Adoption rulings may boost birth father's rights
Sunday, August 8, 2010 11:51 PM
BY RITA PRICE
The Columbus Dispatch
Adoptive parents often don't worry much about challenges from an alleged birth father who wasn't married to the mother.
If the man didn't meet the 30-day deadline for signing the state's putative-father registry, offer support during the pregnancy or establish paternity before the adoption was filed, he might have little chance to halt the placement.
But two recent Ohio Supreme Court rulings in favor of birth fathers are putting putative-father laws on shaky ground, some observers say.
"I don't think it's hit people yet just how pervasive this might be," said Susan Eisenman, an Upper Arlington adoption lawyer. "If the guy doesn't want the adoption to go forward, all he has to do is file a paternity suit. Even if he's done nothing for the child, he can stop it."
Story continues below
Advertisement
Patrick Hamilton, a Columbus adoption lawyer, said the rulings could create "a race to the courthouse" to see which is filed first - the adoption petition or the paternity suit.
Others, however, praise the decisions as a fair and sensible tip of the scales toward biological fathers.
They say that putative-father registries in Ohio and elsewhere deserve to take some legal hits because the little-known laws can be used as blunt instruments to sever parental rights.
"Adoption attorneys won't admit that the registry is denying responsible fathers their rights," said Erik L. Smith, a Dayton-area paralegal who fought to block the adoption of his son in 1993. "What the legislature needs to do is come back and create laws that are reasonable. Put forth a hybrid deadline, not this 30-day limit for everyone."
The Ohio Putative Father Registry was created in 1997 as a way to allow children to be promptly placed for adoption and avoid court battles. Putative essentially means reputed - the man thinks he's the father of the child but is not married to the child's mother and has not established paternity in court.
To be considered a putative father, the man must sign the registry within 30 days of the birth. But, even then, he might not be able to block adoption if a judge determines that he was not supportive of the mother and child.
In the two cases the court decided by 4-3 rulings last month, neither father had paternity legally determined before the adoption proceedings began, according to Ohio Supreme Court documents.
One man, whose child was placed for private adoption in Lucas County, had signed the registry on time. Another had not signed the registry but had been involved with the mother and sought to contest the adoption of his daughter by the woman's new husband in Hamilton County.
Kenneth Cahill, attorney for the biological father in the Hamilton County case, said his client had an established relationship with his child. The girl was nearly 2 years old by the time her new stepfather filed to adopt.
"The legislative history of the putative-father registry didn't fit the facts of this case," Cahill said. "To use a technicality to say that a parent-child relationship is going to be terminated doesn't sit well."
Cahill doesn't think the rulings mean that the registry, which has been signed by just 1,116 men in more than 13 years, is moot. But the split decisions do reflect the complexity of child-centered cases playing out in different courts and states and under differing interpretations of law.
In Dayton, a man is fighting to halt the adoption of his 2-year-old daughter in a case that has drawn national attention. Although the man has four other children not in his custody, he signed Ohio's putative-father registry and says he doesn't want the toddler to stay in California with the woman she knows as her mother.
"Honestly, I think it's chaos," said Michael Voorhees, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the prospective adoptive parents in both Ohio Supreme Court cases. "It could really be a precedent for not having to follow any statute."
Voorhees asked the court last week to reconsider; so did the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.
Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University, said the court seems to be saying that, regardless of the registry, it wants pending paternity actions settled before adoptions proceed.
Time will tell whether that leads to more delays or litigation for families.
"In the middle sits a child," St. Clair said, "the innocent party in all of this."
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/08/adoption-rulings-may-boost-birth-fathers-rights.html
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
First Test Tube Baby Has Baby Of Her Own
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
First Test Tube Baby Has Baby Of Her Own
BY ANDREW VORZIMER ⋅ AUGUST 6, 2010 ⋅
FILED UNDER ASSISTED REPRODUCTION, BOSTON GLOBE, ELIZABETH COMEAU, IVF, TEST TUBE BABY
Elizabeth Comeau, the United States’ first IVF baby, gave birth to a baby boy yesterday. According to her own account in today’s Boston Globe:
People have followed my life all my life. I mean, ALL my life.
PBS cameras taped my birth, and I attended my first press conference at 3 days old — I yawned through the entire thing. My baby face appeared on the cover of Life magazine, and stories appeared in many newspapers worldwide, including The Boston Globe, where I now work on its website.
I don’t have a baby book — I have five volumes of newspaper headlines and VHS tapes from television announcements worldwide.
Now, nearly 29 years from my birth as the first test-tube baby in the United States, I have my own baby.
When the phones started ringing a few weeks ago, I knew I had a choice: Either write about it myself — though I’ve been uncomfortable about my celebrity — or have someone else do it.
My family and I have often joked about what the headline would read, with fears of “Test-tube baby has test-tube baby’’ in bold black letters across the top of a page.
