Federal Workers Pocketed 'Fraudulent' Social Security Payments, GAO Finds
Published August 04, 2010 | FoxNews.com
This screen shot shows a TSA employee who was improperly receiving Social Security payments, according to the Government Accountability Office. (GAO)
Hundreds of federal employees may have improperly reaped millions in Social Security disability benefits, according to a government watchdog that caught workers at several major agencies pocketing fraudulent payments.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report that showed at least 1,500 federal employees may have wrongly received benefits. The group's investigation, which focused on two Social Security programs for people who have limited incomes due to disabilities, found several specific cases in which beneficiaries were earning well above the income cap while still receiving benefits. In one case, a Transportation Security Administration screener was overpaid $108,000, according to the report.
"Our case studies ... confirmed some examples in which individuals received SSA disability payments that they were not entitled to receive," the GAO said in a letter to Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Some of the payments were attributed to fraud, others to "administrative error," according to the report. The GAO found that the Social Security Administration does not use its own automated system to flag workers who may be earning too much income to qualify for benefits.
"SSA's internal controls did not prevent improper and fraudulent payments," the GAO said.
The report also found thousands of commercial drivers and transportation business owners who may be skirting the law. It focused in part on federal employees, estimating that 1,500 workers were receiving about $1.7 million monthly. Of them, one-quarter were U.S. Postal Service employees and 16 percent were Defense Department civilians.
RELATED VIDEO
GAO Undercover Sting: Postal Workers Caught Double-Dipping
The report came with a DVD that showed employees double dipping -- by working and receiving benefits. The video showed overpayments to the TSA employee as well as Postal Service workers.
According to the report, the TSA employee started receiving disability benefits in 1995 for "mood and anxiety disorders." But she started full-time work in 2003 and earned as much as $50,000; the income cap after which disability payments are supposed to stop was $940 per month in 2008.
"Our investigation found that the beneficiary committed fraud in obtaining SSA disability payments," the report said. GAO said the employee told the Social Security Administration she did not want the agency to contact her employer for work information and that she would submit a report herself, though records indicate she never did. Her benefits have since been suspended.
In another case, an X-ray technician for the Department of Veterans Affairs in California was overpaid about $22,000. According to the report, the worker started receiving payments in 2002 for an infection but continued to receive the money after returning to work in 2007. In yet another case, a Postal Service worker in Michigan received an overpayment of about $45,000. That worker was approved for "mood and personality disorders" in 2004 but returned to work later that year. The payments continued through early 2007, and then picked up again in late 2008. According to the report, a repayment of about $37,000 was made in 2008.
Many of these workers received a $250 economic stimulus payment on top of the overpayments.
The report also found problems in the private sector. The GAO found 62,000 workers who received commercial driver's licenses after they were deemed eligible for full disability benefits, "an indication that these individuals may no longer have serious medical conditions." The investigation revealed 7,900 people with "registered transportation businesses" receiving the benefits. The GAO clarified that a more thorough investigation would be needed to see whether those payments were fraudulent, improper or both.
The GAO suggested that the Social Security Administration start making better use of its automated system to catch overpayments in the future. The agency uses the system to track increases in monthly earnings in order to compute changes in benefits payments, but it doesn't use the system to flag people who return to work and may be eligible to have their benefits suspended.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4302086/gao-undercover-sting-postal-workers-caught-double-dipping?playlist_id=86858
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
Friday, August 6, 2010
South Dakota: a foster care parent pimps on her foster child
South Dakota: a foster care parent pimps on her foster child
August 6, 2:24 PMHuman Rights ExaminerYoungbee Dale
This monday, a 24 year old foster parent was arrested for forcing her 17 year old foster child into prostitution in South Dakota. According to the report, 24 year old Autumn Dubray was a court appointment guardian of the 17 year old victim. After losing her job, Dubray have been prostituting herself and brought men to her apartment for prostitution. Dubray also told the 17 year old girl that if the 17 year old did not sleep with one of the men that she brought home for prostitution, she would have to kick her out of the apartment. As novel as it sounds to many Americans, this case however reveals only a glimpse of the truth behind the foster care system in the United States.
Child sexual exploitation in foster care system
Dubray is not the only foster parent who willfully exploited with her foster child. One research by the New York University School of Social Work rather shows the prevalence of such exploitative foster parents as follows:
In Maryland, a 1992 study found that substantiated allegations of sexual abuse in foster care are four times higher than that found among the general population.
In Kentucky, sex abuse in foster care was "all over the newspapers," according to department head Larry Michalczyk.
In this "exemplary" program [where foster parents and social workers received special training on child exploitation], 24 percent of the girls responding to a survey said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in the one home in which they had stayed the longest. Significantly, they were not even asked about the other foster homes in which they had stayed.
