Foster Parents;Did you know? What Does Removal Do to the Children Part 1 of 3
June 18, 11:30 AMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
This question; What does removal do to the children" asked frequently in our training workshops all across the country by foster/adoptive and biological parents who have lost their children. In order to answer the question we are asking above, it is first necessary to understand the workings of CPS.
Most Americans have a tendency to look at this problem in one way;
“the parents that have had their children removed must have done something wrong to loose their children in the first place, CPS must have proof in order to remove the children.
Is this what you think ? You are not the only one who does. Until you have experienced this situation, you simply do not understand. Here is a quote for you to think about, it in essence tells the story; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Until they come for your children, you will say nothing.
Allow us (nfpcar.org) to straighten this misunderstanding out; CPS needs no proof to remove your children, they say the word “danger”, via an anonymous caller, and removal takes place. No proof is offered to you or even required.
This frightening thing is taking place behind closed doors in our beautiful country, the systematic destruction of families, tearing them apart one by one. Happening right under the noses of our people, "we the people".
CPS is tearing children away from their parents for money. Under the guise of “The Best Interests of the Children” they do so each and everyday across this country.. Thousands of families stand in their doorways, watching their own frightened children hauled away by strangers, helplessly standing while these people place their screaming children into cars.
Your children are placed in the Foster Care System and literally belong to the State, they become “Wards of the Court”. In some cases, you will never see your child again. Give this some thought.
We encourage you to go to parts 2-3 of this series, read on. Please subscribe to your Foster Families Examiner, don't miss any new articles that are published, support our efforts to let the public know what is going on behind closed doors in America. You may write fplegalsolutions@gmail.com or call 877-FPA-CHILD.
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Foster-ParentsDid-you-know-What-does-removal-do-to-the-children-1-of-3
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
Saturday, June 19, 2010
What does removal do to the children?
Foster Parents;Did you know? What does removal do to the children? Part 3 of 3
June 18, 12:12 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
In part two we were discussing the emotional problems that children who have experienced removal from their homes may suffer from. We discovered that many of these children are diagnosed with disorders such as RAD, PTSD. If you missed part one and two go back. Now let us go on;
We discovered that each child in the Foster Care System brings money into the agency. Now add the fact that for each one of these disorders the agencies, CPS receive more money for each child they have in the Foster Care System, it behooves agencies to label children with these disorders.
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize what Walter Mondale warned us of when he submitted this funding plan, that in essence was responsible for the creation of CPS…. what he warned of is now taking place. Follow the corruption and money; www.eagleforumofga.org/articles_and_alerts.php
It is all about money, no longer about the children.
No misunderstanding here as to what is being said; although we need to protect our children from harm, there needs to be a method of doing that, but along with any method created this method needs to also be one that offers accountability. CPS is the only branch of government that has absolutely no accountability, checks and balances are needed to protect the people from a government becoming oppressive to the very people in which it answers to.
The obvious question to those who tend to analyze scenarios like this one, now that we have been made aware of this situation, is to ask why this has never been accomplished with CPS?
CPS has free rein to do whatever it wishes with our families and our children, with absolutely no balances and no accountability. When one considers what our country was founded on, then we consider that this entity seems to prey on the poor, or otherwise oppressed members of our society.. Being unemployed, uneducated is not a crime, or people who are unable to defend themselves are targeted. Instead of assisting these parents in their present financial crunch, being homeless, or unemployed, this entity seems to pounce on the opportunity to take their children.
? Challenge; please research this subject on your own, for your own protection,more importantly for the safety of your children. nfpcar.org
We encourage you to subscribe to your Foster Parents Examiner articles, support our efforts in letting the public know what is going on behind closed doors of CPS. .
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Foster-ParentsDid-you-know-What-does-removal-do-to-the-children-3-of-3
June 18, 12:12 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
In part two we were discussing the emotional problems that children who have experienced removal from their homes may suffer from. We discovered that many of these children are diagnosed with disorders such as RAD, PTSD. If you missed part one and two go back. Now let us go on;
We discovered that each child in the Foster Care System brings money into the agency. Now add the fact that for each one of these disorders the agencies, CPS receive more money for each child they have in the Foster Care System, it behooves agencies to label children with these disorders.
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize what Walter Mondale warned us of when he submitted this funding plan, that in essence was responsible for the creation of CPS…. what he warned of is now taking place. Follow the corruption and money; www.eagleforumofga.org/articles_and_alerts.php
It is all about money, no longer about the children.
