June 1, 2010
Drug Tests Not Immune from False Positives
Poppy Seeds, Cold Medications Can Trigger False Alarms
The Truth About Toxicology Tests
(WebMD) If your child insists his positive drug-test results are a mistake, there's a chance he could be telling the truth.
Drug tests generally produce false-positive results in 5 percent to 10 percent of cases and false negatives in 10 percent to 15 percent of cases, new research shows.
Eating as little as a teaspoon of poppy seeds - less than the amount on a poppy seed bagel - can produce false-positive results on tests for opioid abuse, according to Dr. Dwight Smith, of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Black Hills, S.D.
The poppy seeds can lead to false-positive results for two or three days, he said, yet one recent study showed only about half of doctors were aware of the problem.
Knowing the test's limitations is crucial given that about 150 million drug tests were conducted in the United States last year, he said.
"We drug test everyone, our students, our athletes," Smith said.
Also, many private and federal employers require regular testing, he said.
False-Positive Results in 5 Percent to 10 Percent of Cases
To get a better picture of the test's flaws, Smith and colleagues at Boston Medical Center reviewed scientific articles on drug screening published between January 1980 and September 2009.
The results were presented at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting.
Cold medications, the antidepressant Wellbutrin and tricyclic antidepressants can trigger false-positive results on tests for amphetamines, according to the review, and the antidepressant Zoloft and the painkiller Daypro can show up as a benzodiazepine problem.
The quinolone antibiotic drugs can trigger false positives for opioids, and the HIV medication Sustiva can show up as marijuana use, Smith said.
On the other hand, just being in the room with someone who is smoking marijuana is not going to trigger false positive results, no matter what your child claims, he said.
"Unless [they] were in the van with Cheech and Chong, that's not what happened," Smith said.
And "cocaine is cocaine - you don't get many false positives or false negatives," said Dr. Petros Levounis, director of the Addiction Institute of New York at St. Luke's and Roosevelt Hospital in New York City.
Standard Drug Tests Sometimes Miss Oxycodone
Another problem is that most standard drug tests have a substantial false-negative rate for oxycodone (OxyContin, Percolone, Roxicodone), an opioid drug that's been associated with high levels of abuse. In some cases, a person could be taking oxycodone, and the routine drug screen might miss it and report as negative. Oxycodone is also found in the medications Percocet, Roxicet and Tylox.
One study in the review showed that 88 percent of doctors didn't know that they may need to order a special test to accurately screen for oxycodone.
Other opioids missed by standard tests include methadone, fentanyl, Ultram, Subutex and Suboxone, Smith said.
Likewise, standard tests may miss some sedative and hypnotic drugs.
Another problem is that there are no federal guidelines setting threshold levels for positive results, Smith said.
Over the years, people have come up with all sorts of ways to try to beat the tests, mainly by diluting urine samples, he said.
"We really have no good numbers on how prevalent drug-test cheating is," Smith said, so further research is needed.
This study was presented at a medical conference. The findings should be considered preliminary as they have not yet undergone the "peer review" process, in which outside experts scrutinize the data prior to publication in a medical journal.
By Charlene Laino
Reviewed by Laura Martin
©2005-2010 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/01/health/webmd/main6537635.shtml
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Foster couple accused of stealing child funds
Inland Empire News
Foster couple accused of stealing child funds
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
TAGS:riverside county, inland empire news, rob mcmillan
Comment NowEmailPrintReport a typo
Rob McMillan
More: Bio, E-mail, Recent Stories, News Team
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (KABC) -- In an alleged fraud case, a foster couple is accused of taking in thousands of dollars meant for child care and spending it on themselves. They're also accused of allegedly trying to collect more money long after the children had left their care.
Over the past six years, Purcell and Laverne Johnson were trusted with taking care of nearly 90 foster children in their Riverside County foster home called T Town Group Homes. For that, they were paid a salary of $144,000 a year.
But for them, that wasn't good enough, at least not according to District Attorney Rod Pacheco, who says the two stole more than $470,000 from taxpayers.
"It's horrific and they are now feeling, at least you can see from her picture at least, the accountability that comes with that kind of atrocious behavior," said Pacheco.
This couple ran several foster care homes across the county, including one in Perris. They housed six children at a time there and were paid $5,600 a month per child. But instead of spending that money on the children, Pacheco says the two spent it on gym memberships, expensive restaurants and on vehicles like a 2002 Cadillac Escalade and a 2005 Land Rover. They were supposed to be providing a safe harbor for some of the county's most neglected children.
"Our society contracts with folks like Mr. and Mrs. Johnson to provide that safe harbor. Instead, they were preying on our most vulnerable children, not just any old child, but the most vulnerable," said Pacheco.
T Town Group Homes is now out of business and the properties have been sold. The two were arraigned Tuesday afternoon.
Your feedback is important to us! Please complete a brief survey so we may continue to improve abc7.com
(Copyright ©2010 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7473700
Foster couple accused of stealing child funds
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
TAGS:riverside county, inland empire news, rob mcmillan
Comment NowEmailPrintReport a typo
Rob McMillan
More: Bio, E-mail, Recent Stories, News Team
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (KABC) -- In an alleged fraud case, a foster couple is accused of taking in thousands of dollars meant for child care and spending it on themselves. They're also accused of allegedly trying to collect more money long after the children had left their care.
Over the past six years, Purcell and Laverne Johnson were trusted with taking care of nearly 90 foster children in their Riverside County foster home called T Town Group Homes. For that, they were paid a salary of $144,000 a year.
