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
Monday, August 2, 2010
Straight Talk About The CPS
The CPS is an evil empire that must be brought down. I call upon all decent people to join in this fight to end this corrupt system, jail the case workers and put an end this this unconstitutional system of kidnapping.
Posted by LK at 3:43 AM
http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/08/straight-talk-about-cps.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/XkAqv+(Legally+Kidnapped)
Child Protective Services CPS False Accusations — Family Rights v Child Welfare Services
Child Protective Services, CPS, has devastated and destroyed hundreds of thousands of families in America during the last thirty years leaving a trail of broken hearts, broken dreams, and shattered childhoods.
Rather than helping families, government agents have used unconstitutional laws in Juvenile Court to rip children away from their loving parents, break asunder God-given, natural, parent-child bonds, and adopt the children of the grieving out to others who profit financially with large monthly adoption subsidy payments.
Child Protective Services must be stopped! The law that started this, CAPTA, must be repealed. We must work tirelessly to inform the public of this very dangerous travesty of justice. We must keep faith knowing that if there is a God, there is an answer and a way to end this heartache.
Child Protective Services Agents - please come to your senses! Family destruction on false or trivial grounds is wrong, reprehensible, and inhumane.
Fosterers - be aware that for the money you get you are holding much-loved children away from their grieving families while the parents are forced to perform a service plan that is anything but a service to them. I call this hostage holding for the government. This is not kindness - to help misguided government agents destroy family relationships and break loving bonds.
CPS workers and fosterers - I ask that you now let the children of the innocent return to their homes where they are truly valued, adored, and loved by the parents God gave them.
Family rights are God-given rights. And they should not be ignored or postponed. Every moment these loving parents and children spend separated from one another is a torment beyond what anyone should ever have to bear.
It is unworthy of human dignity to allow this terrorism and torture of families to go on without saying something, speaking out, and trying to make a change.
Site mission: To provide information and support for families attacked by Child Protective Services and child welfare agents, especially those families facing false or trivial accusations of child abuse or neglect; and for researchers working to protect natural family rights.
Posted by LK at 3:40 AM
http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/08/child-protective-services-cps-false.html
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Family Rights Act - (rev g, 8/1/07)
The Family Rights Act - (rev g, 8/1/07),
)
I. AN ACT:
to recognize:
that the current patchwork of Family Law in the United States has become a tragedy in which both parents and children are victims,
that one of the most basic Civil Rights of any person is to associate with their children,
that the vast, vast majority of mothers and fathers are good people and good parents trying to do the best they can,
that most practioners in the present "system" mean well but are operating in a difficult environment where there is great administrative power,
that the "best interests of the child" are served by recognition of these rights and regular and equal contact with both parents.
to enforce some of our most basic Civil Rights:
the Constitutional right of both parents to associate equally with their children and participate in their lives free of government interference ,
the Constitutional right of family members to be secure in their homes,
the Constitutional right of parents to change employment or careers throughout their lives,
by applying the traditional protection of a jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt when any of the preceding freedoms are challenged
the standard of conduct and proof required for a parent to maintain an equal relationship with their children should be no more for a parent who is experiencing a divorce from their spouse -- than for a parent not experiencing a divorce.
to encourage:
the American people to realize the birth and raising of a child is an important decision that is not to be taken lightly and which will place them (whether they like it or not) in proximity to the other parent for many years.
the States to institute programs in parenting and marriage and to encourage attendance in pre-marriage classes before a Marriage License is granted.
to provide:
that the provisions of this Act become the "default" agreement between individuals before they form a family,
that the States and/or individuals are free to institute other agreements to replace this Act, but the acceptance of those provisions must require free will acceptance by the part of any individual to be affected,
for the involuntary termination of the preceding rights only when the family member is found unfit to parent -- with the same standard of jury protection and speedy trial,
to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief,
to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect such rights
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Family Rights Act".
II. DEFINITIONS:
The term "parent" applies to both the biological father and mother of a child. If the biological parent is deceased or has taken action to leave the child for adoption --it then means the adopted parent(s).
The term "family member" means either a child or parent. The term applies to parents who are unmarried, married, or divorced.
The term "home" means a living area which is either owned or rented by the individual.
The term "Unfit to Parent" means to be found guilty of being a demonstrated serious threat to the safety of their child with malintent. This is a criminal accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show this person has engaged in conduct of the type, such that if similar conduct were done by any other parent in the community, they would be found guilty of the same crime.
The term "attempting to escape support" means a willful attempt by a parent to reduce their Child Support obligation by reducing their income primarily for the purpose of reducing the payment. This is a serious accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury.
The term "speedy trial" means that if a parent is charged with misconduct which results in a "temporary" order either limiting access to their home or to their children -- they have the right to be brought to trial on the charges within 60 days.
The term "Equal Parenting" means that by default parents alternate physical custody of their children on a weekly basis. They are both 'legal' custodians of the children and both need to be kept informed with 'tie breaker' authority alternating on an annual basis.
III. BACKGROUND:
This Act is drawn in the light of the following sections of the U.S. Constitution:
Seventh Amendment - "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . "
Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people … "
While the framers of the Constitution did not include "matrimonial" issues specifically within these amendments, divorces were not then considered matters within the "common" law, but rather church law - we consider the present day frequency and ease of Divorce proceedings (and their devastating effect on families). This "evolution" have would have caused the "founding fathers" some concern. Especially when considered with those words from our:
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Americans have always held to the tradition that "Liberty" and "Life" rights deserve our greatest protections. In response to recent government activism over the past 40 years, we must now clearly recognize our right to associate with our children, to be secure in our homes. What greater and purer "Happiness" can there be in life than the relation between parent and child.