What's more, one study by Johns Hopkins University says that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster care system is four times higher than it is in general population. Also, the rate of sexual abuse in group home is 28 times higher than that of the general population.
Foster care and sex slavery
Child sexual abuse in foster care, among many other things, becomes an hindrance in fight against human trafficking. As much as children under foster care are vulnerably exposed to sexual exploitation within the system, they are more likely to enter into the world of prostitution with the low self-esteem and other psychological factors leading them to sell their bodies. In particular, young adults who are no longer eligible to be under the state foster care system choose to enter the prostitution for survival. In some cases, pimps use foster homes to recruit younger girls for prostitution by sending other girls working for them.
Possible solutions
State has proven itself to be a failure of raising the children that it never gave birth to. It may be able to provide the children with the money for food, cloths and doctor's appointment, but not the attention and care that the children need in every second of their childhoods. No police can dictate foster care parents to care enough to give them the love that they deserve. Most of the cases of abuse within the foster care system are not properly investigated anyway. So, what is the solution, perhaps America needs to start taking family and parenting a little more seriously than they have. After all, it is really the tax payers who will be responsible for the costs and the repercussion created by the state failure operating the foster care system in the end.
http://www.examiner.com/x-24740-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m8d6-South-Dakota-a-foster-care-parent-pimps-on-her-foster-child
August 6, 2:24 PMHuman Rights ExaminerYoungbee Dale
This monday, a 24 year old foster parent was arrested for forcing her 17 year old foster child into prostitution in South Dakota. According to the report, 24 year old Autumn Dubray was a court appointment guardian of the 17 year old victim. After losing her job, Dubray have been prostituting herself and brought men to her apartment for prostitution. Dubray also told the 17 year old girl that if the 17 year old did not sleep with one of the men that she brought home for prostitution, she would have to kick her out of the apartment. As novel as it sounds to many Americans, this case however reveals only a glimpse of the truth behind the foster care system in the United States.
Child sexual exploitation in foster care system
Dubray is not the only foster parent who willfully exploited with her foster child. One research by the New York University School of Social Work rather shows the prevalence of such exploitative foster parents as follows:
In Maryland, a 1992 study found that substantiated allegations of sexual abuse in foster care are four times higher than that found among the general population.
In Kentucky, sex abuse in foster care was "all over the newspapers," according to department head Larry Michalczyk.
In this "exemplary" program [where foster parents and social workers received special training on child exploitation], 24 percent of the girls responding to a survey said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in the one home in which they had stayed the longest. Significantly, they were not even asked about the other foster homes in which they had stayed.
What's more, one study by Johns Hopkins University says that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster care system is four times higher than it is in general population. Also, the rate of sexual abuse in group home is 28 times higher than that of the general population.
Foster care and sex slavery
Child sexual abuse in foster care, among many other things, becomes an hindrance in fight against human trafficking. As much as children under foster care are vulnerably exposed to sexual exploitation within the system, they are more likely to enter into the world of prostitution with the low self-esteem and other psychological factors leading them to sell their bodies. In particular, young adults who are no longer eligible to be under the state foster care system choose to enter the prostitution for survival. In some cases, pimps use foster homes to recruit younger girls for prostitution by sending other girls working for them.
Possible solutions
State has proven itself to be a failure of raising the children that it never gave birth to. It may be able to provide the children with the money for food, cloths and doctor's appointment, but not the attention and care that the children need in every second of their childhoods. No police can dictate foster care parents to care enough to give them the love that they deserve. Most of the cases of abuse within the foster care system are not properly investigated anyway. So, what is the solution, perhaps America needs to start taking family and parenting a little more seriously than they have. After all, it is really the tax payers who will be responsible for the costs and the repercussion created by the state failure operating the foster care system in the end.
http://www.examiner.com/x-24740-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m8d6-South-Dakota-a-foster-care-parent-pimps-on-her-foster-child
Media runs for cover at mention of 'family law'
Media runs for cover at mention of 'family law'
The Irish Times - Friday, August 6, 2010
The in camera rule was never intended to shield the legal system from public scrutiny, but that is the result of media’s interpretation of it, writes JOHN WATERS
IMAGINE THAT, sometime in recent days, the following events had occurred: that a garda had broken into a private dwelling and, without being able to display a warrant or court order, seized an infant from its mother’s arms. What if the mother, in the course of this break-in, had sustained an injury? What if the mother and the child were Irish citizens and if the purpose of this operation was so that the child could be despatched to a foreign jurisdiction and forcibly adopted?
Imagine that this distraught mother, on subsequently calling to ask the Irish childcare authorities about her son’s health and welfare, had been told that she had no right to such information. Imagine, finally, that no authority in this jurisdiction had ever expressed the slightest concern about this mother’s capacity to care for her own child?