But for them, that wasn't good enough, at least not according to District Attorney Rod Pacheco, who says the two stole more than $470,000 from taxpayers.
"It's horrific and they are now feeling, at least you can see from her picture at least, the accountability that comes with that kind of atrocious behavior," said Pacheco.
This couple ran several foster care homes across the county, including one in Perris. They housed six children at a time there and were paid $5,600 a month per child. But instead of spending that money on the children, Pacheco says the two spent it on gym memberships, expensive restaurants and on vehicles like a 2002 Cadillac Escalade and a 2005 Land Rover. They were supposed to be providing a safe harbor for some of the county's most neglected children.
"Our society contracts with folks like Mr. and Mrs. Johnson to provide that safe harbor. Instead, they were preying on our most vulnerable children, not just any old child, but the most vulnerable," said Pacheco.
T Town Group Homes is now out of business and the properties have been sold. The two were arraigned Tuesday afternoon.
Your feedback is important to us! Please complete a brief survey so we may continue to improve abc7.com
(Copyright ©2010 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7473700
ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS-Our Children are a Money Market for the State!
Social Security Online
Compilation of the Social Security Laws
www.socialsecurity.gov
Home
Questions?
Contact Us
Search
Social Security Act Home
ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS
Sec. 473A. [42 U.S.C. 673b] (a) Grant Authority.—Subject to the availability of such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary shall make a grant to each State that is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year in an amount equal to the adoption incentive payment payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year, which shall be payable in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
(b) Incentive–Eligible State.—A State is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year if—
(1) the State has a plan approved under this part for the fiscal year;
(2)(A) the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
(B) the number of older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; or
(C) the State’s foster child adoption rate for the fiscal year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State;
(3) the State is in compliance with subsection (c) for the fiscal year;
(4) the State provides health insurance coverage to any child with special needs (as determined under section 473(c)) for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement between a State and an adoptive parent or parents; and
(5) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(c) Data Requirements.—
(1) In general.—A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph (2)—
(A) for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 (or, if the first fiscal year for which the State seeks a grant under this section is after fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year that precedes such first fiscal year); and
(B) for each succeeding fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year.
(2) Determination of numbers of adoptions based on afcars data.—The Secretary shall determine the numbers of foster child adoptions, of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions, and of older child adoptions in a State during a fiscal year, and the foster child adoption rate for the state for the fiscal year for purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.
(3) No waiver of afcars requirements.—This section shall not be construed to alter or affect any requirement of section 479 or of any regulation prescribed under such section with respect to reporting of data by States, or to waive any penalty for failure to comply with such a requirement.
(d) Adoption Incentive Payment.—
(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the adoption incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be equal to the sum of—
(A) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
(B) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; and
(C) $8,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.
(2) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds available.—For any fiscal year, if the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for a fiscal year exceeds the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (h) for the fiscal year, the amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to each State under this section for the fiscal year shall be—
(A) the amount of the adoption incentive payment that would otherwise be payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year; multiplied by
(B) the percentage represented by the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for the fiscal year.
(3) Increased incentive payment for exceeding the highest ever foster child adoption rate.—
(A) In General.—If—
(i) for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter the total amount of adoption incentive payments payable under paragraph (1) of this subsection are less than the amount appropriated under subsection (h) for the fiscal year; and
(ii) a State’s foster child adoption rate for that fiscal year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State, then the adoption incentive payment otherwise determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection for the State shall be increased, subject to subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by the amount determined for the State under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(B) Amount of increase.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the amount determined under this subparagraph with respect to a State and a fiscal year is the amount equal to the product of—
(i) $1,000; and
(ii) the excess of—
(I) the number of foster child adoptions in the State in the fiscal year; over
(II) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of—
(aa) the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State; and
(bb) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.
(C) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds available.—For any fiscal year, if the total amount of increases in adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this paragraph for a fiscal year exceeds the amount available for such increases for the fiscal year, the amount of the increase payable to each State under this paragraph for the fiscal year shall be—
(i) the amount of the increase that would otherwise be payable to the State under this paragraph for the fiscal year; multiplied by
(ii) the percentage represented by the amount so available for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of increases otherwise payable under this paragraph for the fiscal year.
(e) 24-Month Availability of Incentive Payments.—Payments to a State under this section in a fiscal year shall remain available for use by the State for the 24-month period beginning with the month in which the payments are made.
(f) Limitations on Use of Incentive Payments.—A State shall not expend an amount paid to the State under this section except to provide to children or families any service (including post-adoption services) that may be provided under part B or E. Amounts expended by a State in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be disregarded in determining State expenditures for purposes of Federal matching payments under sections 424, 434, and 474.
(g) Definitions.—As used in this section:
(1) Foster child adoption.—The term “foster child adoption” means the final adoption of a child who, at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the supervision of the State.
(2) Special needs adoption.—The term “special needs adoption” means the final adoption of a child for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section 473.
(3) Base number of foster child adoptions.—The term “base number of foster child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of foster child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(4) Base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions.—The term “base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(5) Base number of older child adoptions.—The term “base number of older child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of older child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(6) Older child adoptions.—The term “older child adoptions” means the final adoption of a child who has attained 9 years of age if—
(A) at the time of the adoptive placement, the child was in foster care under the supervision of the State; or (B) an adoption assistance agreement was in effect under section 473 with respect to the child.