Who among us, when faced with a Court proceeding in which we felt a Judge or Government official was about to unjustly limit contact with our children - would not want the safety valve of a jury?
Who among us would not want a presumption we be allowed equal contact with our children?
The right to the company of one's children/parent is a right preserved to the people.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
What the Act 'is not' - It is important to clarify what the Act is not intended to be.
It is not meant to force parents to live in the same home, or to require the action of a jury before parents can separate and live apart.
It is not meant to install a jury system in Family Court rooms in those jurisdictions where 'Family' Courts are separate from the Criminal system.
It is not meant to require a jury proceeding or to require Equal Parenting if both parents agree to an alternate arrangement.
What the Act 'is' - A brief summary of provisions follow and then some examples of implementation.
It does establish basic protections and default arrangements when a parent finds their relationship with their child threatened by other family members or a government agency.
It does require speedy trial if a temporary order interferes with the parents relationship with their child.
It does require a Criminal indictment and conviction (with the protection of a unanimous jury verdict) of a parent of being a demonstrated threat to the safety of their children before a 'Family' or other Court can impose any terms other than Equal Parenting (Unfit to Parent).
It guarantees equal physical and legal custody over children between parents in cases where agreement cannot be reached on other arrangements.
The following scenarios are examples reflecting adherence to the goals of this Act. Unless a parent is found unfit -- the relationship with the children continues unbroken. (In the Draft these are to be seen as examples of what would really happen, your input is valuable in making changes/updates as part of the process. Wording is very crucial).
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent decides to initiate a Divorce Proceeding against the other. Regarding Physical Custody:
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found "Unfit to Parent". They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought.
If both parents are seeking divorce one may be required by the Court to leave the home.
Voluntarily, either of the parents may leave the home and start residence elsewhere in the same locality (within app. 30 minutes driving). The children will continue at the school of the original residence and will spend app. equal time at the homes of both parents. The standard arrangement will have the child spend alternating weeks with each parent.
The preceding paragraph applies even after a Divorce is granted.
If a parent decides to move farther away the children will not be moved unless the other parent is "Unfit to Parent". Special emphasis will be given for the children having vacation time with that parent.
Regarding Legal Custody. Unless a parent is found "Unfit to Parent", there shall be JOINT legal custody of children between the parents. Both parents shall be aware of what is going on in their children's lives. If there is disagreement regarding a decision which must be made:
One parent will have the "tie breaking" vote for the year. That authority will alternate each year.
If the other parent wishes to pursue the decision in Court, mediation will be required first.
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence (between parents) against the other:
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found guilty of Criminal misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
In and of itself, a charge or conviction of "Domestic Violence" against another parent does not make someone "Unfit to Parent".
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence, sexual abuse by the other parent against the children:
Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to permanently leave the home unless they are found guilty of such misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
There is a separated family and one parent was found 'Unfit to Parent". Regarding financial support of the children:
The amount of support paid may be based on both real assets and income as reported in Federal Tax Returns. The use of "imputed" income is not allowed unless the person is found to be guilty (by a Jury) of attempting to escape support.
A parent is always free to change their job and the Support Payment must be adjusted to reflect actual income (and may be adjusted retroactively and slowly corrected).
A finding of "Unfit to Parent" is a severe finding and should be infrequent. This is the standard to be used by the Jury before contact between parent/child is limited in any way [we welcome your comments on the DRAFT. This is the crucial item and must be defined well]:
All parents can be a little better or improve in their skills (this should NOT reduce their time with their children). The standard is not to be applied to just parents going through a divorce, but to all parents in the community. Their are a wide variety in parenting styles in our nation.
We would hope States could offer parents optional "skills" classes in different areas of child-rearing.
A life threatening injury requiring medical attention delivered with mal intent is included.
How/should you quantify "mental abuse"?
It is NOT based on predicted conduct, but actual severe conduct. It also includes the elements of intent to harm. Consider the following:
Parents who smoke - we know second hand smoke is a clear health threat. Imagine parents who both "smoke like chimnies". They are a threat to their children, but their is no intent to harm.
Religious convictions - there are communities of Amish/Mennonites (among others) who do not believe in certain types of medical treatment. Withholding treatment would not be considered an intent to harm.
V. Unsupported Implementations & Rationale
The following implementation ideas were not supported, brief rationale is given:
"Having Juries would slow the system down to much!" - This has not been proven at all.
This same argument would probably be made against our criminal justice system -- but actually it encourages a fair decision and settlement. Any suspected criminal who is presented with a "plea" to avoid trial can make the decision to accept the punishment -- or demand a trial and have his accusers prove their case. In Family Law, once a Judge feels a parent should be separated from children -- there is little hope.
With a clear standard of "Unfit to Parent" -- most of the petty accusations that really do bog the system down would be dropped.
"Let the child decide who they want to live with is -- it is their right"
None of us had even the smallest say in deciding who our parents were. Adults have the great responsibility and right in determining who they will share parenting with. While they are children they have a "right" to contact with two parents.
We don't allow children to cast a vote for President (as intelligent, well read, and politically involved as they may be). Do we let them 'cast' an even more important vote?
It is simple human nature for an adult going through divorce to place the primary "blame" on the other spouse. It is also natural for them to seek affirmation from their friends (how many of us have had our "ears talked off" by someone describing a bitter divorce). Unfortunately, it is also natural to expect such an adult to attempt to "convince" their children of the same thing.
With older teenage children -- how many of us would be tempted to play one parent off the other in an attempt to gain extra freedom or privileges?
"Custody decisions will be based on the Primary Caregiver"
Whatever parent happens to have the ability/desire to stay with a child at home should not have a preference over the one pursuing a career at that time, outside the home.