No misunderstanding here as to what is being said; although we need to protect our children from harm, there needs to be a method of doing that, but along with any method created this method needs to also be one that offers accountability. CPS is the only branch of government that has absolutely no accountability, checks and balances are needed to protect the people from a government becoming oppressive to the very people in which it answers to.
The obvious question to those who tend to analyze scenarios like this one, now that we have been made aware of this situation, is to ask why this has never been accomplished with CPS?
CPS has free rein to do whatever it wishes with our families and our children, with absolutely no balances and no accountability. When one considers what our country was founded on, then we consider that this entity seems to prey on the poor, or otherwise oppressed members of our society.. Being unemployed, uneducated is not a crime, or people who are unable to defend themselves are targeted. Instead of assisting these parents in their present financial crunch, being homeless, or unemployed, this entity seems to pounce on the opportunity to take their children.
? Challenge; please research this subject on your own, for your own protection,more importantly for the safety of your children. nfpcar.org
We encourage you to subscribe to your Foster Parents Examiner articles, support our efforts in letting the public know what is going on behind closed doors of CPS. .
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Foster-ParentsDid-you-know-What-does-removal-do-to-the-children-3-of-3
What will happen to a child taken from her mother due to drug abuse?
What will happen to a child taken from her mother due to drug abuse?
By PainPal
Someone I know used drugs before, during, and after her pregnancy. Her daughter was born with a drug addiction and is still in the hospital (3 weeks). If reported, I assume the child will be taken away, but will the family be able to take custody of the child legally? Or does the child HAVE to go into a foster care setting? I don’t know how this works, and would like to possibly care for this child, but if I take the legal route I don’t want the baby to go to strangers. Does anyone know how this works?
Share and Enjoy:
Categories : Treatment
Comments
the eyes have it! says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:27 am
well, first off, the child was tested in the hospital and if so, the social workers are already involved. chances are, the mother will have to clean up her act. the child will also go to family first before entering the foster care system. a child born addicted to drugs has many things that can go wrong. especially a bit later, like during the school years.
Linda R says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:53 am
The child will automatically go into foster care until family can be notified.
dwh212 says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:59 am
A fit and willing relative is the first choice placement for a child who has been taken into state custody because of abuse or neglect. Placement with a stranger, if it happens at all, should be short-term and temporary. If you believe you’re capable of caring for the child and want to do so, you should contact child protective services right away and tell them you want the child placed with you. Be persistent. Bear in mind that you don’t have to make a lifelong commitment in order to be approved for placement.
Dot Knightly says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm
In NH, my daughter was accused of using illegal drugs while pregnant, yet she was in a methadone program. Two day’s before Tox report’s came back, she was reported to DCYF by the hospital Social worker, due to the slander of a drug counselor. This was even after the baby had met all hospital criteria for discharge. The mother had been given a morphine IV for nineteen hour’s in labor, as the baby was placenta previa, which she was never told, nor was she told the baby should have been born by C-section as both mother and baby could have died. She was also given methadone in labor, which the counselor testified didn’t have time to reach the baby, so the morphine wouldn’t have either. Lab test’s show the baby was never tested for methadone. The baby was stolen and not placed with family. She was put into foster care, which pay’s the state much more money than relative’s, even relatives called DCYF and begged to take the baby. They were told,”Relative placement is NOT an option. She’s going into foster care, PERIOD!”
The mother was court-ordered into a medical methadone detox program in the state and then into transitional housing with her daughter, as DCYF didn’t want her family to help her with the baby. Once she was at the top of the list for the transitional housing, she and her family found out there was NO medical methadone detox in the state. She was court-ordered into a program that didn’t exist and was not allowed to go to another state to detox. She was then given thirteen day’s to detox on her own from 85mgs. It was impossible. She was then given until the end of the month. She lost all visits with her daughter because she was still on methadone. Her drug test result’s showed her doses and levels going down and the CPSW was calling the methadone clinic every day, checking on her doses.
The day before she was to go into transitional housing, there was a court review hearing. The mother had her last dose of 5 mg’s before court. The CPSW told the Judge the mother was NOT being drug tested and her doses and levels weren’t going down. If she wasn’t being drug tested, how could the CPSW say the doses weren’t going down? If the Judge worked for the people instead of DCYF, he would never have gone along with the caseworker. The mother was denied admittance to the housing with her daughter. She went back to drugs after losing all hope to ever regain custody of her daughter.