(7) Highest ever foster child adoption rate.—The term “highest ever foster child adoption rate” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the highest foster child adoption rate determined for any fiscal year in the period that begins with fiscal year 2002 and ends with the preceding fiscal year.
(8) Foster child adoption rate.—The term “foster child adoption rate” means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing—
(A) the number of foster child adoptions finalized in the State during the fiscal year; by
(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.
(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.—
(1) In general.—For grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary—
(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
(B) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, and
(D) $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(2) Availability.—Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1), or under any other law for grants under subsection (a), are authorized to remain available until expended, but not after fiscal year 2013.
(i) Technical Assistance.—
(1) In general.—The Secretary may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative permanent placements, for children in foster care.
(2) Description of the character of the technical assistance.—The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1) may support the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, and may include the following:
(A) The development of best practice guidelines for expediting termination of parental rights.
(B) Models to encourage the use of concurrent planning.
(C) The development of specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal.
(D) The development of risk assessment tools to facilitate early identification of the children who will be at risk of harm if returned home.
(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre–adoptive placements.
(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.
(3) Targeting of technical assistance to the courts.—Not less than 50 percent of any amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (4) shall be used to provide technical assistance to the courts.
(4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.—To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
Compilation of the Social Security Laws
www.socialsecurity.gov
Home
Questions?
Contact Us
Search
Social Security Act Home
ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS
Sec. 473A. [42 U.S.C. 673b] (a) Grant Authority.—Subject to the availability of such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary shall make a grant to each State that is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year in an amount equal to the adoption incentive payment payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year, which shall be payable in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
(b) Incentive–Eligible State.—A State is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year if—
(1) the State has a plan approved under this part for the fiscal year;
(2)(A) the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
(B) the number of older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; or
(C) the State’s foster child adoption rate for the fiscal year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State;
(3) the State is in compliance with subsection (c) for the fiscal year;
(4) the State provides health insurance coverage to any child with special needs (as determined under section 473(c)) for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement between a State and an adoptive parent or parents; and
(5) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(c) Data Requirements.—
(1) In general.—A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph (2)—
(A) for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 (or, if the first fiscal year for which the State seeks a grant under this section is after fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year that precedes such first fiscal year); and
(B) for each succeeding fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year.
(2) Determination of numbers of adoptions based on afcars data.—The Secretary shall determine the numbers of foster child adoptions, of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions, and of older child adoptions in a State during a fiscal year, and the foster child adoption rate for the state for the fiscal year for purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.
(3) No waiver of afcars requirements.—This section shall not be construed to alter or affect any requirement of section 479 or of any regulation prescribed under such section with respect to reporting of data by States, or to waive any penalty for failure to comply with such a requirement.
(d) Adoption Incentive Payment.—
(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the adoption incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be equal to the sum of—
(A) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
(B) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; and
(C) $8,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of older child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.
(2) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds available.—For any fiscal year, if the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for a fiscal year exceeds the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (h) for the fiscal year, the amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to each State under this section for the fiscal year shall be—
(A) the amount of the adoption incentive payment that would otherwise be payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year; multiplied by
(B) the percentage represented by the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for the fiscal year.
(3) Increased incentive payment for exceeding the highest ever foster child adoption rate.—
(A) In General.—If—
(i) for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter the total amount of adoption incentive payments payable under paragraph (1) of this subsection are less than the amount appropriated under subsection (h) for the fiscal year; and
(ii) a State’s foster child adoption rate for that fiscal year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State, then the adoption incentive payment otherwise determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection for the State shall be increased, subject to subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by the amount determined for the State under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(B) Amount of increase.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the amount determined under this subparagraph with respect to a State and a fiscal year is the amount equal to the product of—
(i) $1,000; and
(ii) the excess of—
(I) the number of foster child adoptions in the State in the fiscal year; over
(II) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of—
(aa) the highest ever foster child adoption rate determined for the State; and
(bb) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.
(C) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds available.—For any fiscal year, if the total amount of increases in adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this paragraph for a fiscal year exceeds the amount available for such increases for the fiscal year, the amount of the increase payable to each State under this paragraph for the fiscal year shall be—
(i) the amount of the increase that would otherwise be payable to the State under this paragraph for the fiscal year; multiplied by
(ii) the percentage represented by the amount so available for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of increases otherwise payable under this paragraph for the fiscal year.
(e) 24-Month Availability of Incentive Payments.—Payments to a State under this section in a fiscal year shall remain available for use by the State for the 24-month period beginning with the month in which the payments are made.
(f) Limitations on Use of Incentive Payments.—A State shall not expend an amount paid to the State under this section except to provide to children or families any service (including post-adoption services) that may be provided under part B or E. Amounts expended by a State in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be disregarded in determining State expenditures for purposes of Federal matching payments under sections 424, 434, and 474.
(g) Definitions.—As used in this section:
(1) Foster child adoption.—The term “foster child adoption” means the final adoption of a child who, at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the supervision of the State.
(2) Special needs adoption.—The term “special needs adoption” means the final adoption of a child for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section 473.
(3) Base number of foster child adoptions.—The term “base number of foster child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of foster child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(4) Base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions.—The term “base number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(5) Base number of older child adoptions.—The term “base number of older child adoptions for a State” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the number of older child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.
(6) Older child adoptions.—The term “older child adoptions” means the final adoption of a child who has attained 9 years of age if—
(A) at the time of the adoptive placement, the child was in foster care under the supervision of the State; or (B) an adoption assistance agreement was in effect under section 473 with respect to the child.