However, I had a normal conception and pregnancy despite my abnormal childhood. And early yesterday, my husband and I had a baby boy “the normal way,’’ proving (I hope) that I’m just like everyone else.
I didn’t ask to be America’s first test-tube baby. On Dec. 28, 1981, it just happened. My parents and doctors did all the hard work.
In school, friends knew I was an in-vitro baby — what that actually meant they weren’t sure. I was never teased, but some people would want to sit next to me at the high-school homecoming football game because a camera was there following me around.
It’s a little embarrassing, too, to have that Life magazine cover staring out in the hallway of your parents home when your prom date comes to pick you up. Or, to go out to a supermarket in college and have a friend ask, “E, is that you?’’ holding up a tabloid with my photo.
Even though I had all this media attention, my parents said they weren’t going to raise a prima donna. I had to wash dishes, take out the garbage. I had jobs while I was in high school and college.
But I’ve never been able to shake the follow-up stories. Not at 10 years old, nor when graduating from high school, nor Simmons College.
After marriage, I changed my name from Elizabeth Carr to Elizabeth Comeau. I must admit, the media attention was a consideration, despite a career in journalism and the recognition my maiden name had among sources and in the industry. The result? I had a few years under the radar, and my husband, David, and I lived a quiet life in Maine.
So why write about it now? I follow the same principle my parents did: If my story helps couples or families learn about in-vitro fertilization, then the loss of privacy is worthwhile. People who have fertility issues deserve to know they can have healthy, normal babies.
We hope our son’s life will be a happy, quiet existence. But we also hope he learns about all the people in our lives we’ve met and come to love because of my “test-tube’’ title.
Two years ago, David and I went to Virginia to see Howard Jones, the doctor who started the IVF clinic in Norfolk where I was born. My mother had had three ecptopic pregnancies and was told she could probably never conceive a child naturally. At the time, there had been a successful IVF birth in England, but not in the United States. Dr. Jones and his wife, Georgeanna, decided to change that and started their program in Norfolk. Although people in Massachusetts were trying to start an IVF program, the procedure was illegal in the state then, so my parents traveled to Virginia to pursue having a baby.
Our 2008 visit was like a family trip, because Jones is more like a grandfather than a doctor to me. It was important to me that my husband and the man who perfected the technology to bring me into this world meet. I still get phone calls from Jones, now 99, on my birthday and Christmas — or during major life events — and we visit our “family’’ in Norfolk whenever we can.
The local media, of course, took the visit as a chance to write a “test-tube baby homecoming’’ story.
As we prepared to have a child, my husband and I knew our lives might once again be thrust into the spotlight. I have been the story for so long.
In fact, all I want is to tell others’ stories. My parents were the first to notice that.
After having questions thrown at me so often, I would, from a very young age, turn the interview around and ask the reporter about his or her job. After working on my high school and college papers, I interned at The Virginian-Pilot and The Boston Globe, and worked at the Poynter Institute writing about media coverage. Later, I covered towns and schools for the Kennebec (Maine) Journal, and since January 2008, have helped run the home page and news coverage at Boston.com.
Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby, has also married and had a baby and it’s interesting to me to see what her life has become, so I understand that it’s natural for people to wonder “What ever happened to so-and-so?’’
It’s the type of story I would write myself.
http://www.eggdonor.com/blog/2010/08/06/first-test-tube-baby-has-baby-of-her-own/
First Test Tube Baby Has Baby Of Her Own
BY ANDREW VORZIMER ⋅ AUGUST 6, 2010 ⋅
FILED UNDER ASSISTED REPRODUCTION, BOSTON GLOBE, ELIZABETH COMEAU, IVF, TEST TUBE BABY
Elizabeth Comeau, the United States’ first IVF baby, gave birth to a baby boy yesterday. According to her own account in today’s Boston Globe:
People have followed my life all my life. I mean, ALL my life.
PBS cameras taped my birth, and I attended my first press conference at 3 days old — I yawned through the entire thing. My baby face appeared on the cover of Life magazine, and stories appeared in many newspapers worldwide, including The Boston Globe, where I now work on its website.
I don’t have a baby book — I have five volumes of newspaper headlines and VHS tapes from television announcements worldwide.
Now, nearly 29 years from my birth as the first test-tube baby in the United States, I have my own baby.
When the phones started ringing a few weeks ago, I knew I had a choice: Either write about it myself — though I’ve been uncomfortable about my celebrity — or have someone else do it.
My family and I have often joked about what the headline would read, with fears of “Test-tube baby has test-tube baby’’ in bold black letters across the top of a page.
However, I had a normal conception and pregnancy despite my abnormal childhood. And early yesterday, my husband and I had a baby boy “the normal way,’’ proving (I hope) that I’m just like everyone else.
I didn’t ask to be America’s first test-tube baby. On Dec. 28, 1981, it just happened. My parents and doctors did all the hard work.