So please, DO NOT trust anyone from CPS/DCYF. My daughter trusted her caseworker and lost her daughter because of it. She was screwed over at every turn. Even after the hearing, the caseworker spoke to the foster stranger’s outside of the courtroom. She was overheard by many when she told them,”Don’t worry, there’s no guarantee C—-’s going anywhere.” This sounds to me as if the CPSW was working for the foster stranger’s all along.Not my daughter. Did the foster’s pay her off? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
http://methadonetreatmentfor.com/34323/what-will-happen-to-a-child-taken-from-her-mother-due-to-drug-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-35474
By PainPal
Someone I know used drugs before, during, and after her pregnancy. Her daughter was born with a drug addiction and is still in the hospital (3 weeks). If reported, I assume the child will be taken away, but will the family be able to take custody of the child legally? Or does the child HAVE to go into a foster care setting? I don’t know how this works, and would like to possibly care for this child, but if I take the legal route I don’t want the baby to go to strangers. Does anyone know how this works?
Share and Enjoy:
Categories : Treatment
Comments
the eyes have it! says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:27 am
well, first off, the child was tested in the hospital and if so, the social workers are already involved. chances are, the mother will have to clean up her act. the child will also go to family first before entering the foster care system. a child born addicted to drugs has many things that can go wrong. especially a bit later, like during the school years.
Linda R says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:53 am
The child will automatically go into foster care until family can be notified.
dwh212 says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:59 am
A fit and willing relative is the first choice placement for a child who has been taken into state custody because of abuse or neglect. Placement with a stranger, if it happens at all, should be short-term and temporary. If you believe you’re capable of caring for the child and want to do so, you should contact child protective services right away and tell them you want the child placed with you. Be persistent. Bear in mind that you don’t have to make a lifelong commitment in order to be approved for placement.
Dot Knightly says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm
In NH, my daughter was accused of using illegal drugs while pregnant, yet she was in a methadone program. Two day’s before Tox report’s came back, she was reported to DCYF by the hospital Social worker, due to the slander of a drug counselor. This was even after the baby had met all hospital criteria for discharge. The mother had been given a morphine IV for nineteen hour’s in labor, as the baby was placenta previa, which she was never told, nor was she told the baby should have been born by C-section as both mother and baby could have died. She was also given methadone in labor, which the counselor testified didn’t have time to reach the baby, so the morphine wouldn’t have either. Lab test’s show the baby was never tested for methadone. The baby was stolen and not placed with family. She was put into foster care, which pay’s the state much more money than relative’s, even relatives called DCYF and begged to take the baby. They were told,”Relative placement is NOT an option. She’s going into foster care, PERIOD!”
The mother was court-ordered into a medical methadone detox program in the state and then into transitional housing with her daughter, as DCYF didn’t want her family to help her with the baby. Once she was at the top of the list for the transitional housing, she and her family found out there was NO medical methadone detox in the state. She was court-ordered into a program that didn’t exist and was not allowed to go to another state to detox. She was then given thirteen day’s to detox on her own from 85mgs. It was impossible. She was then given until the end of the month. She lost all visits with her daughter because she was still on methadone. Her drug test result’s showed her doses and levels going down and the CPSW was calling the methadone clinic every day, checking on her doses.
The day before she was to go into transitional housing, there was a court review hearing. The mother had her last dose of 5 mg’s before court. The CPSW told the Judge the mother was NOT being drug tested and her doses and levels weren’t going down. If she wasn’t being drug tested, how could the CPSW say the doses weren’t going down? If the Judge worked for the people instead of DCYF, he would never have gone along with the caseworker. The mother was denied admittance to the housing with her daughter. She went back to drugs after losing all hope to ever regain custody of her daughter.
So please, DO NOT trust anyone from CPS/DCYF. My daughter trusted her caseworker and lost her daughter because of it. She was screwed over at every turn. Even after the hearing, the caseworker spoke to the foster stranger’s outside of the courtroom. She was overheard by many when she told them,”Don’t worry, there’s no guarantee C—-’s going anywhere.” This sounds to me as if the CPSW was working for the foster stranger’s all along.Not my daughter. Did the foster’s pay her off? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
http://methadonetreatmentfor.com/34323/what-will-happen-to-a-child-taken-from-her-mother-due-to-drug-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-35474
Baby's death ruled homicide-Father given custody of child on life support
unhappygrammy-Is this what DCYF and the NH courts are waiting for? To return my grandchildren on life support or even dead? This is totally sick!
Baby's death ruled homicide
By Michael Abramowitz
The Daily Reflector
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The death of a 5-month-old Greenville boy was found to be homicide Wednesday by the Pitt County Medical Examiner.
Dakota Chase Etheridge, born Jan. 10, died from a non-accidental head trauma, ruled as a homicide, said Colleen Cheterton of the medical examiner’s office.