(7) Highest ever foster child adoption rate.—The term “highest ever foster child adoption rate” means, with respect to any fiscal year, the highest foster child adoption rate determined for any fiscal year in the period that begins with fiscal year 2002 and ends with the preceding fiscal year.
(8) Foster child adoption rate.—The term “foster child adoption rate” means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing—
(A) the number of foster child adoptions finalized in the State during the fiscal year; by
(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.
(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.—
(1) In general.—For grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary—
(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
(B) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, and
(D) $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(2) Availability.—Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1), or under any other law for grants under subsection (a), are authorized to remain available until expended, but not after fiscal year 2013.
(i) Technical Assistance.—
(1) In general.—The Secretary may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative permanent placements, for children in foster care.
(2) Description of the character of the technical assistance.—The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1) may support the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, and may include the following:
(A) The development of best practice guidelines for expediting termination of parental rights.
(B) Models to encourage the use of concurrent planning.
(C) The development of specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal.
(D) The development of risk assessment tools to facilitate early identification of the children who will be at risk of harm if returned home.
(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre–adoptive placements.
(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.
(3) Targeting of technical assistance to the courts.—Not less than 50 percent of any amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (4) shall be used to provide technical assistance to the courts.
(4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.—To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
CPS AND CASA ATTACK THE NCCPR AND RICHARD WEXLER
CPS AND CASA ATTACK THE NCCPR AND RICHARD WEXLER
Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society
Defending Due Process, Religious Liberty, Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and Freedom for the FLDS Community and All Of Us!
June 1, 2010 – 12:36 pm
WELCOME TO NCCPR
The members of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform have encountered the child welfare system in their professional capacities. Through NCCPR, we work to make that system better serve America’s most vulnerable children by trying to change policies concerning child abuse, foster care and family preservation.
To the child care industry in this Country and Canada, these are some mighty powerful fighting words. To even mention the word "Change" is a direct attack upon them. To them, it is obvious this group wants to rock the boat and disturb the cash flow. Like big tobacco, big oil and the industrial war machine, they have a pretty cozy thing going with the Fed’s and don’t want some snoop wrecking the gravy train.
As most thinking people know, and even some folks in the child "Care" business, Richard Wexler is to an honest child care system what Martin Luther Ling was to the Civil Rights movement. For CPS and CASA, that makes him as dangerous to them as Senator Nancy Schaefer. They know that he has access to the media, and that, even worse, he is respected and considered an authority on CPS, CASA, and the broken business of child "Protection" He not only exposes the myth’s, but he can do it in prime time.
Unlike folks like me who detest the harm and hurt that the business of CPS inflicts upon innocent children and families, Richard can tell his story without either puking in their faces or laying the Kings English all over them. On a personal level, if I could not vent my anger and hatred for the hurt they create for children and their parents in the name of the Allmighty dollar, I would be back in prison in a heartbeat.
Demonizing your enemy is the oldest trick in the book, and CPS is the master at it. If they want your kid to sell, you become a child molester. If you defend the parents, you yourself are a child molester. Naturally, to them, I’m a child molester since I admitted I kissed a retarded child in my care. (I wonder how many Special needs children these people have ever come into contact with? If they ever bother to visit a Special class or facility, they are going to be shocked at how many staff, by virtue of being kissed by a retarded child, are in truth really closet pedophiles.)
To this day they try to demonize me for being a convicted felon, but I don’t play their game. Like folks on their child abuse registry, the scarlet letter has become meaningless, trivial and irrelevant.They made it that way by putting 8 and 10 year olds on the registry for playing house or taking a picture of themselves (Naked bodies scare the living hell out of these folks). It reminds me of their homophobic counterparts in LE who have never forgiven themselves for their "Sins" when they were children. (Let it go boys, wanking didn’t make you a fag.)
With Richard now in their bullseye, they have embarked on a plan to demonize him. He opposes one of the largest child buying and selling businesses in the Country and it’s extremly well paid founder. Children’s Rights have become one of the most prolific baby sellers for CPS. This makes them the favored darling of the "Opposition" to CPS and CASA.
Officailly, Children’s Rights brings CPS to Court to "Force" them into changing the way they do business for the betterment of the child. Who’s kidding who? CPS and Children’s Rights are tighter than Liberace and his lawn boy, J. Edgar and Clyde, and Halliburton and the Pentagon.The latest is the Class Action Lawsuit that will do NOTHING to return children to their parents, even when no abuse or neglect is proven. CPS will offer token resitance, but that Lawsuit couldn’t be better for business for them and Children’s Rights, Inc. than if they wrote the complain themselves.
Since Richard recognizes this little bit of smoke and mirrors and realizes he’s looking at a sweetheart deal for everybody but the children and their parents, they have opened a brand new site and ghost written the "Complaint’s" against him.
This is the same thing done by the LDS against the Mormons, and the same done against us by Texas LE claiming to be just a bunch of good old boys trying to protect little girls. (Into their beds rather than some filthy Mormons).
Take a look at Richards site and you will see why he is under attack by CPS. Just as I do not advertise the LE kiddie porn site they have put out there, I don’t name or promote the oppositions site against Richard.
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
http://www.flds.ws/
Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society
Defending Due Process, Religious Liberty, Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and Freedom for the FLDS Community and All Of Us!
June 1, 2010 – 12:36 pm
WELCOME TO NCCPR
The members of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform have encountered the child welfare system in their professional capacities. Through NCCPR, we work to make that system better serve America’s most vulnerable children by trying to change policies concerning child abuse, foster care and family preservation.