Both parents have valuable contributions to make to the child. The parent/child relationship is dynamic and changes as both grow in the relationship, and to the benefit of both. This is consistent with appreciating the basic Civil Right of parents/children to associate.
"Standards of evidence should be relaxed for Family Custody matters. There just aren't enough facts some times..."
This is probably the greatest reason for the tragedy of the present system. The overworked staff, lawyers, and Judges try to make critical decisions -- and they don't have enough time or facts -- and sometimes not even the desire. They are tired & overworked. It becomes a "job", and sometimes you make mistakes, get a little callous, start to form biases. This is why there are rules of evidence. This why the Nation's founders installed the jury system. The jury requires the "system" to prove to people "off the street" that it can justify its claims.
The criminal "rules of evidence" are used to prevent abuse of the system. They recognize that people lie to get what they want. The motivation to lie is certainly present in a Divorce. It is very easy to rationalize pure fabrication or dramatization -- as long as you don't really have to prove anything. When just allegations are rewarded, you get more allegations.
We recognize that sometimes there could be a real problem, but we just don't have the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary to take action. We do much more harm by allowing people to play a "hunch" or "suspicion" and destroy a family.
"We need more scientific studies on this..." -- It is not uncommon to see various statistics presented as justification for Family Law Reform, e.g. 63% of children raised in single parent homes grow up with this problem, OR, you get comparisons of the effectiveness of men versus women as parents!!!!
This is about your Civil Rights to have a relationship with your children. We are not talking about a technical issue of road construction or fresh water management.
Imagine "modern sociological studies" done before the Civil War on the issue of whether the slaves should be freed? "... We really are concerned about their physical well being and that of their children. To release this great mass of people all at once would be fool hardy. Some of them can't handle freedom, their children would starve, what are they going to do for work? Maybe a phased approach would be best, we'll release some of the more educated ones (after they pass some tests) and take it slow with the rest." (We might still have slavery now!)
Please remember our criminal law system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if 80% of teenagers picked up by police are eventually found guilty -- would you just want to remove the "formality" of a trial and just find everyone guilty?
Consider the recognition and protection of our most basic right to associate with our children. The slave had a right to immediate freedom, and so do we.
http://kids-right.org/family_rights_act.htm
)
I. AN ACT:
to recognize:
that the current patchwork of Family Law in the United States has become a tragedy in which both parents and children are victims,
that one of the most basic Civil Rights of any person is to associate with their children,
that the vast, vast majority of mothers and fathers are good people and good parents trying to do the best they can,
that most practioners in the present "system" mean well but are operating in a difficult environment where there is great administrative power,
that the "best interests of the child" are served by recognition of these rights and regular and equal contact with both parents.
to enforce some of our most basic Civil Rights:
the Constitutional right of both parents to associate equally with their children and participate in their lives free of government interference ,
the Constitutional right of family members to be secure in their homes,
the Constitutional right of parents to change employment or careers throughout their lives,
by applying the traditional protection of a jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt when any of the preceding freedoms are challenged
the standard of conduct and proof required for a parent to maintain an equal relationship with their children should be no more for a parent who is experiencing a divorce from their spouse -- than for a parent not experiencing a divorce.
to encourage:
the American people to realize the birth and raising of a child is an important decision that is not to be taken lightly and which will place them (whether they like it or not) in proximity to the other parent for many years.
the States to institute programs in parenting and marriage and to encourage attendance in pre-marriage classes before a Marriage License is granted.
to provide:
that the provisions of this Act become the "default" agreement between individuals before they form a family,
that the States and/or individuals are free to institute other agreements to replace this Act, but the acceptance of those provisions must require free will acceptance by the part of any individual to be affected,
for the involuntary termination of the preceding rights only when the family member is found unfit to parent -- with the same standard of jury protection and speedy trial,
to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief,
to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect such rights
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Family Rights Act".
II. DEFINITIONS:
The term "parent" applies to both the biological father and mother of a child. If the biological parent is deceased or has taken action to leave the child for adoption --it then means the adopted parent(s).
The term "family member" means either a child or parent. The term applies to parents who are unmarried, married, or divorced.
The term "home" means a living area which is either owned or rented by the individual.
The term "Unfit to Parent" means to be found guilty of being a demonstrated serious threat to the safety of their child with malintent. This is a criminal accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show this person has engaged in conduct of the type, such that if similar conduct were done by any other parent in the community, they would be found guilty of the same crime.
The term "attempting to escape support" means a willful attempt by a parent to reduce their Child Support obligation by reducing their income primarily for the purpose of reducing the payment. This is a serious accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury.
The term "speedy trial" means that if a parent is charged with misconduct which results in a "temporary" order either limiting access to their home or to their children -- they have the right to be brought to trial on the charges within 60 days.
The term "Equal Parenting" means that by default parents alternate physical custody of their children on a weekly basis. They are both 'legal' custodians of the children and both need to be kept informed with 'tie breaker' authority alternating on an annual basis.
III. BACKGROUND:
This Act is drawn in the light of the following sections of the U.S. Constitution:
Seventh Amendment - "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . "
Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people … "
While the framers of the Constitution did not include "matrimonial" issues specifically within these amendments, divorces were not then considered matters within the "common" law, but rather church law - we consider the present day frequency and ease of Divorce proceedings (and their devastating effect on families). This "evolution" have would have caused the "founding fathers" some concern. Especially when considered with those words from our:
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Americans have always held to the tradition that "Liberty" and "Life" rights deserve our greatest protections. In response to recent government activism over the past 40 years, we must now clearly recognize our right to associate with our children, to be secure in our homes. What greater and purer "Happiness" can there be in life than the relation between parent and child.
