Native American children are in foster care across the United States, most under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. Native American tribes that administer their own child welfare systems, however, are not eligible for Title IV-E funds unless they have a cooperative agreement with the states.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) spending for child welfare services decreased between 2002 and 2004 in 40 states. These funding streams are not dedicated or guaranteed for child welfare services.
Medicaid and SSBG are two sources of funding that have been available to support children, but both continue to lose their value for serving children in the child welfare system. In Medicaid, targeted case management services have been severely limited in recent years and authorizations for SSBG have fallen from $2.5 billion in 1995 to $1.7 billion today.
NACAC's Family and Youth Engagement Project
Since 2005, NACAC has been proud to be a part of a team of child advocates working to raise awareness about the valuable reform recommendations made by the Pew Commission. In the videos below, NACAC features the stories of former foster youth, birth parents, adoptive parents, and relative caregivers to highlight the need for reform and way in which the Pew Commission's recommendations could improve outcomes for children, youth, and families. Click here to download a copy of the video companion guide. To request a DVD and a hard copy of the guide, send an e-mail with your name and address to chrstinaromo@nacac.org.
For more information about child welfare financing, download Child Welfare Financing 101, NACAC's research brief on the topic.
Introduction
Promoting Permanent Families
Expanding Adoption Assistance
Implementing Subsidized Guardianship
Increasing Funding Flexibility
Reforming the Courts
Conclusion
Credits
http://www.nacac.org/policy/financing.html
R.I. child-welfare agency gets federal money to help keep children out of the state system(At least RI is working to PRESERVE FAMILIES!)
R.I. child-welfare agency gets federal money to help keep children out of the state system (Well at least RI is Working To PRESERVE FAMILIES!)
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 22, 2010
By Lynn Arditi
Journal Staff Writer
CRANSTON — At Joyce Sylvia’s age, family responsibilities usually amount to spoiling the grandchildren on birthdays and holidays. But long after she was done raising her own children, her family needed her — and she couldn’t say no.
So, instead of relaxing on a cruise boat with her silver-haired friends, Sylvia, 68, spends many days chauffeuring her 15-year-old granddaughter, rap music blaring on the car stereo.
Though “it hasn’t been easy,” Sylvia said, “I’m kind of enjoying it.”
Sylvia was one of the “Grand Divas” of the Rhode Island’s child-welfare system who spoke Friday before about 350 employees of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families and its network of private service providers who attended a conference at the Rhodes on the Pawtuxet in Cranston. The event was organized by the Rhode Island Partnership for Family Connections, a network of child-welfare service providers and the DCYF.
Rhode Island is among the 22 sites in 13 states last year that received federal grants — in Rhode Island, $2.4 million over three years — to fund the program to create more permanent homes for children in state custody by expanding the role of “kinship care” providers. In Rhode Island, the “kin” can be relatives or friends or a teacher or coach or someone who has a connection with the child.
Sylvia and her husband were in their 60s when they suddenly became parents again. Sylvia’s son was involved in drugs, she said, and fathered children and didn’t care for them. One of the women whose children he fathered was evicted from her house and wound up in a shelter. She had six young children.
“The way we were brought up,” Sylvia said, “you take care of your own.”
Ana Perkins also found herself suddenly drawn into the role of mother again when her niece in Rhode Island died of cancer, leaving five children, ages 4 to 14. Perkins, who was living in Brooklyn, N.Y., at the time, moved to Providence to care for two of the children; her sister took the other two. At first, Perkins said, she survived on welfare and $120 a month in food stamps. Eventually, she got a job and a pay raise.
Discipline was a struggle. “None of them like the way I treated them because I was old-school,” she said. “I was strict!”
The girls began fighting. One time, one of the girls pulled out a kitchen knife and threatened her sister. Perkins, fearing for their safety, called the DCYF. One of the girls wound up being placed in a group home because she couldn’t get along with Perkins.
On Friday, one of those sisters who fought in Perkins’ kitchen years ago sat in the audience, wiping her eyes.
Jeree Holloway is now 21 and a senior at Bennett College for Women in North Carolina. When the question-and-answer period began, she raised her hand.
“I just want to say thank you to my auntie,” Holloway said, “for taking us in.”
larditi@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/FAMILY_CONNECTIONS_05-22-10_OKIJ67C_v81.20871ea8.html
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 22, 2010
By Lynn Arditi
Journal Staff Writer
CRANSTON — At Joyce Sylvia’s age, family responsibilities usually amount to spoiling the grandchildren on birthdays and holidays. But long after she was done raising her own children, her family needed her — and she couldn’t say no.
So, instead of relaxing on a cruise boat with her silver-haired friends, Sylvia, 68, spends many days chauffeuring her 15-year-old granddaughter, rap music blaring on the car stereo.