Sandy Kay Etheridge, 27, the child’s mother, is expected to be charged in the death early next week, Chief Investigator James Tripp of the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office said.
“A grand jury will convene Monday. If they return a bill of indictment, the mother will be charged with murder,” Tripp said.
The child was taken off life support Sunday at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Tripp said, six weeks after being placed in intensive care with severe bleeding in his brain, ruptured retinas and a fractured left leg.
The decision to remove the child from life support was made by his father after he was given custody in a closed court proceeding before Judge Galen Braddy. The proceeding included officials with the county Department of Social Services, law enforcement officers, a guardian ad litem and legal representatives for the mother, Tripp said.
The infant died in the arms of his maternal grandmother Cynthia Burchett, said Jennipher Dickens, a family member. Burchett had been shut out of legal proceedings by the court and temporarily banned from her grandson’s hospital room, she said.
Dickens’ child survived a similar incident at her ex-husband’s hands, she said. She was surprised to see it happen again in her family.
“It was a shock to find that this tragedy had happened in my family, despite knowing that the same thing happened to my baby,” Dickens said. “It’s disheartening and has devastated the whole family, particularly under these circumstances. I hope that justice will be served for Dakota.”
State statutes prevent courts and social services from sharing information publicly about cases in which a juvenile is taken into protective custody, so Braddy and DSS Director George Perry gave no reasons for preventing Burchett from visiting the baby or being informed of medical decisions.
Contact Michael Abramowitz at mabramowitz@reflector.com or (252) 329-9571.
http://www.reflector.com/news/babys-death-ruled-homicide-37822
Baby's death ruled homicide
By Michael Abramowitz
The Daily Reflector
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The death of a 5-month-old Greenville boy was found to be homicide Wednesday by the Pitt County Medical Examiner.
Dakota Chase Etheridge, born Jan. 10, died from a non-accidental head trauma, ruled as a homicide, said Colleen Cheterton of the medical examiner’s office.
Sandy Kay Etheridge, 27, the child’s mother, is expected to be charged in the death early next week, Chief Investigator James Tripp of the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office said.
“A grand jury will convene Monday. If they return a bill of indictment, the mother will be charged with murder,” Tripp said.
The child was taken off life support Sunday at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Tripp said, six weeks after being placed in intensive care with severe bleeding in his brain, ruptured retinas and a fractured left leg.
The decision to remove the child from life support was made by his father after he was given custody in a closed court proceeding before Judge Galen Braddy. The proceeding included officials with the county Department of Social Services, law enforcement officers, a guardian ad litem and legal representatives for the mother, Tripp said.
The infant died in the arms of his maternal grandmother Cynthia Burchett, said Jennipher Dickens, a family member. Burchett had been shut out of legal proceedings by the court and temporarily banned from her grandson’s hospital room, she said.
Dickens’ child survived a similar incident at her ex-husband’s hands, she said. She was surprised to see it happen again in her family.
“It was a shock to find that this tragedy had happened in my family, despite knowing that the same thing happened to my baby,” Dickens said. “It’s disheartening and has devastated the whole family, particularly under these circumstances. I hope that justice will be served for Dakota.”
State statutes prevent courts and social services from sharing information publicly about cases in which a juvenile is taken into protective custody, so Braddy and DSS Director George Perry gave no reasons for preventing Burchett from visiting the baby or being informed of medical decisions.
Contact Michael Abramowitz at mabramowitz@reflector.com or (252) 329-9571.
http://www.reflector.com/news/babys-death-ruled-homicide-37822
Friday, June 18, 2010
Home from foster care: At last, a day to celebrate reunification
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010
Home from foster care: At last, a day to celebrate reunification
A GOOD IDEA FROM PITTSBURGH SPREADS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
unhappygrammy-I haven't come across any articles for NH celebrating National Reunification Day. I guess that's because there are NO families in NH who have been reunified! Once a child is stolen, their never returned!
Many years ago, I sent an e-mail to Marc Cherna, the reform-minded Director of the Allegheny County, Pa. Department of Human Services. I noted that, like so many other child welfare systems, the one in Pittsburgh had a day to celebrate adoptions. So how about one to celebrate birth families that have been reunified?
Cherna was way ahead of me. He'd already created such an event in Pittsburgh, an annual picnic for reunified families.
After that, whenever a reformer was named to run a child welfare system, I would tell them about Pittsburgh's celebration and suggest they do something similar. That led to three big systems across the country following Pittsburgh's lead.