Who among us, when faced with a Court proceeding in which we felt a Judge or Government official was about to unjustly limit contact with our children - would not want the safety valve of a jury?
Who among us would not want a presumption we be allowed equal contact with our children?
The right to the company of one's children/parent is a right preserved to the people.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
What the Act 'is not' - It is important to clarify what the Act is not intended to be.
It is not meant to force parents to live in the same home, or to require the action of a jury before parents can separate and live apart.
It is not meant to install a jury system in Family Court rooms in those jurisdictions where 'Family' Courts are separate from the Criminal system.
It is not meant to require a jury proceeding or to require Equal Parenting if both parents agree to an alternate arrangement.
What the Act 'is' - A brief summary of provisions follow and then some examples of implementation.
It does establish basic protections and default arrangements when a parent finds their relationship with their child threatened by other family members or a government agency.
It does require speedy trial if a temporary order interferes with the parents relationship with their child.
It does require a Criminal indictment and conviction (with the protection of a unanimous jury verdict) of a parent of being a demonstrated threat to the safety of their children before a 'Family' or other Court can impose any terms other than Equal Parenting (Unfit to Parent).
It guarantees equal physical and legal custody over children between parents in cases where agreement cannot be reached on other arrangements.
The following scenarios are examples reflecting adherence to the goals of this Act. Unless a parent is found unfit -- the relationship with the children continues unbroken. (In the Draft these are to be seen as examples of what would really happen, your input is valuable in making changes/updates as part of the process. Wording is very crucial).
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent decides to initiate a Divorce Proceeding against the other. Regarding Physical Custody:
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found "Unfit to Parent". They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought.
If both parents are seeking divorce one may be required by the Court to leave the home.
Voluntarily, either of the parents may leave the home and start residence elsewhere in the same locality (within app. 30 minutes driving). The children will continue at the school of the original residence and will spend app. equal time at the homes of both parents. The standard arrangement will have the child spend alternating weeks with each parent.
The preceding paragraph applies even after a Divorce is granted.
If a parent decides to move farther away the children will not be moved unless the other parent is "Unfit to Parent". Special emphasis will be given for the children having vacation time with that parent.
Regarding Legal Custody. Unless a parent is found "Unfit to Parent", there shall be JOINT legal custody of children between the parents. Both parents shall be aware of what is going on in their children's lives. If there is disagreement regarding a decision which must be made:
One parent will have the "tie breaking" vote for the year. That authority will alternate each year.
If the other parent wishes to pursue the decision in Court, mediation will be required first.
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence (between parents) against the other:
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found guilty of Criminal misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
In and of itself, a charge or conviction of "Domestic Violence" against another parent does not make someone "Unfit to Parent".
There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence, sexual abuse by the other parent against the children:
Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to permanently leave the home unless they are found guilty of such misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
There is a separated family and one parent was found 'Unfit to Parent". Regarding financial support of the children:
The amount of support paid may be based on both real assets and income as reported in Federal Tax Returns. The use of "imputed" income is not allowed unless the person is found to be guilty (by a Jury) of attempting to escape support.
A parent is always free to change their job and the Support Payment must be adjusted to reflect actual income (and may be adjusted retroactively and slowly corrected).
A finding of "Unfit to Parent" is a severe finding and should be infrequent. This is the standard to be used by the Jury before contact between parent/child is limited in any way [we welcome your comments on the DRAFT. This is the crucial item and must be defined well]:
All parents can be a little better or improve in their skills (this should NOT reduce their time with their children). The standard is not to be applied to just parents going through a divorce, but to all parents in the community. Their are a wide variety in parenting styles in our nation.
We would hope States could offer parents optional "skills" classes in different areas of child-rearing.
A life threatening injury requiring medical attention delivered with mal intent is included.
How/should you quantify "mental abuse"?
It is NOT based on predicted conduct, but actual severe conduct. It also includes the elements of intent to harm. Consider the following:
Parents who smoke - we know second hand smoke is a clear health threat. Imagine parents who both "smoke like chimnies". They are a threat to their children, but their is no intent to harm.
Religious convictions - there are communities of Amish/Mennonites (among others) who do not believe in certain types of medical treatment. Withholding treatment would not be considered an intent to harm.
V. Unsupported Implementations & Rationale
The following implementation ideas were not supported, brief rationale is given:
"Having Juries would slow the system down to much!" - This has not been proven at all.
This same argument would probably be made against our criminal justice system -- but actually it encourages a fair decision and settlement. Any suspected criminal who is presented with a "plea" to avoid trial can make the decision to accept the punishment -- or demand a trial and have his accusers prove their case. In Family Law, once a Judge feels a parent should be separated from children -- there is little hope.
With a clear standard of "Unfit to Parent" -- most of the petty accusations that really do bog the system down would be dropped.
"Let the child decide who they want to live with is -- it is their right"
None of us had even the smallest say in deciding who our parents were. Adults have the great responsibility and right in determining who they will share parenting with. While they are children they have a "right" to contact with two parents.
We don't allow children to cast a vote for President (as intelligent, well read, and politically involved as they may be). Do we let them 'cast' an even more important vote?
It is simple human nature for an adult going through divorce to place the primary "blame" on the other spouse. It is also natural for them to seek affirmation from their friends (how many of us have had our "ears talked off" by someone describing a bitter divorce). Unfortunately, it is also natural to expect such an adult to attempt to "convince" their children of the same thing.
With older teenage children -- how many of us would be tempted to play one parent off the other in an attempt to gain extra freedom or privileges?
"Custody decisions will be based on the Primary Caregiver"
Whatever parent happens to have the ability/desire to stay with a child at home should not have a preference over the one pursuing a career at that time, outside the home.