To the child care industry in this Country and Canada, these are some mighty powerful fighting words. To even mention the word "Change" is a direct attack upon them. To them, it is obvious this group wants to rock the boat and disturb the cash flow. Like big tobacco, big oil and the industrial war machine, they have a pretty cozy thing going with the Fed’s and don’t want some snoop wrecking the gravy train.
As most thinking people know, and even some folks in the child "Care" business, Richard Wexler is to an honest child care system what Martin Luther Ling was to the Civil Rights movement. For CPS and CASA, that makes him as dangerous to them as Senator Nancy Schaefer. They know that he has access to the media, and that, even worse, he is respected and considered an authority on CPS, CASA, and the broken business of child "Protection" He not only exposes the myth’s, but he can do it in prime time.
Unlike folks like me who detest the harm and hurt that the business of CPS inflicts upon innocent children and families, Richard can tell his story without either puking in their faces or laying the Kings English all over them. On a personal level, if I could not vent my anger and hatred for the hurt they create for children and their parents in the name of the Allmighty dollar, I would be back in prison in a heartbeat.
Demonizing your enemy is the oldest trick in the book, and CPS is the master at it. If they want your kid to sell, you become a child molester. If you defend the parents, you yourself are a child molester. Naturally, to them, I’m a child molester since I admitted I kissed a retarded child in my care. (I wonder how many Special needs children these people have ever come into contact with? If they ever bother to visit a Special class or facility, they are going to be shocked at how many staff, by virtue of being kissed by a retarded child, are in truth really closet pedophiles.)
To this day they try to demonize me for being a convicted felon, but I don’t play their game. Like folks on their child abuse registry, the scarlet letter has become meaningless, trivial and irrelevant.They made it that way by putting 8 and 10 year olds on the registry for playing house or taking a picture of themselves (Naked bodies scare the living hell out of these folks). It reminds me of their homophobic counterparts in LE who have never forgiven themselves for their "Sins" when they were children. (Let it go boys, wanking didn’t make you a fag.)
With Richard now in their bullseye, they have embarked on a plan to demonize him. He opposes one of the largest child buying and selling businesses in the Country and it’s extremly well paid founder. Children’s Rights have become one of the most prolific baby sellers for CPS. This makes them the favored darling of the "Opposition" to CPS and CASA.
Officailly, Children’s Rights brings CPS to Court to "Force" them into changing the way they do business for the betterment of the child. Who’s kidding who? CPS and Children’s Rights are tighter than Liberace and his lawn boy, J. Edgar and Clyde, and Halliburton and the Pentagon.The latest is the Class Action Lawsuit that will do NOTHING to return children to their parents, even when no abuse or neglect is proven. CPS will offer token resitance, but that Lawsuit couldn’t be better for business for them and Children’s Rights, Inc. than if they wrote the complain themselves.
Since Richard recognizes this little bit of smoke and mirrors and realizes he’s looking at a sweetheart deal for everybody but the children and their parents, they have opened a brand new site and ghost written the "Complaint’s" against him.
This is the same thing done by the LDS against the Mormons, and the same done against us by Texas LE claiming to be just a bunch of good old boys trying to protect little girls. (Into their beds rather than some filthy Mormons).
Take a look at Richards site and you will see why he is under attack by CPS. Just as I do not advertise the LE kiddie porn site they have put out there, I don’t name or promote the oppositions site against Richard.
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
http://www.flds.ws/
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, HE’S A SYSTEM SUCK!
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, HE’S A SYSTEM SUCK!
Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society
Defending Due Process, Religious Liberty, Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and Freedom for the FLDS Community and All Of Us!
June 1, 2010 – 6:57 pm
Why would a judge decide to keep a child in custody even after it becomes known that the child is not a truant, the reason she was originally stood before him?
Why would a judge who was removed from the childs case, and even transferred OUT of Juvie Court because of his actions, then elect 2 years later to go back to the very court he was removed from to hear this particular childs case again?
Why would this judge threaten the mother of this child, who dared to speak about about his shenanigans to the media (The Associated Press)?
Who ordered the Wichita cops to follow this mother home today from Court, and Why?
Since there are phone records and taped phone calls of Officer Nagy, who not only knew where this child was for the past 2 years, but even visited the child while she was "Missing" from CPS why is he not charged with Contempt of Court like the mother is now by this judge for not revealing her whereabouts?
What is it about this pretty little girl that is so important to the judge, he wants to see her gynecologically examined?
I was curious, and since he pulled up my Record, I pulled up his.
It seems that the boy was a system suck, and probably thinks he still is. I wonder (And you can bet your ass I’m going to find out) how many "Boards" he’s on, and how much stock he owns in the child stealing business?
Here is the judges Curriculum Vitae. It’s not complete yet, but I smell some interest in placements of children in places of real interest to the judge, and if he’s taking lesson’s from some PA judges I know, than worrying about little old Bill Medvky is the LEAST of his problems.
Timmy Henderson:
Year Elected: 2001
Administrative Aide: Jackie Ritchie
Court Reporter: Belinda Westerfield
Biography: Timothy H. Henderson is a District Court Judge for the 18th Judicial District in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Judge Henderson attended the University of Kansas and graduated with a BA in 1985. He attended Washburn School of Law and graduated with a JD with Dean’s Honors in 1989. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Shawnee County until he took a position with the
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) in 1992. (The baby stealers)
Judge Henderson was an Area Attorney for the Emporia SRS Area office until he became Chief Counsel for the Wichita SRS office in 1997. (He had a great record for stealing the kids)
While an Assistant District Attorney, he founded Project Safe Talk where children who have been abused can be interviewed in a safe child friendly environment. (Like a SANE exam room?)