Though “it hasn’t been easy,” Sylvia said, “I’m kind of enjoying it.”
Sylvia was one of the “Grand Divas” of the Rhode Island’s child-welfare system who spoke Friday before about 350 employees of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families and its network of private service providers who attended a conference at the Rhodes on the Pawtuxet in Cranston. The event was organized by the Rhode Island Partnership for Family Connections, a network of child-welfare service providers and the DCYF.
Rhode Island is among the 22 sites in 13 states last year that received federal grants — in Rhode Island, $2.4 million over three years — to fund the program to create more permanent homes for children in state custody by expanding the role of “kinship care” providers. In Rhode Island, the “kin” can be relatives or friends or a teacher or coach or someone who has a connection with the child.
Sylvia and her husband were in their 60s when they suddenly became parents again. Sylvia’s son was involved in drugs, she said, and fathered children and didn’t care for them. One of the women whose children he fathered was evicted from her house and wound up in a shelter. She had six young children.
“The way we were brought up,” Sylvia said, “you take care of your own.”
Ana Perkins also found herself suddenly drawn into the role of mother again when her niece in Rhode Island died of cancer, leaving five children, ages 4 to 14. Perkins, who was living in Brooklyn, N.Y., at the time, moved to Providence to care for two of the children; her sister took the other two. At first, Perkins said, she survived on welfare and $120 a month in food stamps. Eventually, she got a job and a pay raise.
Discipline was a struggle. “None of them like the way I treated them because I was old-school,” she said. “I was strict!”
The girls began fighting. One time, one of the girls pulled out a kitchen knife and threatened her sister. Perkins, fearing for their safety, called the DCYF. One of the girls wound up being placed in a group home because she couldn’t get along with Perkins.
On Friday, one of those sisters who fought in Perkins’ kitchen years ago sat in the audience, wiping her eyes.
Jeree Holloway is now 21 and a senior at Bennett College for Women in North Carolina. When the question-and-answer period began, she raised her hand.
“I just want to say thank you to my auntie,” Holloway said, “for taking us in.”
larditi@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/FAMILY_CONNECTIONS_05-22-10_OKIJ67C_v81.20871ea8.html
Grandparents and custody rights(Not in New Hampshire!)
Grandparents and custody rights
May 24th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparents rights
Many people do not recognize that grandparents can actually be awarded legal custody of their grandchildren, but that is actually the case in some events. This scenario tends to happen when neither parent can provide a healthy and sufficient home to raise their children.
It also can occur when there are legitimate concerns about safety due to known instances of drug use or child abuse. It is important to remember that the grandparent does have the responsibility in these cases to identify themselves as a potential custodial parent and to got to the courts and follow up on this to obtain their proper grandparents rights.
If grandparents can prove to the courts that their home offers adequate resources for raising a child then they will be strongly considered. Overall, grandparent custody is a generally preferred alternative in most every state to foster care.
The bottom line is that grandparents do have rights when it comes to custody and their grandchildren. The courts recognize them as an integral part of the family support system.
The key however is for grandparent’s to make their wishes known and get involved with custody process. The Custody Center is a wonderful, updated resource for finding out just how and when to exercise your grandparent rights, so that you have every bit of legal knowledge at your disposal that you need to take your case to the courts.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/grandparents-rights/grandparents-and-custody-rights
May 24th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparents rights
Many people do not recognize that grandparents can actually be awarded legal custody of their grandchildren, but that is actually the case in some events. This scenario tends to happen when neither parent can provide a healthy and sufficient home to raise their children.
It also can occur when there are legitimate concerns about safety due to known instances of drug use or child abuse. It is important to remember that the grandparent does have the responsibility in these cases to identify themselves as a potential custodial parent and to got to the courts and follow up on this to obtain their proper grandparents rights.
If grandparents can prove to the courts that their home offers adequate resources for raising a child then they will be strongly considered. Overall, grandparent custody is a generally preferred alternative in most every state to foster care.
The bottom line is that grandparents do have rights when it comes to custody and their grandchildren. The courts recognize them as an integral part of the family support system.
The key however is for grandparent’s to make their wishes known and get involved with custody process. The Custody Center is a wonderful, updated resource for finding out just how and when to exercise your grandparent rights, so that you have every bit of legal knowledge at your disposal that you need to take your case to the courts.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/grandparents-rights/grandparents-and-custody-rights
Monday, May 24, 2010
Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: Pro-Life People Should be Warned
Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: Pro-Life People Should be Warned
by Hannah Carter
May 24, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Hannah Carter is the director of education for Georgia Right to Life, a statewide pro-life group. This opinion column originally appeared on the GRTL blog web site.