Both parents have valuable contributions to make to the child. The parent/child relationship is dynamic and changes as both grow in the relationship, and to the benefit of both. This is consistent with appreciating the basic Civil Right of parents/children to associate.
"Standards of evidence should be relaxed for Family Custody matters. There just aren't enough facts some times..."
This is probably the greatest reason for the tragedy of the present system. The overworked staff, lawyers, and Judges try to make critical decisions -- and they don't have enough time or facts -- and sometimes not even the desire. They are tired & overworked. It becomes a "job", and sometimes you make mistakes, get a little callous, start to form biases. This is why there are rules of evidence. This why the Nation's founders installed the jury system. The jury requires the "system" to prove to people "off the street" that it can justify its claims.
The criminal "rules of evidence" are used to prevent abuse of the system. They recognize that people lie to get what they want. The motivation to lie is certainly present in a Divorce. It is very easy to rationalize pure fabrication or dramatization -- as long as you don't really have to prove anything. When just allegations are rewarded, you get more allegations.
We recognize that sometimes there could be a real problem, but we just don't have the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary to take action. We do much more harm by allowing people to play a "hunch" or "suspicion" and destroy a family.
"We need more scientific studies on this..." -- It is not uncommon to see various statistics presented as justification for Family Law Reform, e.g. 63% of children raised in single parent homes grow up with this problem, OR, you get comparisons of the effectiveness of men versus women as parents!!!!
This is about your Civil Rights to have a relationship with your children. We are not talking about a technical issue of road construction or fresh water management.
Imagine "modern sociological studies" done before the Civil War on the issue of whether the slaves should be freed? "... We really are concerned about their physical well being and that of their children. To release this great mass of people all at once would be fool hardy. Some of them can't handle freedom, their children would starve, what are they going to do for work? Maybe a phased approach would be best, we'll release some of the more educated ones (after they pass some tests) and take it slow with the rest." (We might still have slavery now!)
Please remember our criminal law system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if 80% of teenagers picked up by police are eventually found guilty -- would you just want to remove the "formality" of a trial and just find everyone guilty?
Consider the recognition and protection of our most basic right to associate with our children. The slave had a right to immediate freedom, and so do we.
http://kids-right.org/family_rights_act.htm
The shameful stories that can’t be told Our heartless, blind and secretive adoption system has made a nonsense of the central principle it was designe
The shameful stories that can’t be told
Our heartless, blind and secretive adoption system has made a nonsense of the central principle it was designed to uphold, writes Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00PM BST 31 Jul 2010
I had been planning this week to write about two sharply contrasting stories which exemplify the way in which much of the child protection system operated by Britain’s social workers has gone horribly off the rails.
The first story, which last week made national headlines, was that of an official report into the mishandling by Birmingham social workers of the tragic case of Kyra Ishaq, the seven-year-old girl starved to death after months of physical abuse by her mother and stepfather, The 160-page report found that, although the girl’s death should have been preventable if the social workers involved had done their job – she weighed only 2st 9lb at her death – no disciplinary action need be taken.
The other episode last week was just the opposite. This was the shocking outcome of a story on which I have reported before, illustrating the ruthless determination of too many social workers to seize babies or children from responsible and loving parents on the flimsiest of evidence, or no evidence at all, to place them with foster carers or send them for adoption in a way which flouts the principle on which the whole system supposedly rests, namely that the interests of the child are paramount.
In this instance, the social workers pursued through the courts a doting mother, against whom there is not a shred of evidence that she harmed her child in any way. When they won their case, on highly questionable legal grounds, they left the court giving exultant “high fives” that they now had judicial authority to snatch the baby.
Having previously spent hours talking to the now utterly distraught mother and others about every detail of this story, I am convinced that a terrible act of injustice has been done, and that it represents just as much of a failure of the system as that which allowed the death of little Kyra Ishaq. At the last minute, however, I have been legally advised that, in the circumstances of this case, I cannot report it in any way.
In due course I am hoping that it will be possible to do so, because it is as alarming an instance as any I have covered of how utterly corrupted our system of child protection has become. The very fact that I am so far forbidden to bring this horrifying story to light in itself illustrates not the least shocking aspect of this system – the way it is able to shroud itself in legally enforced secrecy, so that so many outrageous and inhuman blunders can be hidden away from public view.
In the meantime, I shall report on another story from last week when, for once, a judge was able publicly to expose a blunder by social workers – the latter, as so often, displaying an almost institutional inability to recognise the human realities of the people who fall into their clutches.
A High Court judge, Mr Justice Baker, had before him the case of a severely handicapped 19-year-old boy with a mental age of two, who for years had been in the loving care of a foster mother. When allegations which turned out to be baseless were made against the foster mother, Manchester city council’s social workers took the boy from her without a court order, sending him to a care home where he was intensely unhappy at having been torn away from the one person in the world he knew, loved and trusted.
Earlier this year Mr Justice Baker ruled that she and the boy should be reunited, on the basis that their separation was in breach of mental health laws designed to protect the rights of vulnerable people. Only last week, however, did the judge rule that the council could be publicly named. What particularly drew his ire was the arguments Manchester’s social workers used to justify their wish to keep the two separated, claiming that it was in accordance with an official policy which turned out not to have existed.
The local authority’s case on the point, said the judge, had been “lamentable”. They should never have taken the boy away from his foster-mother without a court order. The only social worker involved whom he absolved from blame was one who had clearly not been given any proper training in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.
This case may not have had quite the disturbing dimensions of the one on which I had intended to report this week. But yet again it shone a flickering beam into the murky machinations of a system which, if more of them were exposed, would shock the public as much as any scandal in Britain today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7920221/The-shameful-stories-that-cant-be-told.html
Our heartless, blind and secretive adoption system has made a nonsense of the central principle it was designed to uphold, writes Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00PM BST 31 Jul 2010
I had been planning this week to write about two sharply contrasting stories which exemplify the way in which much of the child protection system operated by Britain’s social workers has gone horribly off the rails.