In school, friends knew I was an in-vitro baby — what that actually meant they weren’t sure. I was never teased, but some people would want to sit next to me at the high-school homecoming football game because a camera was there following me around.
It’s a little embarrassing, too, to have that Life magazine cover staring out in the hallway of your parents home when your prom date comes to pick you up. Or, to go out to a supermarket in college and have a friend ask, “E, is that you?’’ holding up a tabloid with my photo.
Even though I had all this media attention, my parents said they weren’t going to raise a prima donna. I had to wash dishes, take out the garbage. I had jobs while I was in high school and college.
But I’ve never been able to shake the follow-up stories. Not at 10 years old, nor when graduating from high school, nor Simmons College.
After marriage, I changed my name from Elizabeth Carr to Elizabeth Comeau. I must admit, the media attention was a consideration, despite a career in journalism and the recognition my maiden name had among sources and in the industry. The result? I had a few years under the radar, and my husband, David, and I lived a quiet life in Maine.
So why write about it now? I follow the same principle my parents did: If my story helps couples or families learn about in-vitro fertilization, then the loss of privacy is worthwhile. People who have fertility issues deserve to know they can have healthy, normal babies.
We hope our son’s life will be a happy, quiet existence. But we also hope he learns about all the people in our lives we’ve met and come to love because of my “test-tube’’ title.
Two years ago, David and I went to Virginia to see Howard Jones, the doctor who started the IVF clinic in Norfolk where I was born. My mother had had three ecptopic pregnancies and was told she could probably never conceive a child naturally. At the time, there had been a successful IVF birth in England, but not in the United States. Dr. Jones and his wife, Georgeanna, decided to change that and started their program in Norfolk. Although people in Massachusetts were trying to start an IVF program, the procedure was illegal in the state then, so my parents traveled to Virginia to pursue having a baby.
Our 2008 visit was like a family trip, because Jones is more like a grandfather than a doctor to me. It was important to me that my husband and the man who perfected the technology to bring me into this world meet. I still get phone calls from Jones, now 99, on my birthday and Christmas — or during major life events — and we visit our “family’’ in Norfolk whenever we can.
The local media, of course, took the visit as a chance to write a “test-tube baby homecoming’’ story.
As we prepared to have a child, my husband and I knew our lives might once again be thrust into the spotlight. I have been the story for so long.
In fact, all I want is to tell others’ stories. My parents were the first to notice that.
After having questions thrown at me so often, I would, from a very young age, turn the interview around and ask the reporter about his or her job. After working on my high school and college papers, I interned at The Virginian-Pilot and The Boston Globe, and worked at the Poynter Institute writing about media coverage. Later, I covered towns and schools for the Kennebec (Maine) Journal, and since January 2008, have helped run the home page and news coverage at Boston.com.
Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby, has also married and had a baby and it’s interesting to me to see what her life has become, so I understand that it’s natural for people to wonder “What ever happened to so-and-so?’’
It’s the type of story I would write myself.
http://www.eggdonor.com/blog/2010/08/06/first-test-tube-baby-has-baby-of-her-own/
Florida Bans Foster Children from Clinical Drug Trials
ChildWelfareToday
Florida Bans Foster Children from Clinical Drug Trials
August 06, 2010 by Pareesha Narang
Sixteen months after 7-year-old Gabriel Myers committed suicide while taking psychotropic drugs, the state of Florida has banned allowing any children in the state’s custody from participating in clinical drug trials.
It is unclear if Gabriel was involved in any clinical trials. The doctor who prescribed the medicines to him was conducting clinical trials involving psychotropic drops and the Food and Drug Administration sent him a warning letter earlier this year about overdosing children who were involved in those trials.
The Florida ban was imposed after the state tried to find out from the FDA if Gabriel or any other foster care child in Florida was a participant in such trials, and the FDA said it could not disclose such information and that mostly they know participants by only coded identifiers.
Though Florida officials had suggested that, under such circumstances, the Federal Food and Drug Administration ban all foster care children from participating in such trials, the agency refused, saying the children might benefit from the drugs.
In a letter last month, George Sheldon, secretary of the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), announced that regardless of the FDA’s stance the state, using “administrative procedures,” was precluding children in state care from participating in such trials.
“Children who come into our care are often the victims of abuse, neglect, and abandonment,” Sheldon said in the letter. “It is therefore imperative that the state do all in its power to stabilize their environment, to protect them from further trauma, and to foster their successful growth into adulthood.”
National Foster Parent Association president Irene Clement wasn’t particularly impressed with Florida’s action.
“What Florida has done is not any different from what other states have done.” Clement said. “If there are children in the custody of the state … it would be seen as exploitation on the part of the state for using this class of children for experimental purposes.”
On the other hand, the Child Welfare League of America does not support a sweeping ban. CEO Christine James-Brown said in a statement that CWLA’s standards do “call for additional protections of [foster children’s] interests in medical research” through appropriate federal-level regulations and youth advocacy.