And on Saturday, for the first time, there will be celebrations of reunified families across the country. The National Project to Improve Representation for Parents Involved in the Child Welfare System, a part of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, is coordinating the effort. Not everyone is celebrating on June 19. Florida held a week of celebrations around Mother's Day, and Los Angeles County held its celebrations earlier - though you'd never know it if you relied for information on the Los Angeles Times.
I suspect one of the best celebrations will be the one in Chicago, sponsored not by a child welfare agency, but by the Family Defense Center. The keynote speaker is Karl Dennis, pioneer of Wraparound services.
If the child welfare agency in your community isn't sponsoring one of these events, and didn't do one earlier this year, this might be a good time to ask them a question:
You say your first priority is reunification. So why is it that all you ever celebrate is adoption and foster care?
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 7:57 AM
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
Home from foster care: At last, a day to celebrate reunification
A GOOD IDEA FROM PITTSBURGH SPREADS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
unhappygrammy-I haven't come across any articles for NH celebrating National Reunification Day. I guess that's because there are NO families in NH who have been reunified! Once a child is stolen, their never returned!
Many years ago, I sent an e-mail to Marc Cherna, the reform-minded Director of the Allegheny County, Pa. Department of Human Services. I noted that, like so many other child welfare systems, the one in Pittsburgh had a day to celebrate adoptions. So how about one to celebrate birth families that have been reunified?
Cherna was way ahead of me. He'd already created such an event in Pittsburgh, an annual picnic for reunified families.
After that, whenever a reformer was named to run a child welfare system, I would tell them about Pittsburgh's celebration and suggest they do something similar. That led to three big systems across the country following Pittsburgh's lead.
And on Saturday, for the first time, there will be celebrations of reunified families across the country. The National Project to Improve Representation for Parents Involved in the Child Welfare System, a part of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, is coordinating the effort. Not everyone is celebrating on June 19. Florida held a week of celebrations around Mother's Day, and Los Angeles County held its celebrations earlier - though you'd never know it if you relied for information on the Los Angeles Times.
I suspect one of the best celebrations will be the one in Chicago, sponsored not by a child welfare agency, but by the Family Defense Center. The keynote speaker is Karl Dennis, pioneer of Wraparound services.
If the child welfare agency in your community isn't sponsoring one of these events, and didn't do one earlier this year, this might be a good time to ask them a question:
You say your first priority is reunification. So why is it that all you ever celebrate is adoption and foster care?
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 7:57 AM
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/
Parental Rights Trump Bonds Formed Between Child and Foster Parents, N.J. Court Rules
Parental Rights Trump Bonds Formed Between Child and Foster Parents, N.J. Court Rules
Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law JournalJune 18, 2010
The possibility that a child may suffer serious psychological or emotional harm from severing bonds with foster parents is not alone sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights, a New Jersey appeals court says.
What must be proved, in essence, is that formation of foster-parental bond was in large part the birth parent's doing, to the point where "any harm caused to the child by severing the bond rests at the feet of the parent," the Appellate Division held in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.M., A-6020-08.
The June 11 precedential ruling, reversing a trial court's decision, is an important victory for birth parents because of its insistence that the best-interest-of-the-child standard, codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), be followed scrupulously in termination cases despite a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that seemed to allow a more expansive interpretation.
That test requires proof that: (1) the parent with rights has endangered the child's safety, health or development; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate harm facing the child or provide a safe and stable home; (3) reasonable efforts have been made to help the parent correct circumstances that led to the child's removal, and the court has considered alternatives to termination; and (4) termination will not do more harm than good.
In this case, DYFS caseworkers began making regular visits to a family after a June 2004 domestic violence incident. The couple, F.M. and D.M., had a 3-year-old child, S.M. Agency workers found evidence that F.M. abused D.M. and were concerned that D.M.'s multiple sclerosis and scoliosis made her unable to supervise S.M., even though the child appeared healthy and normal and no allegation of child abuse had been made.
In July 2005, based on a caseworker's observation of D.M.'s "inappropriate and bizarre" behavior, the child was placed in the custody of D.M.'s mother. In August, after D.M.'s mother left the child in the care of D.M., the agency obtained a court order placing the child with a foster couple who have three children. The child is still with the family.
In 2006, Morris County Superior Court Judge Thomas Critchley Jr. severed the natural parents' rights, concluding all four prongs had been satisfied. D.M. appealed and an appellate panel, finding that only the third prong of the test had been met, remanded the case to Critchley for factfinding. The court relied on In re J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992), which said harm likely to result from separation from foster parents may be grounds to terminate parental rights. Critchley so found and again ordered termination of D.M.'s parental rights.