Like many families, my grandmother and great-grandmother both had breast cancer. The issue of wanting to fight what harms your family or friends is noble. So when I tell people that I do not support Susan G. Komen an organization that exists to “fight breast cancer”, I normally get the look of one: why would you abandon your family or two: oh there goes one of those extremist.
However, my reasons are not that extreme, but rather principled.
I'm sure many of you reading this article have also been confronted with the issue of if I ‘m pro-life then how can I support an organization that supports the nation’s leading abortion provider. Hopefully, the following principles can shed some light on how to respond sympathetically, yet firm with why you cannot wear pink, or join the race, or all the various ways that Susan G. Komen is supported.
Principle # 1 Don't give to organizations that promote the shedding of innocent blood.
If this were a list of commandments, we could start with Thou Shall Not Kill. However, Proverbs 6:17 states that one of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood.
Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen has given over $3 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to Planned Parenthood which is the nation’s leading abortion provider.
While Susan G. Komen makes claims that these grants go for breast exams, once the funds go to Planned Parenthood they are fungible. For example, you can throw two twenty dollar bills into a purse one from a friend and one from your own account, but when you go to pay the light bill you use both.
The same is true with Planned Parenthood’s money it receives from Komen. Whenever someone applies for a grant they can say that while this $5,000 is going to breast cancer research, 20 percent of that money is going to pay for administrative costs like keeping the lights on and paying rent. So in essence, the money that people are raising to fight breast cancer is also going to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood.
According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%. In 2008, Susan G. Komen gave $731,000 to Planned Parenthood.
Principle # 2 Know and Recognize the Risk Factors for the Disease You are Trying to Prevent.
There are certain risks that can increase an individual’s chance of getting breast cancer. While Susan G. Komen says that they believe in knowing your risk factors, they have repeatedly denied the link between breast cancer and one of the greatest avoidable risk factors, abortion.
According to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.”
When a woman has an abortion she interrupts the natural process of estrogen production and breast development. When a woman first becomes pregnant her body produces a Type 1 carcinogen, cancer causing agent, estrogen in order to nourish and provide for the baby. If the mother has her child, her body stops producing as much estrogen and her breasts mature. However, if that process is interrupted, the estrogen production continues and her breasts stay in an immature state, making them more susceptible to breast cancer.
Groups like Susan G. Komen acknowledge that the level of exposure to estrogen throughout a woman’s lifetime is one of the greatest predictors for breast cancer. Sadly, they do not acknowledge that the increased exposure to estrogen after an abortion could increase risks of breast cancer as well. For an organization whose primary goal is “to have a world without breast cancer”, you would think they would try to let women know of all the risk factors for breast cancer, especially those that are preventable like abortion.
Recently, in an article by Jill Stanek, pro-life author and blogger, asked a very thought-provoking question, “Is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?”
Stanek also noted in her article that recently that the ties between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen are running deeper and deeper. See an excerpt below from Stanek’s article:
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006. PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker. Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK.
Eric also sits on SGK’s board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.” But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. So there is much still unanswered. Why didn't PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn't Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.
In essence, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s nephew own a mall together.
The bottom line is that Susan G. Komen is not accomplishing its mission every time it gives to Planned Parenthood.
Every time a woman has an abortion and part of the money to fund that center staying open came from Komen, they are putting women at a greater risk for breast cancer.
Every organization no matter how noble the cause they claim to represent seems to be needs to be held accountable.
The question is will you?
To continue your search for the ties between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, please visit:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Awards 72 Grants to Planned Parenthood
Komen Giving to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Down as Donations Drop
Planned Parenthood Deepens Link to Breast Cancer Group
Susan G. Komen’s List of Grants to Planned Parenthood
Studies about the Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer
Report: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: A Visible Link
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6360.html
by Hannah Carter
May 24, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Hannah Carter is the director of education for Georgia Right to Life, a statewide pro-life group. This opinion column originally appeared on the GRTL blog web site.
Like many families, my grandmother and great-grandmother both had breast cancer. The issue of wanting to fight what harms your family or friends is noble. So when I tell people that I do not support Susan G. Komen an organization that exists to “fight breast cancer”, I normally get the look of one: why would you abandon your family or two: oh there goes one of those extremist.
However, my reasons are not that extreme, but rather principled.
I'm sure many of you reading this article have also been confronted with the issue of if I ‘m pro-life then how can I support an organization that supports the nation’s leading abortion provider. Hopefully, the following principles can shed some light on how to respond sympathetically, yet firm with why you cannot wear pink, or join the race, or all the various ways that Susan G. Komen is supported.
Principle # 1 Don't give to organizations that promote the shedding of innocent blood.