There are many questions that should properly flow from such a scenario but I have, to begin with, just one: should such a story be considered newsworthy? Does the public have an interest in knowing about it? Yes or no? How, in terms of importance to our democracy, would such a story rank alongside one about, say, the dubious expenses of a public representative?
These events described above occurred in this State within the last week. But because they followed on proceedings in Irish courts which were held in camera, I have a difficulty. These proceedings had many worrying aspects, not least that they were allowed to proceed. But, arising from the interpretation of the law accepted in most media organisations, I risk being censored if I seek to give further details.
My immediate focus, therefore, relates not to the substantive questions raised by this case, but to the fact that the Irish media has decided it cannot be reported. Several journalists are aware of the broad facts, but nothing has been published. This circumstance arises from an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the in camera rule, which requires that proceedings concerning families and children be held in private.
Editors, reporters and, perhaps most pertinently, lawyers acting for media organisations, tend nowadays to interpret the in camera rule as a blanket ban on all coverage of or commentary upon such cases.
The purpose and intention of the in camera rule is not secrecy for its own sake, however, but the protection of the privacy of families involved in legal proceedings. It was never intended to shield the legal system from public scrutiny, although that is the end result of the media’s approach.
Conventionally, the wording of a court order in respect of the in camera dimension requires that any report of the proceedings should contain no information which would tend to identify minors or family members implicated in the proceedings.
Sometimes, the provision may be broadened to include respondents and/or notice parties. There is no requirement that other facts of the case be withheld from the public, and the standard reference in court orders to “reports” would seem to suggest that some reporting is invited.
Through the evolution of media custom and practice, however, a situation has developed whereby the very mention of “childcare proceedings” or “family law” is enough to have media lawyers and editors running for cover. Even though it is very often abundantly clear that the only purpose being served by a blanket suppression of information is the protection of judges, lawyers, State agencies and professionals, media practitioners continue to impose an interpretation of the in camera rule that implicitly assumes these outcomes to be legitimate.
Such interpretations of the legal situation are grossly inimical to the interests of democracy.
Something deeply ugly is happening at the heart of our society and the manner of its governance in the most intimate areas of human life.
If social workers from a foreign jurisdiction are enabled to run whooping and high-fiving from an Irish courtroom because they have been permitted to snatch the child of a blameless Irish mother, is it not time we asked what is happening?
The media offers the only forum in which such questions can be put. Media practitioners therefore have a sacred duty to take their courage in their hands and shine harsh searchlights on those who are empowered to intervene in the intimate lives of citizens to a close-to-absolute degree.
If we cannot report on such matters, why bother reporting anything?
Does it matter whether the economy functions?
Why should we care who sits in Leinster House?
Whatever happened to “publish and be damned”?
Are we journalists or entertainers?
How seriously do we take our role in democratic society?
Are we concerned with the public consequences of the events we write about, or simply seeking adequately interesting material to fill space and time to shift “product”?
Unless journalists and editors are prepared to address these questions, we may as well pull the blinds down on the enterprise of journalism and leave the protection of our democracy to the bloggers and tweeters, who at least have the excuse of having no
responsibility for what happens to human freedom.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0806/1224276309497.html
The Irish Times - Friday, August 6, 2010
The in camera rule was never intended to shield the legal system from public scrutiny, but that is the result of media’s interpretation of it, writes JOHN WATERS
IMAGINE THAT, sometime in recent days, the following events had occurred: that a garda had broken into a private dwelling and, without being able to display a warrant or court order, seized an infant from its mother’s arms. What if the mother, in the course of this break-in, had sustained an injury? What if the mother and the child were Irish citizens and if the purpose of this operation was so that the child could be despatched to a foreign jurisdiction and forcibly adopted?
Imagine that this distraught mother, on subsequently calling to ask the Irish childcare authorities about her son’s health and welfare, had been told that she had no right to such information. Imagine, finally, that no authority in this jurisdiction had ever expressed the slightest concern about this mother’s capacity to care for her own child?
There are many questions that should properly flow from such a scenario but I have, to begin with, just one: should such a story be considered newsworthy? Does the public have an interest in knowing about it? Yes or no? How, in terms of importance to our democracy, would such a story rank alongside one about, say, the dubious expenses of a public representative?
These events described above occurred in this State within the last week. But because they followed on proceedings in Irish courts which were held in camera, I have a difficulty. These proceedings had many worrying aspects, not least that they were allowed to proceed. But, arising from the interpretation of the law accepted in most media organisations, I risk being censored if I seek to give further details.