But in the most recent ruling, Appellate Division Judges William Gilroy, Jose Fuentes and Stephen Skillman said the J.C. rationale was undercut by the Supreme Court's June 1 ruling in Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.M., A-74-08, which called for a strict adherence to the "best interests of the child" standard.
The ruling in C.M. "supports our conclusion that termination of parental rights cannot be justified by evidence that a child may suffer serious, psychological or emotional harm by severing the bond between the child and his or her foster parents without evidence that the parent substantially caused, directly or indirectly, the harm to the child."
C.M. reaffirmed that "DYFS bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the four statutory prongs of the best interests of the child standard," Gilroy wrote.
The appeals court remanded to the trial court for formulation of a reunification plan between D.M. and S.M., including individual and joint therapy, and increased supervised visitation, leading to unsupervised daytime supervision and subsequent overnight visitation as determined by the court to minimize any emotional harm to S.M. by separating from her foster family.
DYFS was represented by Deputy Attorney General Lea DeGuilo, whose spokesman, Lee Moore, said only that the opinion is under review.
D.M. was represented by North Brunswick, N.J., solo Carleen Steward, designated counsel for the Office of the Public Defender, who said only that she is pleased with the ruling.
S.M. was represented by Assistant Deputy Public Defender Melissa Vance. The Public Defender's Office said Vance was not available for comment.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202462796054&Parental_Rights_Trump_Bonds_Formed_Between_Child_and_Foster_Parents_NJ_Court_Rules
Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law JournalJune 18, 2010
The possibility that a child may suffer serious psychological or emotional harm from severing bonds with foster parents is not alone sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights, a New Jersey appeals court says.
What must be proved, in essence, is that formation of foster-parental bond was in large part the birth parent's doing, to the point where "any harm caused to the child by severing the bond rests at the feet of the parent," the Appellate Division held in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.M., A-6020-08.
The June 11 precedential ruling, reversing a trial court's decision, is an important victory for birth parents because of its insistence that the best-interest-of-the-child standard, codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), be followed scrupulously in termination cases despite a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that seemed to allow a more expansive interpretation.
That test requires proof that: (1) the parent with rights has endangered the child's safety, health or development; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate harm facing the child or provide a safe and stable home; (3) reasonable efforts have been made to help the parent correct circumstances that led to the child's removal, and the court has considered alternatives to termination; and (4) termination will not do more harm than good.
In this case, DYFS caseworkers began making regular visits to a family after a June 2004 domestic violence incident. The couple, F.M. and D.M., had a 3-year-old child, S.M. Agency workers found evidence that F.M. abused D.M. and were concerned that D.M.'s multiple sclerosis and scoliosis made her unable to supervise S.M., even though the child appeared healthy and normal and no allegation of child abuse had been made.
In July 2005, based on a caseworker's observation of D.M.'s "inappropriate and bizarre" behavior, the child was placed in the custody of D.M.'s mother. In August, after D.M.'s mother left the child in the care of D.M., the agency obtained a court order placing the child with a foster couple who have three children. The child is still with the family.
In 2006, Morris County Superior Court Judge Thomas Critchley Jr. severed the natural parents' rights, concluding all four prongs had been satisfied. D.M. appealed and an appellate panel, finding that only the third prong of the test had been met, remanded the case to Critchley for factfinding. The court relied on In re J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992), which said harm likely to result from separation from foster parents may be grounds to terminate parental rights. Critchley so found and again ordered termination of D.M.'s parental rights.
But in the most recent ruling, Appellate Division Judges William Gilroy, Jose Fuentes and Stephen Skillman said the J.C. rationale was undercut by the Supreme Court's June 1 ruling in Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.M., A-74-08, which called for a strict adherence to the "best interests of the child" standard.
The ruling in C.M. "supports our conclusion that termination of parental rights cannot be justified by evidence that a child may suffer serious, psychological or emotional harm by severing the bond between the child and his or her foster parents without evidence that the parent substantially caused, directly or indirectly, the harm to the child."
C.M. reaffirmed that "DYFS bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the four statutory prongs of the best interests of the child standard," Gilroy wrote.
The appeals court remanded to the trial court for formulation of a reunification plan between D.M. and S.M., including individual and joint therapy, and increased supervised visitation, leading to unsupervised daytime supervision and subsequent overnight visitation as determined by the court to minimize any emotional harm to S.M. by separating from her foster family.
DYFS was represented by Deputy Attorney General Lea DeGuilo, whose spokesman, Lee Moore, said only that the opinion is under review.
D.M. was represented by North Brunswick, N.J., solo Carleen Steward, designated counsel for the Office of the Public Defender, who said only that she is pleased with the ruling.