If this were a list of commandments, we could start with Thou Shall Not Kill. However, Proverbs 6:17 states that one of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood.
Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen has given over $3 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to Planned Parenthood which is the nation’s leading abortion provider.
While Susan G. Komen makes claims that these grants go for breast exams, once the funds go to Planned Parenthood they are fungible. For example, you can throw two twenty dollar bills into a purse one from a friend and one from your own account, but when you go to pay the light bill you use both.
The same is true with Planned Parenthood’s money it receives from Komen. Whenever someone applies for a grant they can say that while this $5,000 is going to breast cancer research, 20 percent of that money is going to pay for administrative costs like keeping the lights on and paying rent. So in essence, the money that people are raising to fight breast cancer is also going to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood.
According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%. In 2008, Susan G. Komen gave $731,000 to Planned Parenthood.
Principle # 2 Know and Recognize the Risk Factors for the Disease You are Trying to Prevent.
There are certain risks that can increase an individual’s chance of getting breast cancer. While Susan G. Komen says that they believe in knowing your risk factors, they have repeatedly denied the link between breast cancer and one of the greatest avoidable risk factors, abortion.
According to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.”
When a woman has an abortion she interrupts the natural process of estrogen production and breast development. When a woman first becomes pregnant her body produces a Type 1 carcinogen, cancer causing agent, estrogen in order to nourish and provide for the baby. If the mother has her child, her body stops producing as much estrogen and her breasts mature. However, if that process is interrupted, the estrogen production continues and her breasts stay in an immature state, making them more susceptible to breast cancer.
Groups like Susan G. Komen acknowledge that the level of exposure to estrogen throughout a woman’s lifetime is one of the greatest predictors for breast cancer. Sadly, they do not acknowledge that the increased exposure to estrogen after an abortion could increase risks of breast cancer as well. For an organization whose primary goal is “to have a world without breast cancer”, you would think they would try to let women know of all the risk factors for breast cancer, especially those that are preventable like abortion.
Recently, in an article by Jill Stanek, pro-life author and blogger, asked a very thought-provoking question, “Is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?”
Stanek also noted in her article that recently that the ties between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen are running deeper and deeper. See an excerpt below from Stanek’s article:
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006. PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker. Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK.
Eric also sits on SGK’s board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.” But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. So there is much still unanswered. Why didn't PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn't Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.
In essence, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s nephew own a mall together.
The bottom line is that Susan G. Komen is not accomplishing its mission every time it gives to Planned Parenthood.
Every time a woman has an abortion and part of the money to fund that center staying open came from Komen, they are putting women at a greater risk for breast cancer.
Every organization no matter how noble the cause they claim to represent seems to be needs to be held accountable.
The question is will you?
To continue your search for the ties between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, please visit:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Awards 72 Grants to Planned Parenthood
Komen Giving to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Down as Donations Drop
Planned Parenthood Deepens Link to Breast Cancer Group
Susan G. Komen’s List of Grants to Planned Parenthood
Studies about the Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer
Report: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: A Visible Link
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6360.html
The most common lie in child welfare (It’s the one about the rate of abuse in foster care)
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
The most common lie in child welfare (It’s the one about the rate of abuse in foster care)
I have a question for the child welfare professionals reading this blog.
Suppose, hypothetically, you could gather in one room 200 former foster children, all of whom had been in foster care for up to one year. Suppose all of them felt free to give open, honest answers to any question you asked them. And suppose you asked them this: "How many of you were abused while you were in foster care?"
How many of you child welfare professionals would expect that only one of those 200 former foster children would raise her or his hand?
Of course you wouldn't expect that. You know the very idea that only one in 200 former children is abused in foster care is absurd. Indeed, this oft-repeated claim may be the most common lie in American Child Welfare. So why do some of you, and you know who you are, keep perpetuating that lie when you talk to the press and the public?
The people who make this claim don't put it in a way which makes the notion so obviously preposterous, of course. Typically, they obscure the absurdity by using percentages.
One child welfare agency chief recently told a legislative committee, presumably with a straight face, that more than 99.5 percent of the foster children in his state were not abused in foster care in the past year. That's the equivalent of one foster child in 200.
It's not that he made up the number out of whole cloth. Rather, this is the number of cases where his own agency was made aware of an abuse allegation in foster care and substantiated it.
The problem here should be obvious.
THE INCENTIVE FOR WILLFUL BLINDNESS
When a child welfare agency investigates an allegation of abuse in foster care it is, in effect, investigating itself. Even though an employee of the agency didn't inflict the abuse, the agency chose the foster parent who did or placed the child in the group home or institution where a staffer did it, or put the child in the placement where another foster child did it. So there is an enormous incentive to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and write no evil in the case file.