My immediate focus, therefore, relates not to the substantive questions raised by this case, but to the fact that the Irish media has decided it cannot be reported. Several journalists are aware of the broad facts, but nothing has been published. This circumstance arises from an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the in camera rule, which requires that proceedings concerning families and children be held in private.
Editors, reporters and, perhaps most pertinently, lawyers acting for media organisations, tend nowadays to interpret the in camera rule as a blanket ban on all coverage of or commentary upon such cases.
The purpose and intention of the in camera rule is not secrecy for its own sake, however, but the protection of the privacy of families involved in legal proceedings. It was never intended to shield the legal system from public scrutiny, although that is the end result of the media’s approach.
Conventionally, the wording of a court order in respect of the in camera dimension requires that any report of the proceedings should contain no information which would tend to identify minors or family members implicated in the proceedings.
Sometimes, the provision may be broadened to include respondents and/or notice parties. There is no requirement that other facts of the case be withheld from the public, and the standard reference in court orders to “reports” would seem to suggest that some reporting is invited.
Through the evolution of media custom and practice, however, a situation has developed whereby the very mention of “childcare proceedings” or “family law” is enough to have media lawyers and editors running for cover. Even though it is very often abundantly clear that the only purpose being served by a blanket suppression of information is the protection of judges, lawyers, State agencies and professionals, media practitioners continue to impose an interpretation of the in camera rule that implicitly assumes these outcomes to be legitimate.
Such interpretations of the legal situation are grossly inimical to the interests of democracy.
Something deeply ugly is happening at the heart of our society and the manner of its governance in the most intimate areas of human life.
If social workers from a foreign jurisdiction are enabled to run whooping and high-fiving from an Irish courtroom because they have been permitted to snatch the child of a blameless Irish mother, is it not time we asked what is happening?
The media offers the only forum in which such questions can be put. Media practitioners therefore have a sacred duty to take their courage in their hands and shine harsh searchlights on those who are empowered to intervene in the intimate lives of citizens to a close-to-absolute degree.
If we cannot report on such matters, why bother reporting anything?
Does it matter whether the economy functions?
Why should we care who sits in Leinster House?
Whatever happened to “publish and be damned”?
Are we journalists or entertainers?
How seriously do we take our role in democratic society?
Are we concerned with the public consequences of the events we write about, or simply seeking adequately interesting material to fill space and time to shift “product”?
Unless journalists and editors are prepared to address these questions, we may as well pull the blinds down on the enterprise of journalism and leave the protection of our democracy to the bloggers and tweeters, who at least have the excuse of having no
responsibility for what happens to human freedom.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0806/1224276309497.html
L.A. County chief executive moves to broaden inquiry into child protective services
L.A. County chief executive moves to broaden inquiry into child protective services
The head of the Office of Independent Review may be tapped to audit the internal affairs unit of Children and Family Services.
August 05, 2010|By Garrett Therolf, Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles County Chief Executive William T Fujioka is preparing to recommend a probe of the Department of Children and Family Services' internal affairs unit, county officials said.
Fujioka, concerned that the internal affairs unit of the child protective services agency may not have conducted its work swiftly and thoroughly, is drafting a recommendation that the disciplinary unit be reviewed by Michael Gennaco, who leads the county Office of Independent Review, officials said.
The Office of Independent Review recently conducted a similar inquiry into the county Probation Department's internal affairs unit and produced a report that found that at least 31 sworn employees who committed misconduct and abuse would probably escape discipline.
Supervisor Gloria Molina's spokeswoman, Roxane Marquez, said her office was supportive of an investigation into the child services department. Representatives for three other supervisors declined to comment. Nishith Bhatt, department spokesman, also declined to comment.
"There is a full-court press underway to make things right in DCFS," said Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. "The concept of having Mr. Gennaco play a role is an effort to bring about necessary accountability and greater child protection."
Elizabeth Brennan, spokeswoman for SEIU 721, which represents the department's social workers, said the union also has complaints that she hopes Gennaco will review. "The internal affairs process is inefficient, and the time period between an incident and disciplinary outcome can take years. That leaves a worker in a lurch for too long."
The internal affairs unit underwent extensive personnel changes last year after Director Trish Ploehn acknowledged a significant backlog of cases. At the time, she pledged to add staff and ensure that disciplinary recommendations were processed in a timely manner.
Since then, dozens of social workers have been placed on desk duty following cases in which error was suspected. Many were later terminated or suspended.
Social worker error has been a recurrent theme in a series of cases involving children who died of abuse or neglect after coming to the attention of the department, and Ploehn has acknowledged that errors might have contributed to some of the fatalities.
Meanwhile, Fujioka is already working to implement supervisors' order this week to hire an auditor to take a broad look at the agency's management and its cooperation with other departments that serve abused and neglected children.