The first story, which last week made national headlines, was that of an official report into the mishandling by Birmingham social workers of the tragic case of Kyra Ishaq, the seven-year-old girl starved to death after months of physical abuse by her mother and stepfather, The 160-page report found that, although the girl’s death should have been preventable if the social workers involved had done their job – she weighed only 2st 9lb at her death – no disciplinary action need be taken.
The other episode last week was just the opposite. This was the shocking outcome of a story on which I have reported before, illustrating the ruthless determination of too many social workers to seize babies or children from responsible and loving parents on the flimsiest of evidence, or no evidence at all, to place them with foster carers or send them for adoption in a way which flouts the principle on which the whole system supposedly rests, namely that the interests of the child are paramount.
In this instance, the social workers pursued through the courts a doting mother, against whom there is not a shred of evidence that she harmed her child in any way. When they won their case, on highly questionable legal grounds, they left the court giving exultant “high fives” that they now had judicial authority to snatch the baby.
Having previously spent hours talking to the now utterly distraught mother and others about every detail of this story, I am convinced that a terrible act of injustice has been done, and that it represents just as much of a failure of the system as that which allowed the death of little Kyra Ishaq. At the last minute, however, I have been legally advised that, in the circumstances of this case, I cannot report it in any way.
In due course I am hoping that it will be possible to do so, because it is as alarming an instance as any I have covered of how utterly corrupted our system of child protection has become. The very fact that I am so far forbidden to bring this horrifying story to light in itself illustrates not the least shocking aspect of this system – the way it is able to shroud itself in legally enforced secrecy, so that so many outrageous and inhuman blunders can be hidden away from public view.
In the meantime, I shall report on another story from last week when, for once, a judge was able publicly to expose a blunder by social workers – the latter, as so often, displaying an almost institutional inability to recognise the human realities of the people who fall into their clutches.
A High Court judge, Mr Justice Baker, had before him the case of a severely handicapped 19-year-old boy with a mental age of two, who for years had been in the loving care of a foster mother. When allegations which turned out to be baseless were made against the foster mother, Manchester city council’s social workers took the boy from her without a court order, sending him to a care home where he was intensely unhappy at having been torn away from the one person in the world he knew, loved and trusted.
Earlier this year Mr Justice Baker ruled that she and the boy should be reunited, on the basis that their separation was in breach of mental health laws designed to protect the rights of vulnerable people. Only last week, however, did the judge rule that the council could be publicly named. What particularly drew his ire was the arguments Manchester’s social workers used to justify their wish to keep the two separated, claiming that it was in accordance with an official policy which turned out not to have existed.
The local authority’s case on the point, said the judge, had been “lamentable”. They should never have taken the boy away from his foster-mother without a court order. The only social worker involved whom he absolved from blame was one who had clearly not been given any proper training in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.
This case may not have had quite the disturbing dimensions of the one on which I had intended to report this week. But yet again it shone a flickering beam into the murky machinations of a system which, if more of them were exposed, would shock the public as much as any scandal in Britain today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7920221/The-shameful-stories-that-cant-be-told.html
to protect the innocent, ; Subject: A letter from a young man pertaining to Parental Alienation
to protect the innocent, ;
Subject: A letter from a young man
Hi everyone,
Some of you might have seen this letter. It is written by a local young man who has been put through the cruel campaign of Parental Alienation as a child, and how he managed to survive despite many years of pain and devastations.
His letter may not reflect very well on our society, nor does it shine a good light on the relevant authorities, ...........
But his letter does something better, it reveals the ugly truth about the existence of Parental Alienation which sadly has been "overlooked" for many decades by the authorities.
I seriously doubt a letter of this nature will ever be reported in our local media (for obvious reasons), so I am really grateful to this young man for voicing out.
"Hi Mr C,
I would like to pen some thoughts in support of your worthy cause, I have been quietly following your thoughts and posts on your fight for your son.
I wholly support your fight to love your beautiful son A, because it is every parent's right to love their child, their flesh and blood. I hope your ex partner realises this. I am keeping this to the point and simple, take it from me, a child from a messy, messy divorce. The ones that get hurt the most, are us, the children. We never recover from that loss of a parent's love. Parental Alienation is very unfair to us, the children.
My parents separated when I was young, and I was denied access to my father, and all his relatives for a good 15 years or so, he was denied visitation rights and unfortunately, my mother had to also paint him in a very negative light. Crudely speaking, my baby brother and I were brainwashed to hate our own father, whose name I carry on my legal papers.
My papa had time and time again tried to discreetly make contact with us throughout the years, but would be found out, partly due to us whistleblowing, having been brainwashed, and she would then send him to court. Again and again and again.
When I turned 18, I decided on my own free will, to know the real story behind all the turmoil that has happened, sought my papa out and decided to make amends. the first thing he said to me was "sorry". That was enough for me. Sorry for not being there for me, for us, my brother and I.
Today, I am best friends with my father, and his new family, and my half sisters, having moved on from the past and looking forward to more beautiful days ahead. I understand your situation and plight, that a child should NEVER be alienated from his right to a parent, and to contact with family. It devastates us. It definitely devastated me
Subject: A letter from a young man
Hi everyone,
Some of you might have seen this letter. It is written by a local young man who has been put through the cruel campaign of Parental Alienation as a child, and how he managed to survive despite many years of pain and devastations.
His letter may not reflect very well on our society, nor does it shine a good light on the relevant authorities, ...........