Contrast this kind of official figure to what former foster child Rose Garland said on the PBS series Frontline:
I know that there are good foster families out there, OK? But I also know that every foster kid that I have ever talked to, including myself, have been abused in foster homes. And I'm talking physically, emotionally and sexually.
Or consider what Marcia Lowry, who runs the group that so arrogantly calls itself Children's Rights – a group that has proven itself over and over to be profoundly hostile to family preservation - recently told the Philadelphia Daily News:
I've been doing this work for a long time and represented thousands and thousands of foster children, both in class-action lawsuits and individually, and I have almost never seen a child, boy or girl, who has been in foster care for any length of time who has not been sexually abused in some way, whether it is child-on-child or not.
WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US
But that's just "anecdotal evidence." What does the research tell us? It tells us that the official figures are b------t.
Except as noted, the studies below define foster care generically – that is they include group homes and institutions. So don't think for a moment that the problem can be avoided by going back to the orphanage. On the contrary, when studies are limited to institutions, the rate of abuse tends to be even worse.
Consider:
· A study of reported abuse in Baltimore, found the rate of "substantiated" cases of sexual abuse in foster care more than four times higher than the rate in the general population.
(Mary I. Benedict and Susan Zuravin, Factors Associated With Child Maltreatment by Family Foster Care Providers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, June 30, 1992)).
· Using the same methodology, an Indiana study found three times more physical abuse and twice the rate of sexual abuse in foster homes than in the general population. In group homes there was more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and more than 28 times the rate of sexual abuse as in the general population, in part because so many children in the homes abused each other. (William Spencer and Dean D. Kundsen, "Out of Home Maltreatment: An Analysis of Risk in Various Settings for Children," Children And Youth Services Review Vol. 14, pp. 485-492, 1992).
· A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington State found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. The study did not even ask about one of the most common forms of abuse in foster care, foster children abusing each other. (Peter Pecora, et. al., Improving Family Foster Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2005). And see our full analysis of this study here).
· Another Baltimore study, this one examining case records, found abuse in 28 percent of the foster homes studied more than one in four. (Memorandum and Order of Judge Joseph G. Howard, L.J. v.
Massinga, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, July 27, 1987.)
· A study of cases in metropolitan Atlanta found that among children whose case goal was adoption, 34 percent had experienced abuse, neglect, or other harmful conditions. For those children who had recently entered the system, 15 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions in just one year – that's 30 times the widely-quoted official figure. (Children's Rights, Inc., "Expert research report finds children still unsafe in Fulton and DeKalb foster care," press release, Nov. 5, 2004.)
· Even what is said to be a model foster care program, where caseloads are kept low and workers and foster parents get special training, is not immune. When alumni of the Casey Family Program were interviewed, 24 percent of the girls said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in foster care. Furthermore, this study asked only about abuse in the one foster home the children had been in the longest. A case in which a child quickly was moved from a foster home precisely because she was abused there wouldn't even be counted. (David Fanshel, et. al., Foster Children in a Life Course Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), p.90.) Officials at the program say they have since lowered the rate of all forms of abuse to "only" 12 percent, but this is based on an in-house survey of the program's own caseworkers, not outside interviews with the children themselves. (How Are The Children Doing? Assessing Youth Outcomes in Family Foster Care. (Seattle: Casey Family Program, 1998)).
Except for part of the Atlanta study, these studies sometimes ask if children had been abused at any point during their time in foster care, while the official rates are for one year only. An apples-to-apples comparison would require doubling or tripling the official figure, since the average length of stay in foster care is 27.2 months. But that still leaves an official rate that vastly underestimates the real rate of abuse in foster care.
This does not mean that all, or even many, foster parents are abusive. The overwhelming majority do the best they can for the children in their care -- like the overwhelming majority of parents, period. But the abusive minority is large enough to cause serious concern. And abuse in foster care does not always mean abuse by foster parents. As noted above, it also can mean foster children abusing each other.
If some people who run child welfare agencies or child advocacy organizations and use the absurdly low official figures for abuse in foster care don't know about this research, then they are inexcusably ignorant. If they do know, and quote the official figures anyway, then they need to stop lying.
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 9:43 AM
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
The most common lie in child welfare (It’s the one about the rate of abuse in foster care)
I have a question for the child welfare professionals reading this blog.
Suppose, hypothetically, you could gather in one room 200 former foster children, all of whom had been in foster care for up to one year. Suppose all of them felt free to give open, honest answers to any question you asked them. And suppose you asked them this: "How many of you were abused while you were in foster care?"
How many of you child welfare professionals would expect that only one of those 200 former foster children would raise her or his hand?