S.M. was represented by Assistant Deputy Public Defender Melissa Vance. The Public Defender's Office said Vance was not available for comment.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202462796054&Parental_Rights_Trump_Bonds_Formed_Between_Child_and_Foster_Parents_NJ_Court_Rules
Regaining children unlikely Parents whose lawyers failed to file paperwork face a tough task, experienced attorneys say
Regaining children unlikely
Parents whose lawyers failed to file paperwork face a tough task, experienced attorneys say.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
WILKES-BARRE – The 15 Luzerne County parents who lost appeals of the termination of their parental rights after their attorneys failed to file court papers will face a nearly insurmountable obstacle should they seek to get their children back, two attorneys who specialize in child welfare law said.
RELATED HEADLINES
How to direct parent cases being mulled
The parents would first have to convince the state Superior Court to reinstate their appeal. The legal grounds for making that argument are extremely limited, making it unlikely they will succeed, the attorneys said.
Even if they do get their appeal reinstated, the chance they will prevail in getting the case overturned are slim, the attorneys said.
Since 2005, at least 53 parents have filed appeals of termination rulings entered in Luzerne County to the state Superior Court, according to a review of docket sheets. Not a single case was overturned by the court.
In 27 of the cases, the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s order. Of the remaining 26 cases, 22 were dismissed because attorneys did not file a legal brief detailing the alleged errors the trial judge made. The Luzerne County Public Defender’s Office represented 15 of those 22 people.
Of the remaining four cases, two are pending, one was voluntarily withdrawn and one was dismissed on other grounds that are not specified.
Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora Jr. is continuing to investigate why attorneys in his office failed to file legal briefs in the 15 cases that were uncovered earlier this week by The Times Leader, and to determine if there is any legal recourse to get the appeals reinstated.
Should the appeals be restored, it would place the Superior Court in the difficult position of having to weigh the rights of the parents against what’s in the best interest of the children.
Attorney Martin Guggenheim, a professor at New York University, said he believes the parents would have virtually no chance of prevailing because, even if they can show an egregious violation of their rights, the court will give great deference to the impact its decision would have on the children involved.
“Because the child is seen as the innocent victim of someone else’s screw-up, the ordinary remedy to restore the harmed party to the place they were before the mistake now has to be considered in a broader context,” Guggenheim said. “Even if something can be done to fix this procedurally, you can’t overlook the reality that this will have a devastating impact on the parents’ chances of winning on the merits.”
Guggenheim is president of National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a nonprofit group based in Virginia that advocates for changes in child welfare law to ensure parents’ and children’s rights are protected.
Guggenheim and Mike Pendolphi, a Forty Fort attorney who handles many child dependency cases, said termination of parental rights cases are extremely difficult to win on appeal because of the standard of review the court employs.
At the trial court phase, the judge makes a determination based on what is in the best interest of the child. An appellate court can only overturn the trial judge if it finds he or she committed a legal error, or if there is other evidence the judge somehow abused their discretion. Both are extremely high standards.
Pendolphi, who has specialized in family law for 19 years, said it’s rare, but he has occasionally prevailed in convincing the trial court to rule in favor of a parent in a termination case. He has never won an appeal of a termination case with the Superior Court, however.
Pendolphi said the 15 Luzerne County parents whose appeals were lost for failure to file legal briefs face an ever bigger challenge because of the age of the cases.
“Some of these appeals were dismissed years ago. Now you have children who have already been adopted out who have not seen their biological parents for years. You’re going to have to convince a trial court it’s in the best of a child to uproot him from that family and transfer him back to parents he doesn’t even know,” he said.
Pendolphi does not dispute that the best interests of the child should be considered. The problem, he said, is the system is often stacked against the parents in seeking reunification.
One of the biggest obstacles to reunification is the delay in obtaining the counseling, parenting classes or drug-and-alcohol services that are often required of parents, he said. That keeps the child out of the home, precluding the parents from developing a bond with them.
Often times a parent will complete one program, but Children and Youth will then determine the parent needs additional services. By the time parents obtain referrals and complete the other programs, the child may be in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. That triggers a federal law that allows the agency to seek the termination of parental rights.
Attorney Mike Shucosky, director of family court for the county, acknowledged there are delays in getting parents into some treatment programs, particularly drug-and-alcohol, which can takes “weeks sometimes months,” he said.
While federal law mandates agencies seek to terminate rights once the child hits that 15-month mark, the agency can extend the deadline if it believes there are compelling reasons to do so, said Frank Castano, executive director of Children and Youth.