Before he hanged himself in his foster home, Gabriel had been taking different drugs for a variety of psychological problems – and some of the drugs were not approved for use in children. Some of these drugs, including Lexapro, Vyvanse and Symbyax, had “black box” warnings cautioning dangerous side effects such as suicidal thoughts.
Gabriel was placed in foster care in June 2008 after his mother was arrested on drug-related charges. In under a year’s time he lived in three homes, his last in Margate, Fla.
The psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs to Gabriel, Dr. Sohail Punjwani, received a warning letter from the FDA in February, citing several instances in which he had overdosed patients on an undisclosed drug after not following the trial’s protocol for dosing. One of the patients who overdosed slit her wrists, but survived.
http://www.youthtoday.org/view_blog.cfm?blog_id=385
Florida Bans Foster Children from Clinical Drug Trials
August 06, 2010 by Pareesha Narang
Sixteen months after 7-year-old Gabriel Myers committed suicide while taking psychotropic drugs, the state of Florida has banned allowing any children in the state’s custody from participating in clinical drug trials.
It is unclear if Gabriel was involved in any clinical trials. The doctor who prescribed the medicines to him was conducting clinical trials involving psychotropic drops and the Food and Drug Administration sent him a warning letter earlier this year about overdosing children who were involved in those trials.
The Florida ban was imposed after the state tried to find out from the FDA if Gabriel or any other foster care child in Florida was a participant in such trials, and the FDA said it could not disclose such information and that mostly they know participants by only coded identifiers.
Though Florida officials had suggested that, under such circumstances, the Federal Food and Drug Administration ban all foster care children from participating in such trials, the agency refused, saying the children might benefit from the drugs.
In a letter last month, George Sheldon, secretary of the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), announced that regardless of the FDA’s stance the state, using “administrative procedures,” was precluding children in state care from participating in such trials.
“Children who come into our care are often the victims of abuse, neglect, and abandonment,” Sheldon said in the letter. “It is therefore imperative that the state do all in its power to stabilize their environment, to protect them from further trauma, and to foster their successful growth into adulthood.”
National Foster Parent Association president Irene Clement wasn’t particularly impressed with Florida’s action.
“What Florida has done is not any different from what other states have done.” Clement said. “If there are children in the custody of the state … it would be seen as exploitation on the part of the state for using this class of children for experimental purposes.”
On the other hand, the Child Welfare League of America does not support a sweeping ban. CEO Christine James-Brown said in a statement that CWLA’s standards do “call for additional protections of [foster children’s] interests in medical research” through appropriate federal-level regulations and youth advocacy.
Before he hanged himself in his foster home, Gabriel had been taking different drugs for a variety of psychological problems – and some of the drugs were not approved for use in children. Some of these drugs, including Lexapro, Vyvanse and Symbyax, had “black box” warnings cautioning dangerous side effects such as suicidal thoughts.
Gabriel was placed in foster care in June 2008 after his mother was arrested on drug-related charges. In under a year’s time he lived in three homes, his last in Margate, Fla.
The psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs to Gabriel, Dr. Sohail Punjwani, received a warning letter from the FDA in February, citing several instances in which he had overdosed patients on an undisclosed drug after not following the trial’s protocol for dosing. One of the patients who overdosed slit her wrists, but survived.
http://www.youthtoday.org/view_blog.cfm?blog_id=385
DCF Watchdogs: Keep Federal Court Oversight
DCF Watchdogs: Keep Federal Court Oversight
By Rick Green on August 9, 2010 2:59 PM
The state's child advocate, Jeanne Milstein, and another group, the Center for Children's Advocacy, say the Department of Children and Families continues to fail to adequately protect our neediest children and should remain under federal oversight. Under a 20-year-old consent decree arising from a class-action lawsuit, a federal court has closely monitored efforts to improve the child protection agency.
In the most recent incident raising questions about DCF, the agency failed to remove five children from a Torrington home after police notified them of potentially dangerous conditions.
DCF has asked to be removed from federal control, but Millstein says the agency has too many group homes, too few foster familes and sends too many children to institutions out of state.
From a new court brief filed by Milstein:
http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/08/dcf-watchdogs-keep-federal-cou.html
By Rick Green on August 9, 2010 2:59 PM
The state's child advocate, Jeanne Milstein, and another group, the Center for Children's Advocacy, say the Department of Children and Families continues to fail to adequately protect our neediest children and should remain under federal oversight. Under a 20-year-old consent decree arising from a class-action lawsuit, a federal court has closely monitored efforts to improve the child protection agency.
In the most recent incident raising questions about DCF, the agency failed to remove five children from a Torrington home after police notified them of potentially dangerous conditions.
DCF has asked to be removed from federal control, but Millstein says the agency has too many group homes, too few foster familes and sends too many children to institutions out of state.