Of course you wouldn't expect that. You know the very idea that only one in 200 former children is abused in foster care is absurd. Indeed, this oft-repeated claim may be the most common lie in American Child Welfare. So why do some of you, and you know who you are, keep perpetuating that lie when you talk to the press and the public?
The people who make this claim don't put it in a way which makes the notion so obviously preposterous, of course. Typically, they obscure the absurdity by using percentages.
One child welfare agency chief recently told a legislative committee, presumably with a straight face, that more than 99.5 percent of the foster children in his state were not abused in foster care in the past year. That's the equivalent of one foster child in 200.
It's not that he made up the number out of whole cloth. Rather, this is the number of cases where his own agency was made aware of an abuse allegation in foster care and substantiated it.
The problem here should be obvious.
THE INCENTIVE FOR WILLFUL BLINDNESS
When a child welfare agency investigates an allegation of abuse in foster care it is, in effect, investigating itself. Even though an employee of the agency didn't inflict the abuse, the agency chose the foster parent who did or placed the child in the group home or institution where a staffer did it, or put the child in the placement where another foster child did it. So there is an enormous incentive to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and write no evil in the case file.
Contrast this kind of official figure to what former foster child Rose Garland said on the PBS series Frontline:
I know that there are good foster families out there, OK? But I also know that every foster kid that I have ever talked to, including myself, have been abused in foster homes. And I'm talking physically, emotionally and sexually.
Or consider what Marcia Lowry, who runs the group that so arrogantly calls itself Children's Rights – a group that has proven itself over and over to be profoundly hostile to family preservation - recently told the Philadelphia Daily News:
I've been doing this work for a long time and represented thousands and thousands of foster children, both in class-action lawsuits and individually, and I have almost never seen a child, boy or girl, who has been in foster care for any length of time who has not been sexually abused in some way, whether it is child-on-child or not.
WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US
But that's just "anecdotal evidence." What does the research tell us? It tells us that the official figures are b------t.
Except as noted, the studies below define foster care generically – that is they include group homes and institutions. So don't think for a moment that the problem can be avoided by going back to the orphanage. On the contrary, when studies are limited to institutions, the rate of abuse tends to be even worse.
Consider:
· A study of reported abuse in Baltimore, found the rate of "substantiated" cases of sexual abuse in foster care more than four times higher than the rate in the general population.
(Mary I. Benedict and Susan Zuravin, Factors Associated With Child Maltreatment by Family Foster Care Providers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, June 30, 1992)).
· Using the same methodology, an Indiana study found three times more physical abuse and twice the rate of sexual abuse in foster homes than in the general population. In group homes there was more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and more than 28 times the rate of sexual abuse as in the general population, in part because so many children in the homes abused each other. (William Spencer and Dean D. Kundsen, "Out of Home Maltreatment: An Analysis of Risk in Various Settings for Children," Children And Youth Services Review Vol. 14, pp. 485-492, 1992).
· A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington State found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. The study did not even ask about one of the most common forms of abuse in foster care, foster children abusing each other. (Peter Pecora, et. al., Improving Family Foster Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2005). And see our full analysis of this study here).
· Another Baltimore study, this one examining case records, found abuse in 28 percent of the foster homes studied more than one in four. (Memorandum and Order of Judge Joseph G. Howard, L.J. v.
Massinga, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, July 27, 1987.)
· A study of cases in metropolitan Atlanta found that among children whose case goal was adoption, 34 percent had experienced abuse, neglect, or other harmful conditions. For those children who had recently entered the system, 15 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions in just one year – that's 30 times the widely-quoted official figure. (Children's Rights, Inc., "Expert research report finds children still unsafe in Fulton and DeKalb foster care," press release, Nov. 5, 2004.)
· Even what is said to be a model foster care program, where caseloads are kept low and workers and foster parents get special training, is not immune. When alumni of the Casey Family Program were interviewed, 24 percent of the girls said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in foster care. Furthermore, this study asked only about abuse in the one foster home the children had been in the longest. A case in which a child quickly was moved from a foster home precisely because she was abused there wouldn't even be counted. (David Fanshel, et. al., Foster Children in a Life Course Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), p.90.) Officials at the program say they have since lowered the rate of all forms of abuse to "only" 12 percent, but this is based on an in-house survey of the program's own caseworkers, not outside interviews with the children themselves. (How Are The Children Doing? Assessing Youth Outcomes in Family Foster Care. (Seattle: Casey Family Program, 1998)).
Except for part of the Atlanta study, these studies sometimes ask if children had been abused at any point during their time in foster care, while the official rates are for one year only. An apples-to-apples comparison would require doubling or tripling the official figure, since the average length of stay in foster care is 27.2 months. But that still leaves an official rate that vastly underestimates the real rate of abuse in foster care.