Next week, supervisors will consider a motion that would add the county's special child death investigator to the audit. The investigator, Rosemarie Belda, was appointed last year to review child death cases and report systemic issues that the department should address.
garrett.therolf@latimes.com
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/05/local/la-me-dcfs-20100805
The head of the Office of Independent Review may be tapped to audit the internal affairs unit of Children and Family Services.
August 05, 2010|By Garrett Therolf, Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles County Chief Executive William T Fujioka is preparing to recommend a probe of the Department of Children and Family Services' internal affairs unit, county officials said.
Fujioka, concerned that the internal affairs unit of the child protective services agency may not have conducted its work swiftly and thoroughly, is drafting a recommendation that the disciplinary unit be reviewed by Michael Gennaco, who leads the county Office of Independent Review, officials said.
The Office of Independent Review recently conducted a similar inquiry into the county Probation Department's internal affairs unit and produced a report that found that at least 31 sworn employees who committed misconduct and abuse would probably escape discipline.
Supervisor Gloria Molina's spokeswoman, Roxane Marquez, said her office was supportive of an investigation into the child services department. Representatives for three other supervisors declined to comment. Nishith Bhatt, department spokesman, also declined to comment.
"There is a full-court press underway to make things right in DCFS," said Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. "The concept of having Mr. Gennaco play a role is an effort to bring about necessary accountability and greater child protection."
Elizabeth Brennan, spokeswoman for SEIU 721, which represents the department's social workers, said the union also has complaints that she hopes Gennaco will review. "The internal affairs process is inefficient, and the time period between an incident and disciplinary outcome can take years. That leaves a worker in a lurch for too long."
The internal affairs unit underwent extensive personnel changes last year after Director Trish Ploehn acknowledged a significant backlog of cases. At the time, she pledged to add staff and ensure that disciplinary recommendations were processed in a timely manner.
Since then, dozens of social workers have been placed on desk duty following cases in which error was suspected. Many were later terminated or suspended.
Social worker error has been a recurrent theme in a series of cases involving children who died of abuse or neglect after coming to the attention of the department, and Ploehn has acknowledged that errors might have contributed to some of the fatalities.
Meanwhile, Fujioka is already working to implement supervisors' order this week to hire an auditor to take a broad look at the agency's management and its cooperation with other departments that serve abused and neglected children.
Next week, supervisors will consider a motion that would add the county's special child death investigator to the audit. The investigator, Rosemarie Belda, was appointed last year to review child death cases and report systemic issues that the department should address.
garrett.therolf@latimes.com
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/05/local/la-me-dcfs-20100805
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Grandparent Rights - A Precious Bond Should Not Be Broken
A PRECIOUS BOND: Should Not Be Broken
By Susan Hoffman
The bond between grandparent and child is precious and should not be unnecessarily broken.
While there is no doubt grandparents suffer greatly from broken hearts when separated from grandchildren, the kids also feel frustration, helplessness, and bereft of an important part of their future. Often the greatest source of grief for grandparents arises from concern for the child: the impact on that child when a beloved grandparent is abruptly removed from their life. Grandparents wonder: "Do they feel abandoned?" "Unloved?" "Will they think that it is somehow their fault?"
The grandparent-grandchild relationship is its own entity, built on a foundation of unconditional love and mutual affection. It is no secret that grandparents are of vital importance to a child's life. Think of your own bond with your grandparents.
The enactment of grandparent visitation laws, which provide a way to actively advocate on behalf of a child supports that notion. Grandparent laws are meant to preserve and protect the grandparent-grandchild relationship, bestowing upon the grandparents a position in a court of law to stand up for a child and lend them a voice. Children deserve to have all of the love they can get, and keep it. When a child is unreasonably denied that love, there is bound to be negative consequences.
There is a body of research indicating that when children lose access to a loving adult (such as a grandparent) with whom they have had an established relationship, they suffer abandonment issues, lower self-esteem, emotional disorders, acting out behavior or withdrawal. Dr. Glenn Cartwright of McGill University is a foremost authority in PAS, (Parental Alienation Syndrome) which also effects grandparents through association. I refer to it as GAS (Grandparent Alienation Syndrome). In his article, "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome", Dr. Cartwright discusses the short, medium and long-term effects of PAS. Besides the non-custodial parent, the grandparents also experience anguish over the loss of the child through sudden dismissal. He explains that during the first stage when the child experiences the loss of a grandparent and or parent it is similar to a death, only worse than an actual death because the child is unable to acknowledge or mourn the loss, and it becomes a major tragedy. When the child is subjected to continual denigration of grandparents by the alienating parent(s), all of the fond memories of them are "deliberately and systematically destroyed."