From a new court brief filed by Milstein:
http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/08/dcf-watchdogs-keep-federal-cou.html
Monday, August 9, 2010
Social workers attempt calm removals
Social workers attempt calm removals
JENNIFER JACOBS • THE DES MOINES REGISTER • AUGUST 9, 2010
Iowa social workers' old way of abruptly pulling children from parents suspected of abuse or neglect is too traumatizing for everyone involved, the state's top child welfare officials believe.
That method still is the norm in almost all of Iowa's counties. But in an experiment in Polk County, social workers forewarn parents that they intend to remove a child. And they invite parents to help make the removal easier:
Pack favorite belongings, schedule visits to see the child in foster care, hug their son or daughter goodbye.
National experts view the Iowa Department of Human Services' new strategy as only a partial step toward better involving families in protecting children.
Iowa has one of the higher rates in the nation of social workers removing children from their homes.
DHS wants to take Polk County's approach statewide: Unless a child is in immediate danger of injury or death, social workers conduct a "pre-removal conference." The meeting gives troubled parents a chance to find a relative to care for the children and time to explain to the kids what's happening, said Wendy Rickman, DHS' top official for child protection.
"What we used to do is just go get them," Rickman said. "You had kids screaming, and you had parents screaming. You're taking babies from Mom, and you're pulling and they're pulling, and you're trying to figure out: 'How do I get clothing for this kid?' And then you don't leave with their favorite stuffed toy and the things that are going to comfort that child. Kids left in diapers."
When Polk County social workers started forewarning parents 2½ years ago, they feared families would disappear.
"We've only had one runner," said Rickman, administrator of the Child and Family Services division.
Rickman said she knows of no case when a child suffered severe abuse between the pre-removal conference and when social workers picked up the child.
"Our mantra is be very hard on the problem, but be very easy on the people," Rickman said. "We say, 'You cannot abuse or you neglect your kids,' but in the process, the system should not further traumatize.'"
Read the entire article at:
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20100809/NEWS01/8090318/Social-workers-attempt-calm-removals
JENNIFER JACOBS • THE DES MOINES REGISTER • AUGUST 9, 2010
Iowa social workers' old way of abruptly pulling children from parents suspected of abuse or neglect is too traumatizing for everyone involved, the state's top child welfare officials believe.
That method still is the norm in almost all of Iowa's counties. But in an experiment in Polk County, social workers forewarn parents that they intend to remove a child. And they invite parents to help make the removal easier:
Pack favorite belongings, schedule visits to see the child in foster care, hug their son or daughter goodbye.
National experts view the Iowa Department of Human Services' new strategy as only a partial step toward better involving families in protecting children.
Iowa has one of the higher rates in the nation of social workers removing children from their homes.
DHS wants to take Polk County's approach statewide: Unless a child is in immediate danger of injury or death, social workers conduct a "pre-removal conference." The meeting gives troubled parents a chance to find a relative to care for the children and time to explain to the kids what's happening, said Wendy Rickman, DHS' top official for child protection.
"What we used to do is just go get them," Rickman said. "You had kids screaming, and you had parents screaming. You're taking babies from Mom, and you're pulling and they're pulling, and you're trying to figure out: 'How do I get clothing for this kid?' And then you don't leave with their favorite stuffed toy and the things that are going to comfort that child. Kids left in diapers."
When Polk County social workers started forewarning parents 2½ years ago, they feared families would disappear.
"We've only had one runner," said Rickman, administrator of the Child and Family Services division.
Rickman said she knows of no case when a child suffered severe abuse between the pre-removal conference and when social workers picked up the child.
"Our mantra is be very hard on the problem, but be very easy on the people," Rickman said. "We say, 'You cannot abuse or you neglect your kids,' but in the process, the system should not further traumatize.'"
Read the entire article at:
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20100809/NEWS01/8090318/Social-workers-attempt-calm-removals
Family court system could implode, warns its top judge
Family court system could implode, warns its top judge
The family courts system is in "grave danger of imploding", Sir Nicholas Wall, the judge in charge of it, has warned.
By Andrew Gilligan and Laura Donnelly
Published: 9:00PM BST 07 Aug 2010
Since the Baby Peter tragedy, the number of children subject to care proceedings has shot up by two hundred a month, a rise of more than 40 per cent
In a letter dated July 29, Sir Nicholas, president of the Family Division of the High Court, suggested legal aid cuts could mean that parents fighting to keep their children have to represent themselves in court.
He says he has been "inundated with expressions of serious concern" from judges about the cuts, which will almost halve the number of family law firms doing legal aid.
Related Articles
Britain's forced adoptions: the hidden scandal we can't ignore
National Lottery win turned couple into benefits cheats, says judge
Victims of deadly Australian bush fires 'stood no chance'
Judge told Cambridge-educated barrister: 'Your performance is p--- poor'
Terrorist suspects claiming unemployment benefits
US threatens Britain over terrorism 'torture evidence'
The letter, obtained by Community Care magazine, is his second stark warning of the crisis in children's justice. Last November, in a professional conference unreported at the time, he gave one of the most outspoken speeches ever made by a judge.
"Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, has any wish to engage in politics," he said. But "the time has now come when the judicial reluctance to go public … must come to an end."
Sir Nicholas warned that the system was in a "parlous state", in danger of collapse, and it was "the children who will suffer most". It was funded by people "who know nothing about it, and have never practised it … Neither the court itself, nor the out of court facilities, are serving disadvantaged children as they should."
It was, he said, "welfare, or farewell".
The judge's interventions are signs of unprecedented anger across the child protection world. Some parents say their children are being seized without cause by overzealous councils. The professionals say the error, more often, is leaving them with abusive parents – as, of course, with Baby P. Both groups may, in fact, be right.
Since the Baby Peter tragedy, the number of children subject to care proceedings has shot up by two hundred a month, a rise of more than 40 per cent.
Eight thousand children were taken into care last year alone. Yet, disturbingly, the number of infants not in care who died of neglect or abuse has also risen – suggesting that in some cases, the wrong children are being removed from their families, and the wrong children being allowed to stay.
In theory, there are many safeguards. No child can be taken from their parents without a court order, and later a full hearing. At the system's heart lies a person called a guardian – an independent expert, with a social work background, quite separate from the local council and family. The guardian's job is to get to know the child, investigate their circumstances, stand up for them in court and protect them against abuse of power by social services, or their parents.
"You look critically at what the local authority is doing, and you look critically at what the parents are doing," says Alison Paddle, a guardian since 1991, who is also spokesman for their professional body, Nagalro. "You give the child a voice."
Ms Paddle says that in her experience – she has done about 120 cases – it is rare for a council's concerns about a family to be completely baseless. "You often ask yourself why they haven't acted before. But unfortunately there's also quite a number of situations where the local authority haven't covered everything they should do to keep the child out of care. There may be relatives, for instance, who can offer something very positive but haven't been asked."
Another guardian fought off a local council which seized children for adoption after their parents left them home alone, caring for a disabled sibling. "The local authority overreacted," the guardian said. "They also lied to the court about the experience of the foster-carer, possibly placing a very disabled baby at risk by placing him with a very inexperienced carer."
The decision was overturned. Guardians can also get children placed in care where they think the social services have been too lenient.
In many places, however, the guardian system has effectively collapsed. At least 1,000 children going through care proceedings are now represented only by a constantly-changing stream of "duty guardians", people who often never meet the children they are supposed to be championing, let alone visit their homes, and base all their judgments on the local authority's paperwork.
Thousands of children never get a guardian at all, or have to wait weeks for one – by which time all the key decisions about their future may well have been taken, irreversibly.
The courts have no real investigatory capacity and tend to take the word of the experts. In some cases, say guardians, the course of a child's whole life is effectively decided in one brief phone call.
"Duty guardians or no guardians at all were happening in every single case I handled for several months," says Barbara Hopkin, a prominent family lawyer. "It's a rubber-stamping exercise. I was told by some [duty guardians] that they were not allowed to talk to the parents."
A family court judge, Graham Cliffe, said that the guardian service in his area, York, had "deteriorated at an alarming rate" and "reached crisis level – make no mistake about it, vulnerable children are being sold short."
Cafcass, the government quango which runs the service, blames the problems on the post-Baby P care rush, as social workers play it safe. That, perhaps, is reason to scrutinise applications more thoroughly, not less. And Cafcass's critics say the real problem is that it is a classic New Labour bureaucratic monster.
"In terms of funding, Cafcass has done quite well," says Paul Bishop, vice chairman of NAPO, its staff union. "But only fifty per cent of people in Cafcass are actually doing the job and the other fifty per cent are monitoring them and filling out forms."
Before Cafcass was created, in 2000, children's guardians were lightly managed – and in most parts of the country, every child got a guardian within 24 hours. In the new era, when some children never get a guardian at all, staff say they have to fill out five forms for every action they take, swallowing a third of their working week.
Anthony Douglas, Cafcass's chief executive, insists that talk of a meltdown is "alarmist". "We've absorbed 30 per cent more work in a year," he says.
Yet the legal aid cuts are a double whammy. "All the parties in a case have to use different firms, but after October, there will only be one family law firm doing legal aid in the whole of Devon,' says Hopkin. 'It's a complete disaster'.
In April, the county's child protection department was criticised by a judge as "more like Stalin's Russia ... than the West of England".
Sir Nicholas's leaked letter says that across the country, many of the new solicitors given legal aid contracts have no experience in family law, and may "not know fully what they are doing". And these cuts are quite separate from new, further, reductions to legal aid being planned by the Coalition government.