This does not mean that all, or even many, foster parents are abusive. The overwhelming majority do the best they can for the children in their care -- like the overwhelming majority of parents, period. But the abusive minority is large enough to cause serious concern. And abuse in foster care does not always mean abuse by foster parents. As noted above, it also can mean foster children abusing each other.
If some people who run child welfare agencies or child advocacy organizations and use the absurdly low official figures for abuse in foster care don't know about this research, then they are inexcusably ignorant. If they do know, and quote the official figures anyway, then they need to stop lying.
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 9:43 AM
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
Baby P social workers admit misconduct
Baby P social workers admit misconduct
Death of Peter Connelly could have been avoided if Haringey had learned from the Victoria Climbie tragedy, hearing is told
Rachel Williams
guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 May 2010 16.02 BST
Article history
Tributes and toys beside a memorial stone for Baby P in London. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images
The death of Baby Peter was an "eminently avoidable tragedy" that might never had happened if two social workers at the centre of the case had done their jobs properly, a disciplinary hearing was told today.
The abuse of Peter Connelly was allowed to continue because Haringey's social services department, which was guilty of "incompetence and systemic failures", had not learned from past mistakes around the Victoria Climbie scandal, the General Social Care Council heard.
Social worker Maria Ward and her team manager Gillian Christou both admit their failings amount to misconduct, the panel hearing their cases was told.
Peter died at the age of 17 months in a blood-spattered cot in August 2007 after spending much of his short life being used as a punchbag.
Between them social workers, police and health professionals made 60 visits to his home over eight months, during which time he suffered more than 50 injuries.
His mother, Tracey Connelly, later admitted causing or allowing her son's death death, and her boyfriend Steven Barker and lodger Jason Owen were found guilty of the same charge.
Marios Lambis, counsel for the GSCC, outlined a string of allegations, including a failure by Ward to carry out enough unannounced visits to check up on Peter and his mother, even though the boy was subject to a child protection plan and known to be at risk.
She was supposed to go to the house at least once a fortnight, but on two occasions the gap between visits – which were sometimes only 15 minutes long - was 19 days, and once it was 22 days.
Although the child should have been seen alone, Tracy Connelly was almost always present, and Ward believed her lie that she was not in a relationship with Barker, and her assertion that Peter bruised easily.
Lambis alleged that Ward failed to consider the boy's injuries as part of a wider picture of abuse, instead focusing on each in isolation, so her responses were "reactive rather than proactive".
There was a four-month backlog in her records on the case that Christou was not aware of. When a childminder who played a "crucial" role in supervising Peter's care by looking after him four days a week – and had been reporting injuries suffered by the boy – had to stop seeing him, neither woman arranged a replacement.
The childminder told later of feeling frustrated that she was noting the injuries and telling Ward, but that nothing seemed to happen.
Neither Ward nor Christou made efforts to check up on Tracy Connelly's claim that she had taken Peter to Cricklewood to care for a sick uncle, meaning they did not know where he was for several days in July.
He noted that bloodstains were later found by detectives on the cot, walls and chest of drawers in Peter's bedroom.
"Had Ms Ward ventured into the premises beyond the kitchen or the living room … it would have been apparent that Steven Barker or Jason Owen were living in the house and that Peter was being abused," he said.
On one occasion, Connelly would not let her go upstairs to see Peter in his room, insisting on waking him and bringing him down, which should have caused concern.
Christou should have been making sure Ward was following the child protection plan, Lambis added.
"Ms Ward and Ms Christou did not comply appropriately with their duties, and had they done so the tragic death of Peter Connelly may have been avoided," he said.
He added: "Less than a decade after the damning public inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, who had been known to Haringey social services, it is clear that the incompetence and systemic failures in the department were continuing to put vulnerable children's lives at risk… It can be said the death of Peter Connelly was an eminentally avoidable tragedy.
"The abuse of Peter Connelly was allowed to persist due to a failure of Haringey social services to learn from past mistakes."
While this was not the fault solely of Ward and Christou, some of the blame did lie with them.
"In blunt terms, the child protection process did not keep Baby P safe as it was supposed to."
Although the two social workers have admitted the factual allegations against them, and that the failures amount to misconduct, the panel must still reach its own conclusion on the allegation. If they find it is misconduct, they will hear submissions from the pair's lawyer on the severity of the sanction they impose, which could include being struck off.
Their counsel, Nick Toms, said they were "devastated" by what had happened to Peter. "They both became social workers to care for children at risk such as Peter Connelly," he said. "They did not intend or desire the outcome in his case and deeply regret what happened."