The medium term effects concern the continued absence [as opposed to initial loss] of the lost grandparent [and parent] and the effects it has on the child's development. What is lost is the consistency, the day-to-day interaction, love and support that normally flows from grandparents and parents. Dr. Cartwright states, "While in the case of death such a loss is un-avoidable, in the case of PAS such a loss is entirely avoidable and therefore in-excusable."
For the long-term effects, Professor Cartwright suggests "that everyone involved in PAS suffers some degree of distress over the long term." He compares the feelings parents and grandparents experience as being similar to what is experienced when a child goes missing. Professor Cartwright emphasizes that it is the child who suffers most.
Dr. Eleanor Willemsen, professor of developmental psychology at Santa Clara University, in her article "Best Interests Of a Child", describes the effects on a child when attachments are broken, among them loss of security and abandonment issues. She emphasizes the harm that happens "when a child loses ongoing intimate relationships," and there is evidence that over time a child's social skills diminish, they become insecure and there are cognitive effects. Perhaps Dr. Willemsen said it best in the following sentence: "[T]he most important aspect of being a whole person when you are a small child is your opportunity to develop well."
GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS are equally CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: a child should also have the right to remain connected to grandparents. It is an ongoing struggle of many individuals who work to promote the preservation of the family unit by influencing legislation and the public. These GRANDPARENT RIGHTS STATUTES will bring to the forefront the fact that children are often treated as "property," with little concern for their wants and needs. There is a need for child substantive issues; a child's LIBERTY INTERESTS must be represented and no longer ignored. Children are people, not possessions.
Perhaps if children were treated more like individuals instead of "property" their true "BEST INTERESTS" would be protected.
SUSAN HOFFMAN
Susan Hoffman is the author of the book, GRAND WISHES: Advocating To Preserve The Grandparent Grandchild Bond, isbn: 978-0-9799168-0-9. The purpose of the book is to raise awareness about the growing social problem of denied grandparent grandchild access as well as a resource for disenfranchised grandparents. Proceeds from the sale of the book will be donated to the non profit organization, Advocates For Grandparent Grandchild Connection, of which Susan Hoffman is the creator and director. http://www.grandparentchildconnect.org
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Susan_Hoffman
By Susan Hoffman
The bond between grandparent and child is precious and should not be unnecessarily broken.
While there is no doubt grandparents suffer greatly from broken hearts when separated from grandchildren, the kids also feel frustration, helplessness, and bereft of an important part of their future. Often the greatest source of grief for grandparents arises from concern for the child: the impact on that child when a beloved grandparent is abruptly removed from their life. Grandparents wonder: "Do they feel abandoned?" "Unloved?" "Will they think that it is somehow their fault?"
The grandparent-grandchild relationship is its own entity, built on a foundation of unconditional love and mutual affection. It is no secret that grandparents are of vital importance to a child's life. Think of your own bond with your grandparents.
The enactment of grandparent visitation laws, which provide a way to actively advocate on behalf of a child supports that notion. Grandparent laws are meant to preserve and protect the grandparent-grandchild relationship, bestowing upon the grandparents a position in a court of law to stand up for a child and lend them a voice. Children deserve to have all of the love they can get, and keep it. When a child is unreasonably denied that love, there is bound to be negative consequences.
There is a body of research indicating that when children lose access to a loving adult (such as a grandparent) with whom they have had an established relationship, they suffer abandonment issues, lower self-esteem, emotional disorders, acting out behavior or withdrawal. Dr. Glenn Cartwright of McGill University is a foremost authority in PAS, (Parental Alienation Syndrome) which also effects grandparents through association. I refer to it as GAS (Grandparent Alienation Syndrome). In his article, "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome", Dr. Cartwright discusses the short, medium and long-term effects of PAS. Besides the non-custodial parent, the grandparents also experience anguish over the loss of the child through sudden dismissal. He explains that during the first stage when the child experiences the loss of a grandparent and or parent it is similar to a death, only worse than an actual death because the child is unable to acknowledge or mourn the loss, and it becomes a major tragedy. When the child is subjected to continual denigration of grandparents by the alienating parent(s), all of the fond memories of them are "deliberately and systematically destroyed."
The medium term effects concern the continued absence [as opposed to initial loss] of the lost grandparent [and parent] and the effects it has on the child's development. What is lost is the consistency, the day-to-day interaction, love and support that normally flows from grandparents and parents. Dr. Cartwright states, "While in the case of death such a loss is un-avoidable, in the case of PAS such a loss is entirely avoidable and therefore in-excusable."
For the long-term effects, Professor Cartwright suggests "that everyone involved in PAS suffers some degree of distress over the long term." He compares the feelings parents and grandparents experience as being similar to what is experienced when a child goes missing. Professor Cartwright emphasizes that it is the child who suffers most.