Judge Henderson has also twice drafted legislation that provides greater protection to children in Kansas. (Notice it’s not Protection for, but protection TO. There’s a big difference as the judge well knows if he was paying attention in school.)
Judge Henderson has also presented at the Governor’s Conference on Child Abuse on multiple occasions as well as numerous conferences for the Kansas Bar Association, Kansas Legal Services, The University of Kansas and Lutheran Social Services. (Lutheran huh? Not the Baptist? Where do they sell their children?)
He also was a presenter at the 1996 National Conference on Abuse and Neglect. (Well, he is a pro at that!)
Since his election to the bench in 2000, Judge Henderson has served in the Juvenile Division of the District Court hearing both Juvenile Offender as well as Child In Need of Care cases. (Old news, he was bounced from the Juvie bench and "Promoted’ to District Judge. We know it as "The Peter Principle". He was bounced after too many complaints from parents, the last parent to complain was Ashton Baker’s mother.)
Judge Henderson and his wife Ann have three children and reside in Wichita. (Boys I guess, which explains a lot).
http://www.flds.ws/
Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society
Defending Due Process, Religious Liberty, Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and Freedom for the FLDS Community and All Of Us!
June 1, 2010 – 6:57 pm
Why would a judge decide to keep a child in custody even after it becomes known that the child is not a truant, the reason she was originally stood before him?
Why would a judge who was removed from the childs case, and even transferred OUT of Juvie Court because of his actions, then elect 2 years later to go back to the very court he was removed from to hear this particular childs case again?
Why would this judge threaten the mother of this child, who dared to speak about about his shenanigans to the media (The Associated Press)?
Who ordered the Wichita cops to follow this mother home today from Court, and Why?
Since there are phone records and taped phone calls of Officer Nagy, who not only knew where this child was for the past 2 years, but even visited the child while she was "Missing" from CPS why is he not charged with Contempt of Court like the mother is now by this judge for not revealing her whereabouts?
What is it about this pretty little girl that is so important to the judge, he wants to see her gynecologically examined?
I was curious, and since he pulled up my Record, I pulled up his.
It seems that the boy was a system suck, and probably thinks he still is. I wonder (And you can bet your ass I’m going to find out) how many "Boards" he’s on, and how much stock he owns in the child stealing business?
Here is the judges Curriculum Vitae. It’s not complete yet, but I smell some interest in placements of children in places of real interest to the judge, and if he’s taking lesson’s from some PA judges I know, than worrying about little old Bill Medvky is the LEAST of his problems.
Timmy Henderson:
Year Elected: 2001
Administrative Aide: Jackie Ritchie
Court Reporter: Belinda Westerfield
Biography: Timothy H. Henderson is a District Court Judge for the 18th Judicial District in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Judge Henderson attended the University of Kansas and graduated with a BA in 1985. He attended Washburn School of Law and graduated with a JD with Dean’s Honors in 1989. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Shawnee County until he took a position with the
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) in 1992. (The baby stealers)
Judge Henderson was an Area Attorney for the Emporia SRS Area office until he became Chief Counsel for the Wichita SRS office in 1997. (He had a great record for stealing the kids)
While an Assistant District Attorney, he founded Project Safe Talk where children who have been abused can be interviewed in a safe child friendly environment. (Like a SANE exam room?)
Judge Henderson has also twice drafted legislation that provides greater protection to children in Kansas. (Notice it’s not Protection for, but protection TO. There’s a big difference as the judge well knows if he was paying attention in school.)
Judge Henderson has also presented at the Governor’s Conference on Child Abuse on multiple occasions as well as numerous conferences for the Kansas Bar Association, Kansas Legal Services, The University of Kansas and Lutheran Social Services. (Lutheran huh? Not the Baptist? Where do they sell their children?)
He also was a presenter at the 1996 National Conference on Abuse and Neglect. (Well, he is a pro at that!)
Since his election to the bench in 2000, Judge Henderson has served in the Juvenile Division of the District Court hearing both Juvenile Offender as well as Child In Need of Care cases. (Old news, he was bounced from the Juvie bench and "Promoted’ to District Judge. We know it as "The Peter Principle". He was bounced after too many complaints from parents, the last parent to complain was Ashton Baker’s mother.)
Judge Henderson and his wife Ann have three children and reside in Wichita. (Boys I guess, which explains a lot).
http://www.flds.ws/
Britain's youngest mum: Girl who was pregnant at 11 says she will fight to see her daughter
Britain's youngest mum: Girl who was pregnant at 11 says she will fight to see her daughter
By MAUREEN CULLEY
Last updated at 5:30 PM on 1st June 2010
Aged just 12 years old, this is Britain's youngest mother holding her newborn baby.
Still a child herself, the new parent's sunken, fearful eyes and inability to smile transform what should be a joyful moment into a desperately unsettling scene.
Tressa Middleton's pregnancy four years ago shocked the nation when she admitted having sex while drunk and spoke of her excitement at becoming a mother.
Now the Scot is 16 and fighting for the right to see her adopted daughter again, as the uneasy images of her holding her baby are shown for the first time.
She yesterday admitted spiralling into a deep depression and turning to alcohol and drugs after the baby was born, when she found herself battling to keep the infant.