But his letter does something better, it reveals the ugly truth about the existence of Parental Alienation which sadly has been "overlooked" for many decades by the authorities.
I seriously doubt a letter of this nature will ever be reported in our local media (for obvious reasons), so I am really grateful to this young man for voicing out.
"Hi Mr C,
I would like to pen some thoughts in support of your worthy cause, I have been quietly following your thoughts and posts on your fight for your son.
I wholly support your fight to love your beautiful son A, because it is every parent's right to love their child, their flesh and blood. I hope your ex partner realises this. I am keeping this to the point and simple, take it from me, a child from a messy, messy divorce. The ones that get hurt the most, are us, the children. We never recover from that loss of a parent's love. Parental Alienation is very unfair to us, the children.
My parents separated when I was young, and I was denied access to my father, and all his relatives for a good 15 years or so, he was denied visitation rights and unfortunately, my mother had to also paint him in a very negative light. Crudely speaking, my baby brother and I were brainwashed to hate our own father, whose name I carry on my legal papers.
My papa had time and time again tried to discreetly make contact with us throughout the years, but would be found out, partly due to us whistleblowing, having been brainwashed, and she would then send him to court. Again and again and again.
When I turned 18, I decided on my own free will, to know the real story behind all the turmoil that has happened, sought my papa out and decided to make amends. the first thing he said to me was "sorry". That was enough for me. Sorry for not being there for me, for us, my brother and I.
Today, I am best friends with my father, and his new family, and my half sisters, having moved on from the past and looking forward to more beautiful days ahead. I understand your situation and plight, that a child should NEVER be alienated from his right to a parent, and to contact with family. It devastates us. It definitely devastated me
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Commissioner: DSS must act within the scope of the law-Then Why Don't They?
Commissioner: DSS must act within the scope of the law
Carol Thompson 07-28-2010
by Carol Thompson
The Oswego County Department of Social Services has come under fire once again after it was discovered that a 19-month-old child was found allegedly in a neglected state by police during a recent burglary investigation in the City of Fulton.
Some residents have been critical of the county’s DSS for failure to check on the family who they claim were receiving public assistance.
Under state law, DSS caseworkers have no authority to inspect the homes of those receiving public assistance of any type.
“I think it’s important for the public to understand that any Social Service Department must operate within the scope of the law,” Oswego County DSS Commissioner Frances Lanigan said Thursday.
A case worker for Child Protective Services cannot simply drop into a home of any county resident unless he or she is acting on an active report passed down from the state, she noted.
Reports of suspected abuse and/or neglect must be made to the state hotline. A representative then makes a determination as to whether a report is to be passed on to the county’s DSS for investigation. If a report is passed down, a case worker will respond.
The only other instance when a case worker can enter a home is when they are contacted by local law enforcement.
Lanigan was unable to speak to the specifics of the Fulton child under confidentiality laws, however, she was willing to speak in generic terms as to the process the department must follow.
“We do not address publicly any specific family or case that may or may not be accessing services whether on a voluntary or involuntarily basis,” she said.
Since the time of the highly-publicized case of Erin Maxwell, the Palermo child who was found to be living in deplorable conditions at the time of her death, Lanigan and the county legislature have initiated a number of steps to better train case workers and alleviate their workload to more manageable conditions.
“Last year we added 25 case work positions to add capacity to investigation for CPS and for on-going service for those with longer term or complex needs,” she said. “All staff have received the required ‘core’ training from OCFS (state Office of Child and Family Services) and CPS response training. They also had a one day training with the State Police on investigative techniques.”
Lanigan said the case workers also have a minimum of an additional six hours training per year approved by OCFS.
“We have instituted a model called “Critical Thinking” that trained supervisors and case workers in an approach to investigations that ensures all aspects of the family are thoroughly assessed,” she said. “Supervisors have also had to attend OCFS training on what to be looking for and how to develop case worker skills.”
Along with the training, the legislature has established a child protection board comprised of members throughout the community who are involved with children.
The new board is modeled after a successful Pulaski-based program initiated several years ago by Legislator Shawn Doyle.
Despite the new training and safeguards, Lanigan said the department must continue to operate within the scope of state law.
“When someone applies for any type of assistance program such as Food Stamps, Medicaid or cash benefits we have no authority to go into the home to ‘check it out’,” she said.
- Valley News
http://www.valleynewsonline.com/viewnews.php?newsid=89204&id=1
Carol Thompson 07-28-2010
by Carol Thompson
The Oswego County Department of Social Services has come under fire once again after it was discovered that a 19-month-old child was found allegedly in a neglected state by police during a recent burglary investigation in the City of Fulton.
Some residents have been critical of the county’s DSS for failure to check on the family who they claim were receiving public assistance.
Under state law, DSS caseworkers have no authority to inspect the homes of those receiving public assistance of any type.
“I think it’s important for the public to understand that any Social Service Department must operate within the scope of the law,” Oswego County DSS Commissioner Frances Lanigan said Thursday.
A case worker for Child Protective Services cannot simply drop into a home of any county resident unless he or she is acting on an active report passed down from the state, she noted.
Reports of suspected abuse and/or neglect must be made to the state hotline. A representative then makes a determination as to whether a report is to be passed on to the county’s DSS for investigation. If a report is passed down, a case worker will respond.
The only other instance when a case worker can enter a home is when they are contacted by local law enforcement.
Lanigan was unable to speak to the specifics of the Fulton child under confidentiality laws, however, she was willing to speak in generic terms as to the process the department must follow.
“We do not address publicly any specific family or case that may or may not be accessing services whether on a voluntary or involuntarily basis,” she said.
Since the time of the highly-publicized case of Erin Maxwell, the Palermo child who was found to be living in deplorable conditions at the time of her death, Lanigan and the county legislature have initiated a number of steps to better train case workers and alleviate their workload to more manageable conditions.