Dr. Eleanor Willemsen, professor of developmental psychology at Santa Clara University, in her article "Best Interests Of a Child", describes the effects on a child when attachments are broken, among them loss of security and abandonment issues. She emphasizes the harm that happens "when a child loses ongoing intimate relationships," and there is evidence that over time a child's social skills diminish, they become insecure and there are cognitive effects. Perhaps Dr. Willemsen said it best in the following sentence: "[T]he most important aspect of being a whole person when you are a small child is your opportunity to develop well."
GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS are equally CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: a child should also have the right to remain connected to grandparents. It is an ongoing struggle of many individuals who work to promote the preservation of the family unit by influencing legislation and the public. These GRANDPARENT RIGHTS STATUTES will bring to the forefront the fact that children are often treated as "property," with little concern for their wants and needs. There is a need for child substantive issues; a child's LIBERTY INTERESTS must be represented and no longer ignored. Children are people, not possessions.
Perhaps if children were treated more like individuals instead of "property" their true "BEST INTERESTS" would be protected.
SUSAN HOFFMAN
Susan Hoffman is the author of the book, GRAND WISHES: Advocating To Preserve The Grandparent Grandchild Bond, isbn: 978-0-9799168-0-9. The purpose of the book is to raise awareness about the growing social problem of denied grandparent grandchild access as well as a resource for disenfranchised grandparents. Proceeds from the sale of the book will be donated to the non profit organization, Advocates For Grandparent Grandchild Connection, of which Susan Hoffman is the creator and director. http://www.grandparentchildconnect.org
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Susan_Hoffman
South Bay sex-abuse lawsuit: Ex-foster child awarded $30 million
South Bay sex-abuse lawsuit: Ex-foster child awarded $30 million
By Mark Gomez
mgomez@mercurynews.com
Posted: 08/05/2010 12:40:51 PM PDT
Updated: 08/05/2010 01:34:25 PM PDT
A former foster care child from Campbell was awarded $30 million in damages by a jury Wednesday for sexual abuse he endured more than a decade ago in a Mountain View foster home.
An attorney for the former foster child said it's the largest award in California this year for a single-person sex abuse case. The former foster child, who is now 25 and living in the South Bay, was the victim of more than 600 acts of sexual abuse from December 1995 to March 1999 when he was removed from the home, according to his attorney, Stephen Estey.
The defendant in the civil case, Giarretto Institute, was licensed by the state to supervise and monitor the Mountain View home of John Hardy Jackson as a foster family agency. The jury found Giarretto 75 percent responsible for the injuries to the former foster care child and Jackson 25 percent responsible. The jury found the Giarretto Institute negligent for failing to properly monitor and investigate Jackson.
Wednesday's verdict in a Santa Clara County civil courtroom brought his client plaintiff to tears, Estey said.
"He's got a little more faith in humanity," Estey said. "He got stuck in that foster care system; he had no choice at 11. He goes through four years of litigation. To have 12 people in the community speak up on his behalf and say that was wrong, he was in shock. ... Everyone in the courtroom was in tears."
In 2006, Jackson was convicted in Santa Clara County of nine counts of lewd or
Advertisement
lascivious acts on a child by force, violence, duress, menace and fear and seven counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. The conviction included abuse that occurred when Jackson moved from Santa Clara County to Colorado.
One of the girls was 5 at the time of the abuse, according to a criminal court document.
The 25-year-old male victim who won the award suffers from residual mental distress as a result of the abuse, Estey said. Three other foster children who were also in the Jackson home and suffered similar abuse have lawsuits pending and are being represented by Estey.
The civil lawsuit was filed in 2006, the same year as Jackson's criminal conviction. Before the case went to trial, Estey offered to settle the cases for the insurance policy limits of $4 million for the four victims, which was refused.
Linda Kollar, a Los Angeles attorney who represented the Giarretto Institute, could not immediately be reached for comment.
In 1999, Eastfield Ming Quong Children & Family Services acquired the San Jose-based Giarretto Institute, then considered a pioneering sexual abuse treatment program. At the time, the Giarretto Institute had contracts with 130 families to provide foster care in the greater San Jose area.
Contact Mark Gomez at 408-920-5869.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15684415?nclick_check=1
By Mark Gomez
mgomez@mercurynews.com
Posted: 08/05/2010 12:40:51 PM PDT
Updated: 08/05/2010 01:34:25 PM PDT
A former foster care child from Campbell was awarded $30 million in damages by a jury Wednesday for sexual abuse he endured more than a decade ago in a Mountain View foster home.
An attorney for the former foster child said it's the largest award in California this year for a single-person sex abuse case. The former foster child, who is now 25 and living in the South Bay, was the victim of more than 600 acts of sexual abuse from December 1995 to March 1999 when he was removed from the home, according to his attorney, Stephen Estey.