Toms said Ward and Christou were not attending the hearing in central London because of the way they had been treated by the media previously, which had led to Ward having to move to a safe house and a vigilante group telling her former neighbours they had come to beat her up.
"It should not be forgotten that at the heart of this case is the tragic death of a little boy," Toms said. "An individual case such as that of Peter Connelly should not be used as a political football."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/baby-p-social-workers-misconduct
Death of Peter Connelly could have been avoided if Haringey had learned from the Victoria Climbie tragedy, hearing is told
Rachel Williams
guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 May 2010 16.02 BST
Article history
Tributes and toys beside a memorial stone for Baby P in London. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images
The death of Baby Peter was an "eminently avoidable tragedy" that might never had happened if two social workers at the centre of the case had done their jobs properly, a disciplinary hearing was told today.
The abuse of Peter Connelly was allowed to continue because Haringey's social services department, which was guilty of "incompetence and systemic failures", had not learned from past mistakes around the Victoria Climbie scandal, the General Social Care Council heard.
Social worker Maria Ward and her team manager Gillian Christou both admit their failings amount to misconduct, the panel hearing their cases was told.
Peter died at the age of 17 months in a blood-spattered cot in August 2007 after spending much of his short life being used as a punchbag.
Between them social workers, police and health professionals made 60 visits to his home over eight months, during which time he suffered more than 50 injuries.
His mother, Tracey Connelly, later admitted causing or allowing her son's death death, and her boyfriend Steven Barker and lodger Jason Owen were found guilty of the same charge.
Marios Lambis, counsel for the GSCC, outlined a string of allegations, including a failure by Ward to carry out enough unannounced visits to check up on Peter and his mother, even though the boy was subject to a child protection plan and known to be at risk.
She was supposed to go to the house at least once a fortnight, but on two occasions the gap between visits – which were sometimes only 15 minutes long - was 19 days, and once it was 22 days.
Although the child should have been seen alone, Tracy Connelly was almost always present, and Ward believed her lie that she was not in a relationship with Barker, and her assertion that Peter bruised easily.
Lambis alleged that Ward failed to consider the boy's injuries as part of a wider picture of abuse, instead focusing on each in isolation, so her responses were "reactive rather than proactive".
There was a four-month backlog in her records on the case that Christou was not aware of. When a childminder who played a "crucial" role in supervising Peter's care by looking after him four days a week – and had been reporting injuries suffered by the boy – had to stop seeing him, neither woman arranged a replacement.
The childminder told later of feeling frustrated that she was noting the injuries and telling Ward, but that nothing seemed to happen.
Neither Ward nor Christou made efforts to check up on Tracy Connelly's claim that she had taken Peter to Cricklewood to care for a sick uncle, meaning they did not know where he was for several days in July.
He noted that bloodstains were later found by detectives on the cot, walls and chest of drawers in Peter's bedroom.
"Had Ms Ward ventured into the premises beyond the kitchen or the living room … it would have been apparent that Steven Barker or Jason Owen were living in the house and that Peter was being abused," he said.
On one occasion, Connelly would not let her go upstairs to see Peter in his room, insisting on waking him and bringing him down, which should have caused concern.
Christou should have been making sure Ward was following the child protection plan, Lambis added.
"Ms Ward and Ms Christou did not comply appropriately with their duties, and had they done so the tragic death of Peter Connelly may have been avoided," he said.
He added: "Less than a decade after the damning public inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, who had been known to Haringey social services, it is clear that the incompetence and systemic failures in the department were continuing to put vulnerable children's lives at risk… It can be said the death of Peter Connelly was an eminentally avoidable tragedy.
"The abuse of Peter Connelly was allowed to persist due to a failure of Haringey social services to learn from past mistakes."
While this was not the fault solely of Ward and Christou, some of the blame did lie with them.
"In blunt terms, the child protection process did not keep Baby P safe as it was supposed to."
Although the two social workers have admitted the factual allegations against them, and that the failures amount to misconduct, the panel must still reach its own conclusion on the allegation. If they find it is misconduct, they will hear submissions from the pair's lawyer on the severity of the sanction they impose, which could include being struck off.
Their counsel, Nick Toms, said they were "devastated" by what had happened to Peter. "They both became social workers to care for children at risk such as Peter Connelly," he said. "They did not intend or desire the outcome in his case and deeply regret what happened."
Toms said Ward and Christou were not attending the hearing in central London because of the way they had been treated by the media previously, which had led to Ward having to move to a safe house and a vigilante group telling her former neighbours they had come to beat her up.
"It should not be forgotten that at the heart of this case is the tragic death of a little boy," Toms said. "An individual case such as that of Peter Connelly should not be used as a political football."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/baby-p-social-workers-misconduct
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)