“Last year we added 25 case work positions to add capacity to investigation for CPS and for on-going service for those with longer term or complex needs,” she said. “All staff have received the required ‘core’ training from OCFS (state Office of Child and Family Services) and CPS response training. They also had a one day training with the State Police on investigative techniques.”
Lanigan said the case workers also have a minimum of an additional six hours training per year approved by OCFS.
“We have instituted a model called “Critical Thinking” that trained supervisors and case workers in an approach to investigations that ensures all aspects of the family are thoroughly assessed,” she said. “Supervisors have also had to attend OCFS training on what to be looking for and how to develop case worker skills.”
Along with the training, the legislature has established a child protection board comprised of members throughout the community who are involved with children.
The new board is modeled after a successful Pulaski-based program initiated several years ago by Legislator Shawn Doyle.
Despite the new training and safeguards, Lanigan said the department must continue to operate within the scope of state law.
“When someone applies for any type of assistance program such as Food Stamps, Medicaid or cash benefits we have no authority to go into the home to ‘check it out’,” she said.
- Valley News
http://www.valleynewsonline.com/viewnews.php?newsid=89204&id=1
Friday, July 30, 2010
New study highlights reduction in number of children in Tennessee’s foster care system
New study highlights reduction in number of children in Tennessee’s foster care system
JULY 16, 2010
by youthvillages
DCS, Youth Villages partnership cited in 34 percent reduction since 2000
Tennessee has reduced the number of children in its foster care system by 34 percent since 2000, while providing more effective help to families, according to a new study released by Casey Family Programs this week.
The study, by Casey’s Common Knowledge project, was conducted to share the examples of states and counties that have been successful in child welfare reform. The study outlines the way the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services has worked with Youth Villages, its largest private provider, to bring about reform.
“Tennessee is a jurisdiction that has achieved a significant and safe reduction in the number of children in the child welfare system,” the study concluded. The complete study is available at www.youthvillages.org.
“Child welfare leadership in Tennessee (including leadership by the legislature, DCS, and the lawsuit monitors/TAC) has been creative and responsive to implementing innovative strategies and supporting them with the performance-based flexible funding structure. Youth Villages has been a catalyst in this environment, but the environment has also allowed and encouraged the organization to be innovative and to expand. The partnership between DCS and Youth Villages has been mutually beneficial, as both organizations have worked toward improving services to children and families to safely reduce the number of children in the child welfare system in Tennessee.” – Tennessee and Youth Villages Common Knowledge Case Study, Casey Family Programs
“This is a tribute to the dedication and professionalism of our staff and our partners across the state,” said Dr. Viola Miller, DCS commissioner. “The hard work over the past few years required us to examine what we were doing well and where we needed to improve. We could not have achieved these gains without the diligence and vision of partners such as Youth Villages. Together, we are helping to ensure the safety and well-being of the children we all serve.”
Some of the key findings from the study:
For a reduction to occur more quickly, the number of children exiting out-of-home care must consistently outpace the number of children entering out-of-home care for a sustained period of time. In Tennessee, entries were higher than exits until FY06. The overall number of children in out-of-home care has been declining over the last several years. Between FYs 2000 and 2009, the number of children in care has decreased by 34 percent.
http://www.youthvillages.org/PDF/2010/TN-YV-Common-Knowledge-Case-Study.pdf
Read the entire article at:http://youthvillages.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/new-study-highlights-reduction-in-number-of-children-in-tennessee%E2%80%99s-foster-care-system/
JULY 16, 2010
by youthvillages
DCS, Youth Villages partnership cited in 34 percent reduction since 2000
Tennessee has reduced the number of children in its foster care system by 34 percent since 2000, while providing more effective help to families, according to a new study released by Casey Family Programs this week.
The study, by Casey’s Common Knowledge project, was conducted to share the examples of states and counties that have been successful in child welfare reform. The study outlines the way the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services has worked with Youth Villages, its largest private provider, to bring about reform.
“Tennessee is a jurisdiction that has achieved a significant and safe reduction in the number of children in the child welfare system,” the study concluded. The complete study is available at www.youthvillages.org.
“Child welfare leadership in Tennessee (including leadership by the legislature, DCS, and the lawsuit monitors/TAC) has been creative and responsive to implementing innovative strategies and supporting them with the performance-based flexible funding structure. Youth Villages has been a catalyst in this environment, but the environment has also allowed and encouraged the organization to be innovative and to expand. The partnership between DCS and Youth Villages has been mutually beneficial, as both organizations have worked toward improving services to children and families to safely reduce the number of children in the child welfare system in Tennessee.” – Tennessee and Youth Villages Common Knowledge Case Study, Casey Family Programs
“This is a tribute to the dedication and professionalism of our staff and our partners across the state,” said Dr. Viola Miller, DCS commissioner. “The hard work over the past few years required us to examine what we were doing well and where we needed to improve. We could not have achieved these gains without the diligence and vision of partners such as Youth Villages. Together, we are helping to ensure the safety and well-being of the children we all serve.”
Some of the key findings from the study:
For a reduction to occur more quickly, the number of children exiting out-of-home care must consistently outpace the number of children entering out-of-home care for a sustained period of time. In Tennessee, entries were higher than exits until FY06. The overall number of children in out-of-home care has been declining over the last several years. Between FYs 2000 and 2009, the number of children in care has decreased by 34 percent.
http://www.youthvillages.org/PDF/2010/TN-YV-Common-Knowledge-Case-Study.pdf
Read the entire article at:http://youthvillages.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/new-study-highlights-reduction-in-number-of-children-in-tennessee%E2%80%99s-foster-care-system/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)