Unsettling: Pictures taken of Tressa Middleton soon after the birth in 2006
Miss Middleton said she has quit drugs and alcohol and spoke of her regret at ever letting her baby go.
She told the Scottish Sun: 'I'm not a big drinker now and I don't smoke hash any more. In the past I've cut myself but I don't do that any more. I'm going to give myself a couple of years to get my life sorted, then I'm going to fight for access to my little girl.
When her daughter was born in 2006, the pair were taken into foster care. Eighteen months ago, a child psychologist decided it was in the best interests of the infant that she be adopted.
Miss Middleton signed papers handing over her daughter to an anonymous couple who, when the adoption became official, decided that they did not want to allow the birth mother any access.
Her only contact is now a letter from the child's new parents every six months, updating her on the little girl's progress.
Miss Middleton said yesterday: 'I got to meet her adoptive parents but I wasn't allowed to know their names. They were maybe mid-30s. They seemed lovely but it doesn't really matter who was taking her - I never wanted to let her go.
'After I'd signed the adoption papers, I went to court to fight for twice-a-year contact. I'd even tried to make a deal that if I signed the papers I would get to see her once a year, but the adoptive parents didn't want that. They don't want me to see her. They want to get on with their lives. It makes me hate them.
'At the end of the day, she's my wee girl and I'm doing them a favour. I wasn't asking for much, asking to see her once a year, but they thought I was.'
Heartache: Tressa, now 16, wants to see her child
When she became pregnant in 2005, the case prompted dismay from church and family groups, amid criticisms that a Scottish Executive campaign to cut teenage pregnancies had failed.
Concern over 'broken Britain' rose further when details of Miss Middleton's chaotic home life in Armadale, West Lothian,emerged.
She was one of six children - by four different fathers - to her then 34-year-old mother, who said she was 'proud' of her daughter for keeping the baby.
On the bleak streets where Miss Middleton was raised, petty crime is rife and drink and drugs are ever present. Boarded-up windows abound and gardens are strewn with bed frames, discarded mattresses and other rubbish.
Children gather on street corners and it is far from unusual to see young girls pushing prams.
Despite barely being out of primary school, Miss Middleton smoked up to 20 cigarettes a day, used cannabis and downed cocktails of Buckfast tonic wine and vodka.
Speaking under the cover of anonymity at the time, she disclosed that she had discovered the pregnancy weeks after having drunken sex in August 2005.
Drawing on a roll-up cigarette while heavily pregnant, she said: 'I slept with him because I was drunk and I wanted to. I don't regret it because if I didn't have sex with him I wouldn't have my baby. I knew straight away that I couldn't have an abortion because that's something I don't believe in.'
The girl was scared to tell her mother who, ironically, had given birth to her youngest child days before her daughter found that she was pregnant.
Miss Middleton admitted that she had an argument with her mother after breaking the news of her pregnancy.
'It was hard but it has brought me and my mum closer together,' she said. 'It's good to know I'll have my mum there to help me if I need her.'
Now 16 and legally an adult, she is able to speak openly about her experiences for the first time and has also allowed the images of those early moments after the birth to be published.
Miss Middleton, who believes she has 'turned a corner' in her life, hopes to join the Army and prove that she deserves to see her child again.
She spoke yesterday of the time when she first felt that she would lose her daughter.
This came before the adoption was even official, when the baby went to live with her foster family and the teenager was allowed to see the child only every three months at a family centre.
A child herself: Tressa with her newly-born daughter
The young mother said: 'My daughter sometimes called me "Mummy" then one day she called me by my first name and called her foster carer "Mum". It really hurt and I burst into tears. Then she wouldn't come to me. She refused and would start screaming. It felt like every time I saw her I was losing her more and more.
'The adoptive parents gave her their surname. They've kept her first name the same, but hearing that her name had changed was heartbreaking. It's like they're turning my wee girl into someone different. She was dressed different and her hair was different. It was hard to see someone else bringing up my wee girl.'
Miss Middleton is not allowed to know where her daughter is living or see photographs, although the latest progress letter, from March, described the three-year-old as 'a very happy, chatty, self-confident and together little girl.'
Miss Middleton said: 'When I read it I just started crying. It says she can read numbers 0-9 and count to 20. That's all the things I wanted to teach her as her mum. It's wee simple things like that which affect me.
'I get upset when I see wee girls walking past with their mums. I miss my wee girl every day. I've kept all her clothes from when she was a baby. I keep under my pillow a wee pink Babygro and hat from when she was born.'
Miss Middleton, who now has only limited contact with her own family and lives in Dumfries, admitted, however, that adoption was in her daughter's 'best interests'.
But she added: 'It was the hardest thing I've ever done. I don't think I can give my daughter the life she needs just now.
'When I'm older I want to build a relationship with my daughter. I'm concentrating on sorting myself out so that one day I'll hopefully see my wee girl again. I love her to bits.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282994/Britains-youngest-mum-Tressa-Middleton-pregnant-11-says-fight-daughter.html#ixzz0pecjSdyt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282994/Britains-youngest-mum-Tressa-Middleton-pregnant-11-says-fight-daughter.html#ixzz0pbEvAZnd
By MAUREEN CULLEY
Last updated at 5:30 PM on 1st June 2010
Aged just 12 years old, this is Britain's youngest mother holding her newborn baby.
Still a child herself, the new parent's sunken, fearful eyes and inability to smile transform what should be a joyful moment into a desperately unsettling scene.
Tressa Middleton's pregnancy four years ago shocked the nation when she admitted having sex while drunk and spoke of her excitement at becoming a mother.