“Everyone is aware there is a clock and we need to follow federal law,” Castano said. “There are certain compelling reasons to extend it. If they are working diligently on whatever treatment that’s outlined in the service plan, that will be acknowledged and presented to the court.”
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Regaining_children_unlikely_06-17-2010.html
Parents whose lawyers failed to file paperwork face a tough task, experienced attorneys say.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
WILKES-BARRE – The 15 Luzerne County parents who lost appeals of the termination of their parental rights after their attorneys failed to file court papers will face a nearly insurmountable obstacle should they seek to get their children back, two attorneys who specialize in child welfare law said.
RELATED HEADLINES
How to direct parent cases being mulled
The parents would first have to convince the state Superior Court to reinstate their appeal. The legal grounds for making that argument are extremely limited, making it unlikely they will succeed, the attorneys said.
Even if they do get their appeal reinstated, the chance they will prevail in getting the case overturned are slim, the attorneys said.
Since 2005, at least 53 parents have filed appeals of termination rulings entered in Luzerne County to the state Superior Court, according to a review of docket sheets. Not a single case was overturned by the court.
In 27 of the cases, the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s order. Of the remaining 26 cases, 22 were dismissed because attorneys did not file a legal brief detailing the alleged errors the trial judge made. The Luzerne County Public Defender’s Office represented 15 of those 22 people.
Of the remaining four cases, two are pending, one was voluntarily withdrawn and one was dismissed on other grounds that are not specified.
Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora Jr. is continuing to investigate why attorneys in his office failed to file legal briefs in the 15 cases that were uncovered earlier this week by The Times Leader, and to determine if there is any legal recourse to get the appeals reinstated.
Should the appeals be restored, it would place the Superior Court in the difficult position of having to weigh the rights of the parents against what’s in the best interest of the children.
Attorney Martin Guggenheim, a professor at New York University, said he believes the parents would have virtually no chance of prevailing because, even if they can show an egregious violation of their rights, the court will give great deference to the impact its decision would have on the children involved.
“Because the child is seen as the innocent victim of someone else’s screw-up, the ordinary remedy to restore the harmed party to the place they were before the mistake now has to be considered in a broader context,” Guggenheim said. “Even if something can be done to fix this procedurally, you can’t overlook the reality that this will have a devastating impact on the parents’ chances of winning on the merits.”
Guggenheim is president of National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a nonprofit group based in Virginia that advocates for changes in child welfare law to ensure parents’ and children’s rights are protected.
Guggenheim and Mike Pendolphi, a Forty Fort attorney who handles many child dependency cases, said termination of parental rights cases are extremely difficult to win on appeal because of the standard of review the court employs.
At the trial court phase, the judge makes a determination based on what is in the best interest of the child. An appellate court can only overturn the trial judge if it finds he or she committed a legal error, or if there is other evidence the judge somehow abused their discretion. Both are extremely high standards.
Pendolphi, who has specialized in family law for 19 years, said it’s rare, but he has occasionally prevailed in convincing the trial court to rule in favor of a parent in a termination case. He has never won an appeal of a termination case with the Superior Court, however.
Pendolphi said the 15 Luzerne County parents whose appeals were lost for failure to file legal briefs face an ever bigger challenge because of the age of the cases.
“Some of these appeals were dismissed years ago. Now you have children who have already been adopted out who have not seen their biological parents for years. You’re going to have to convince a trial court it’s in the best of a child to uproot him from that family and transfer him back to parents he doesn’t even know,” he said.
Pendolphi does not dispute that the best interests of the child should be considered. The problem, he said, is the system is often stacked against the parents in seeking reunification.
One of the biggest obstacles to reunification is the delay in obtaining the counseling, parenting classes or drug-and-alcohol services that are often required of parents, he said. That keeps the child out of the home, precluding the parents from developing a bond with them.
Often times a parent will complete one program, but Children and Youth will then determine the parent needs additional services. By the time parents obtain referrals and complete the other programs, the child may be in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. That triggers a federal law that allows the agency to seek the termination of parental rights.
Attorney Mike Shucosky, director of family court for the county, acknowledged there are delays in getting parents into some treatment programs, particularly drug-and-alcohol, which can takes “weeks sometimes months,” he said.
While federal law mandates agencies seek to terminate rights once the child hits that 15-month mark, the agency can extend the deadline if it believes there are compelling reasons to do so, said Frank Castano, executive director of Children and Youth.
“Everyone is aware there is a clock and we need to follow federal law,” Castano said. “There are certain compelling reasons to extend it. If they are working diligently on whatever treatment that’s outlined in the service plan, that will be acknowledged and presented to the court.”
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Regaining_children_unlikely_06-17-2010.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)