The defendant in the civil case, Giarretto Institute, was licensed by the state to supervise and monitor the Mountain View home of John Hardy Jackson as a foster family agency. The jury found Giarretto 75 percent responsible for the injuries to the former foster care child and Jackson 25 percent responsible. The jury found the Giarretto Institute negligent for failing to properly monitor and investigate Jackson.
Wednesday's verdict in a Santa Clara County civil courtroom brought his client plaintiff to tears, Estey said.
"He's got a little more faith in humanity," Estey said. "He got stuck in that foster care system; he had no choice at 11. He goes through four years of litigation. To have 12 people in the community speak up on his behalf and say that was wrong, he was in shock. ... Everyone in the courtroom was in tears."
In 2006, Jackson was convicted in Santa Clara County of nine counts of lewd or
Advertisement
lascivious acts on a child by force, violence, duress, menace and fear and seven counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. The conviction included abuse that occurred when Jackson moved from Santa Clara County to Colorado.
One of the girls was 5 at the time of the abuse, according to a criminal court document.
The 25-year-old male victim who won the award suffers from residual mental distress as a result of the abuse, Estey said. Three other foster children who were also in the Jackson home and suffered similar abuse have lawsuits pending and are being represented by Estey.
The civil lawsuit was filed in 2006, the same year as Jackson's criminal conviction. Before the case went to trial, Estey offered to settle the cases for the insurance policy limits of $4 million for the four victims, which was refused.
Linda Kollar, a Los Angeles attorney who represented the Giarretto Institute, could not immediately be reached for comment.
In 1999, Eastfield Ming Quong Children & Family Services acquired the San Jose-based Giarretto Institute, then considered a pioneering sexual abuse treatment program. At the time, the Giarretto Institute had contracts with 130 families to provide foster care in the greater San Jose area.
Contact Mark Gomez at 408-920-5869.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15684415?nclick_check=1
Children denied compensation over murder
Children denied compensation over murder
TIM DORNIN
August 5, 2010 - 4:14PM
www.BostonSocialAnxiety.com
AAP
Two children have been denied compensation over the murder of their father, with a court ruling that payments made to their foster carers were sufficient.
The children had asked to share $50,000 in victims of crime compensation after their father, Robert Anderson, was set on fire and burnt to death in Adelaide in 2005.
Mr Anderson's former partner, Vicki Brooks, and her current partner, Dennis Childs, were both jailed for life over the killing.
Advertisement: Story continues below
His children were aged nine and 10 at the time and were being cared for by Brooks.
Since Mr Anderson's death the children have been in foster care or other arrangements with carers receiving regular payments from the state government.
In a judgment on Thursday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court ruled that a District Court judge had correctly found that the cost of providing even minimum care to the children until they turned 18 would far exceed the maximum compensation allowed.
The full court rejected arguments from counsel for the children that the money paid for their care related to the jailing of their mother and was not related to the murder of their father.
"In our view, an assessment of financial losses should take into account any financial gains to the appellants as a result of their father's death," justices John Sulan, Tim Anderson and Robyn Layton said.
The judges said the trial judge was correct in taking into account the money paid by the government for the care of the child.
They said legislation was clearly designed to avoid double dipping.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/children-denied-compensation-over-murder-20100805-11jws.html
TIM DORNIN
August 5, 2010 - 4:14PM
www.BostonSocialAnxiety.com
AAP
Two children have been denied compensation over the murder of their father, with a court ruling that payments made to their foster carers were sufficient.
The children had asked to share $50,000 in victims of crime compensation after their father, Robert Anderson, was set on fire and burnt to death in Adelaide in 2005.
Mr Anderson's former partner, Vicki Brooks, and her current partner, Dennis Childs, were both jailed for life over the killing.
Advertisement: Story continues below
His children were aged nine and 10 at the time and were being cared for by Brooks.
Since Mr Anderson's death the children have been in foster care or other arrangements with carers receiving regular payments from the state government.
In a judgment on Thursday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court ruled that a District Court judge had correctly found that the cost of providing even minimum care to the children until they turned 18 would far exceed the maximum compensation allowed.
The full court rejected arguments from counsel for the children that the money paid for their care related to the jailing of their mother and was not related to the murder of their father.
"In our view, an assessment of financial losses should take into account any financial gains to the appellants as a result of their father's death," justices John Sulan, Tim Anderson and Robyn Layton said.
The judges said the trial judge was correct in taking into account the money paid by the government for the care of the child.
They said legislation was clearly designed to avoid double dipping.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/children-denied-compensation-over-murder-20100805-11jws.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)