It is fair to say that almost everyone involved with the children's courts – the professionals, the parents and the children themselves – has never been unhappier. The real problem is not, perhaps, that social workers are evil, or that all parents are liars. The problem is that in cases needing very fine judgments, a dysfunctional system is making it harder to get those judgments right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7931918/Family-court-system-could-implode-warns-its-top-judge.html
The family courts system is in "grave danger of imploding", Sir Nicholas Wall, the judge in charge of it, has warned.
By Andrew Gilligan and Laura Donnelly
Published: 9:00PM BST 07 Aug 2010
Since the Baby Peter tragedy, the number of children subject to care proceedings has shot up by two hundred a month, a rise of more than 40 per cent
In a letter dated July 29, Sir Nicholas, president of the Family Division of the High Court, suggested legal aid cuts could mean that parents fighting to keep their children have to represent themselves in court.
He says he has been "inundated with expressions of serious concern" from judges about the cuts, which will almost halve the number of family law firms doing legal aid.
Related Articles
Britain's forced adoptions: the hidden scandal we can't ignore
National Lottery win turned couple into benefits cheats, says judge
Victims of deadly Australian bush fires 'stood no chance'
Judge told Cambridge-educated barrister: 'Your performance is p--- poor'
Terrorist suspects claiming unemployment benefits
US threatens Britain over terrorism 'torture evidence'
The letter, obtained by Community Care magazine, is his second stark warning of the crisis in children's justice. Last November, in a professional conference unreported at the time, he gave one of the most outspoken speeches ever made by a judge.
"Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, has any wish to engage in politics," he said. But "the time has now come when the judicial reluctance to go public … must come to an end."
Sir Nicholas warned that the system was in a "parlous state", in danger of collapse, and it was "the children who will suffer most". It was funded by people "who know nothing about it, and have never practised it … Neither the court itself, nor the out of court facilities, are serving disadvantaged children as they should."
It was, he said, "welfare, or farewell".
The judge's interventions are signs of unprecedented anger across the child protection world. Some parents say their children are being seized without cause by overzealous councils. The professionals say the error, more often, is leaving them with abusive parents – as, of course, with Baby P. Both groups may, in fact, be right.
Since the Baby Peter tragedy, the number of children subject to care proceedings has shot up by two hundred a month, a rise of more than 40 per cent.
Eight thousand children were taken into care last year alone. Yet, disturbingly, the number of infants not in care who died of neglect or abuse has also risen – suggesting that in some cases, the wrong children are being removed from their families, and the wrong children being allowed to stay.
In theory, there are many safeguards. No child can be taken from their parents without a court order, and later a full hearing. At the system's heart lies a person called a guardian – an independent expert, with a social work background, quite separate from the local council and family. The guardian's job is to get to know the child, investigate their circumstances, stand up for them in court and protect them against abuse of power by social services, or their parents.
"You look critically at what the local authority is doing, and you look critically at what the parents are doing," says Alison Paddle, a guardian since 1991, who is also spokesman for their professional body, Nagalro. "You give the child a voice."
Ms Paddle says that in her experience – she has done about 120 cases – it is rare for a council's concerns about a family to be completely baseless. "You often ask yourself why they haven't acted before. But unfortunately there's also quite a number of situations where the local authority haven't covered everything they should do to keep the child out of care. There may be relatives, for instance, who can offer something very positive but haven't been asked."
Another guardian fought off a local council which seized children for adoption after their parents left them home alone, caring for a disabled sibling. "The local authority overreacted," the guardian said. "They also lied to the court about the experience of the foster-carer, possibly placing a very disabled baby at risk by placing him with a very inexperienced carer."
The decision was overturned. Guardians can also get children placed in care where they think the social services have been too lenient.
In many places, however, the guardian system has effectively collapsed. At least 1,000 children going through care proceedings are now represented only by a constantly-changing stream of "duty guardians", people who often never meet the children they are supposed to be championing, let alone visit their homes, and base all their judgments on the local authority's paperwork.
Thousands of children never get a guardian at all, or have to wait weeks for one – by which time all the key decisions about their future may well have been taken, irreversibly.
The courts have no real investigatory capacity and tend to take the word of the experts. In some cases, say guardians, the course of a child's whole life is effectively decided in one brief phone call.
"Duty guardians or no guardians at all were happening in every single case I handled for several months," says Barbara Hopkin, a prominent family lawyer. "It's a rubber-stamping exercise. I was told by some [duty guardians] that they were not allowed to talk to the parents."
A family court judge, Graham Cliffe, said that the guardian service in his area, York, had "deteriorated at an alarming rate" and "reached crisis level – make no mistake about it, vulnerable children are being sold short."
Cafcass, the government quango which runs the service, blames the problems on the post-Baby P care rush, as social workers play it safe. That, perhaps, is reason to scrutinise applications more thoroughly, not less. And Cafcass's critics say the real problem is that it is a classic New Labour bureaucratic monster.