Now the Scot is 16 and fighting for the right to see her adopted daughter again, as the uneasy images of her holding her baby are shown for the first time.
She yesterday admitted spiralling into a deep depression and turning to alcohol and drugs after the baby was born, when she found herself battling to keep the infant.
Unsettling: Pictures taken of Tressa Middleton soon after the birth in 2006
Miss Middleton said she has quit drugs and alcohol and spoke of her regret at ever letting her baby go.
She told the Scottish Sun: 'I'm not a big drinker now and I don't smoke hash any more. In the past I've cut myself but I don't do that any more. I'm going to give myself a couple of years to get my life sorted, then I'm going to fight for access to my little girl.
When her daughter was born in 2006, the pair were taken into foster care. Eighteen months ago, a child psychologist decided it was in the best interests of the infant that she be adopted.
Miss Middleton signed papers handing over her daughter to an anonymous couple who, when the adoption became official, decided that they did not want to allow the birth mother any access.
Her only contact is now a letter from the child's new parents every six months, updating her on the little girl's progress.
Miss Middleton said yesterday: 'I got to meet her adoptive parents but I wasn't allowed to know their names. They were maybe mid-30s. They seemed lovely but it doesn't really matter who was taking her - I never wanted to let her go.
'After I'd signed the adoption papers, I went to court to fight for twice-a-year contact. I'd even tried to make a deal that if I signed the papers I would get to see her once a year, but the adoptive parents didn't want that. They don't want me to see her. They want to get on with their lives. It makes me hate them.
'At the end of the day, she's my wee girl and I'm doing them a favour. I wasn't asking for much, asking to see her once a year, but they thought I was.'
Heartache: Tressa, now 16, wants to see her child
When she became pregnant in 2005, the case prompted dismay from church and family groups, amid criticisms that a Scottish Executive campaign to cut teenage pregnancies had failed.
Concern over 'broken Britain' rose further when details of Miss Middleton's chaotic home life in Armadale, West Lothian,emerged.
She was one of six children - by four different fathers - to her then 34-year-old mother, who said she was 'proud' of her daughter for keeping the baby.
On the bleak streets where Miss Middleton was raised, petty crime is rife and drink and drugs are ever present. Boarded-up windows abound and gardens are strewn with bed frames, discarded mattresses and other rubbish.
Children gather on street corners and it is far from unusual to see young girls pushing prams.
Despite barely being out of primary school, Miss Middleton smoked up to 20 cigarettes a day, used cannabis and downed cocktails of Buckfast tonic wine and vodka.
Speaking under the cover of anonymity at the time, she disclosed that she had discovered the pregnancy weeks after having drunken sex in August 2005.
Drawing on a roll-up cigarette while heavily pregnant, she said: 'I slept with him because I was drunk and I wanted to. I don't regret it because if I didn't have sex with him I wouldn't have my baby. I knew straight away that I couldn't have an abortion because that's something I don't believe in.'
The girl was scared to tell her mother who, ironically, had given birth to her youngest child days before her daughter found that she was pregnant.
Miss Middleton admitted that she had an argument with her mother after breaking the news of her pregnancy.
'It was hard but it has brought me and my mum closer together,' she said. 'It's good to know I'll have my mum there to help me if I need her.'
Now 16 and legally an adult, she is able to speak openly about her experiences for the first time and has also allowed the images of those early moments after the birth to be published.
Miss Middleton, who believes she has 'turned a corner' in her life, hopes to join the Army and prove that she deserves to see her child again.
She spoke yesterday of the time when she first felt that she would lose her daughter.
This came before the adoption was even official, when the baby went to live with her foster family and the teenager was allowed to see the child only every three months at a family centre.
A child herself: Tressa with her newly-born daughter
The young mother said: 'My daughter sometimes called me "Mummy" then one day she called me by my first name and called her foster carer "Mum". It really hurt and I burst into tears. Then she wouldn't come to me. She refused and would start screaming. It felt like every time I saw her I was losing her more and more.
'The adoptive parents gave her their surname. They've kept her first name the same, but hearing that her name had changed was heartbreaking. It's like they're turning my wee girl into someone different. She was dressed different and her hair was different. It was hard to see someone else bringing up my wee girl.'
Miss Middleton is not allowed to know where her daughter is living or see photographs, although the latest progress letter, from March, described the three-year-old as 'a very happy, chatty, self-confident and together little girl.'
Miss Middleton said: 'When I read it I just started crying. It says she can read numbers 0-9 and count to 20. That's all the things I wanted to teach her as her mum. It's wee simple things like that which affect me.
'I get upset when I see wee girls walking past with their mums. I miss my wee girl every day. I've kept all her clothes from when she was a baby. I keep under my pillow a wee pink Babygro and hat from when she was born.'
Miss Middleton, who now has only limited contact with her own family and lives in Dumfries, admitted, however, that adoption was in her daughter's 'best interests'.
But she added: 'It was the hardest thing I've ever done. I don't think I can give my daughter the life she needs just now.
'When I'm older I want to build a relationship with my daughter. I'm concentrating on sorting myself out so that one day I'll hopefully see my wee girl again. I love her to bits.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282994/Britains-youngest-mum-Tressa-Middleton-pregnant-11-says-fight-daughter.html#ixzz0pecjSdyt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282994/Britains-youngest-mum-Tressa-Middleton-pregnant-11-says-fight-daughter.html#ixzz0pbEvAZnd
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)