"In terms of funding, Cafcass has done quite well," says Paul Bishop, vice chairman of NAPO, its staff union. "But only fifty per cent of people in Cafcass are actually doing the job and the other fifty per cent are monitoring them and filling out forms."
Before Cafcass was created, in 2000, children's guardians were lightly managed – and in most parts of the country, every child got a guardian within 24 hours. In the new era, when some children never get a guardian at all, staff say they have to fill out five forms for every action they take, swallowing a third of their working week.
Anthony Douglas, Cafcass's chief executive, insists that talk of a meltdown is "alarmist". "We've absorbed 30 per cent more work in a year," he says.
Yet the legal aid cuts are a double whammy. "All the parties in a case have to use different firms, but after October, there will only be one family law firm doing legal aid in the whole of Devon,' says Hopkin. 'It's a complete disaster'.
In April, the county's child protection department was criticised by a judge as "more like Stalin's Russia ... than the West of England".
Sir Nicholas's leaked letter says that across the country, many of the new solicitors given legal aid contracts have no experience in family law, and may "not know fully what they are doing". And these cuts are quite separate from new, further, reductions to legal aid being planned by the Coalition government.
It is fair to say that almost everyone involved with the children's courts – the professionals, the parents and the children themselves – has never been unhappier. The real problem is not, perhaps, that social workers are evil, or that all parents are liars. The problem is that in cases needing very fine judgments, a dysfunctional system is making it harder to get those judgments right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7931918/Family-court-system-could-implode-warns-its-top-judge.html
Are we over medicating our kids?
Are we over medicating our kids?
Doctor Toni Brayer
It is summer camp season for kids and well run camps require a medical history and record of prescription medications that the child is taking. One prestigious camp for teens in Southern California had 153 residential teenagers last week. The ages are 11 to 19 with the average camper age 16. These kids come from California and other states across the U.S. Fifty percent come from out of state and a number of campers each week are international. OK, so far so good. Healthy teens getting together for a week of learning and fun. Here is the shocker!
I was amazed to learn that almost 25% of these kids are on prescription medication. Can it be that we are over medicating teens?
I am not counting birth control pills in this count. (All sexually active teens should be on the pill or another reliable form of birth control). I'm also leaving out medication for asthma, allergies, or acne. The medications that 23% of the teens took were:
* Adderal * Acyclovir * Ambien * Fluoxetine * Lamictal * Lexapro * Naprosyn * Prozac * Strattera * Vyvanse * Zoloft
I don't know the medical history of these kids but at first glance that seems excessive. I know that certain disorders are serious and can respond to medication. For serious psychiatric conditions medication can even be life-saving. But those conditions are not the norm. Many of the drugs listed above are used for ADHD or anxiety disorders. The sheer number of meds in those categories is alarming. Parents and physicians need to question if we are trying to make our children fit a certain mold. Are we less accepting of diverse personalities and behavior?
I fear the pendulum for using pharmaceutical medications to treat teen angst or teen hyperactivity may have swung way too far.
Being a teenager is one big mood disorder. It doesn't need to be medicated away.
Follow Dr. Brayer's blog at EverythingHealth
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/tbrayer/detail??blogid=203&entry_id=69660#ixzz0w6r1SjEN
Doctor Toni Brayer
It is summer camp season for kids and well run camps require a medical history and record of prescription medications that the child is taking. One prestigious camp for teens in Southern California had 153 residential teenagers last week. The ages are 11 to 19 with the average camper age 16. These kids come from California and other states across the U.S. Fifty percent come from out of state and a number of campers each week are international. OK, so far so good. Healthy teens getting together for a week of learning and fun. Here is the shocker!
I was amazed to learn that almost 25% of these kids are on prescription medication. Can it be that we are over medicating teens?
I am not counting birth control pills in this count. (All sexually active teens should be on the pill or another reliable form of birth control). I'm also leaving out medication for asthma, allergies, or acne. The medications that 23% of the teens took were:
* Adderal * Acyclovir * Ambien * Fluoxetine * Lamictal * Lexapro * Naprosyn * Prozac * Strattera * Vyvanse * Zoloft
I don't know the medical history of these kids but at first glance that seems excessive. I know that certain disorders are serious and can respond to medication. For serious psychiatric conditions medication can even be life-saving. But those conditions are not the norm. Many of the drugs listed above are used for ADHD or anxiety disorders. The sheer number of meds in those categories is alarming. Parents and physicians need to question if we are trying to make our children fit a certain mold. Are we less accepting of diverse personalities and behavior?
I fear the pendulum for using pharmaceutical medications to treat teen angst or teen hyperactivity may have swung way too far.
Being a teenager is one big mood disorder. It doesn't need to be medicated away.
Follow Dr. Brayer's blog at EverythingHealth
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/tbrayer/detail??blogid=203&entry_id=69660#ixzz0w6r1SjEN
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)