"Hitler Kids'" Aunt Speaks Out About Judge's Ruling EXCLUSIVE: Aunt says family haven't been able to get their side of the story heard

"Hitler Kids'" Aunt Speaks Out About Judge's Ruling
EXCLUSIVE: Aunt says family haven't been able to get their side of the story heard
By VINCE LATTANZIO
Updated 1:03 AM EDT, Wed, Aug 11, 2010

Less than a week after a court ruled the infamous "Hitler Children" wouldn't be returning to the care of the parents who chose their Nazi-inspired names, the kids' aunt is speaking out.
In an exclusive interview with NBC Philadelphia's Doug Shimell, Jeannie Coverdale says Deborah and Heath Campbell would never abuse their children.
"I really thought the children would be returned by now because they never had abused the children," she said Tuesday. "They were good parents."
Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell were removed from their parents' care in January 2009 after a feud over a birthday cake put their family in the national spotlight.


The Campbells demanded an apology from a New Jersey supermarket after it refused to write their son Adolf's name on a cake for his 3rd birthday. Almost a month later, officials from the State of New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services put the children in protective custody.
Almost two years later, an appellate judge has ruled there is sufficient evidence of abuse and neglect to keep the children away from their parents for the foreseeable future.
"[Heath and Debbie] have been trying to get their side out and they couldn't, they're not allowed to," Coverdale said.
While the children's names are disturbing to many -- they were not the reason the judge ruled against returning the kids to their Holland Township, N.J. home. A letter allegedly written by Deborah to a neighbor saying Heath threatened to kill her and the children several times before and that he teaches Adolf to kill. One which she later denied writing.
The judge also cited the couple's lack of employment and unspecified physical and psychological disabilities. But Coverdale isn't buying those reasons, she says it's all because of the names.
"I don't understand how you could say because somebody's on disability they're unfit parents," she said. "I believe it's because of their names because if you look back at the time they took them it was when it came out in the paper."
Coverdale said the family is being punished because Heath Campbell's poor communication with the Division of Youth and Family Services.
"He's supposed to like Children and Youth? They stole his children for no reason," she said. "He doesn't have any mental condition. He's frustrated with the fact that he's being cheated and judged."
Coverdale vows that the Campbells are good people who love their children and just want them home. "If you were to spend a month with the Campbells…Heath and Debbie are fine."
The family plans to return to family court and fight for the kids. Coverdale believes the judge will overturn the ruling because she says evidence was overlooked by the appellate judge.
"They have letters from their doctors…everything is a lie," she said. "It is a political thing now about the children."

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Exclusive-Hitler-Kids-Aunt-Speaks-Out-About-Judges-Ruling-100409189.html?code=2.gAQBfcqkPSvUuIkBAoIqTw__.3600.1281571200-100000097452305|7m_36JeToFcIklgzuwQ8wsfLRG4.

Children Are the World's Greatest Resource, Not the End of Its Productivity

Children Are the World's Greatest Resource, Not the End of Its Productivity
by Colin Mason
August 10, 2010

LifeNews.com Note: Colin Mason is the director of media production for the Population Research Institute, an organization that tracks population issues and monitors abortion and demographics on an international scale.



Cyril Connolly once said that “there is no more somber enemy of good art than the pram in the hallway.” Connelly is here suggesting that the distractions implicit in rearing a child will undercut an artist's attempt to create, so children are to be avoided insofar as possible.

I have long believed that Connelly is wrong in opposing children to art. So I was pleasantly surprised, recently, to see my view validated by Frank Cottrell Boyce, a successful British screenwriter, novelist and actor. Boyce's article, entitled “The Parent Trap: Art After Children” and appearing in Britain's Guardian, makes the case that children, far from inhibiting or destroying an artist's creativity, are actually a creative boon. He has this to say about fatherhood and art:

What is "me", if not the sum of all my relationships and obligations? A customer, that's what. The more you give, the more you are. Think of Chekhov, with his patients and his crowds of dependent relatives, whose living room became such a public space that he had to put up no smoking signs. His advice to young writers was "travel third class". Ralph Waldo Emerson's was to "buy carrots and turnips" …

There's a belief that to do great work you need tranquility and control, that the pram is cluttering up the hallway; life needs to be neat and tidy. This isn't the case. Tranquility and control provide the best conditions for completing the work you imagined. But surely the real trick is to produce the work that you never imagined. The great creative moments in our history are almost all stories of distraction and daydreaming — Archimedes in the bath, Einstein dreaming of riding a sunbeam — of alert minds open to the grace of chaos.
I totally agree with this wonderfully articulated sentiment. Children are distractions from creative work, as Boyce recognizes, but they are emphatically the right type of distractions. Children see things that we cannot see, they remind us of truths and insights that we long ago forgot. And they remind us that the greatest insights in the world were discovered not while ponderously meditating, but while delighting in the simple pleasures and pains of life.

In fact, I would go even farther than Boyce. Being a father of two young boys myself, I believe that children actually increase one's productivity in all sense of the word. I have a powerful memory of the moment my older son was born. He came into this world, tiny and rosy-pink, by caesarian section. As I held him, swaddled tightly to about the size of a nerf football, I remember staring into his screwed-shut eyes and thinking: “It's official. It's time for me to grow up.”

I was seized by a heady combination of feelings. There was an overwhelming sense of wonder conjoined with a steely determination to care for this little bundle of life as best as I could. I knew that if I failed to man up, there would be no one to blame but myself. And I also knew that, if I didn't start accomplishing my life goals now, I never would.

I am certain that every new father worth his salt has had a similar experience.

Children are a great blessing to grown-ups not simply because of the joy, the wonder, and the incredible privilege of caring for a young soul that they provide. Children are also a blessing because they are a kind of living alarm clock, telling us that it is time to wake up and seize the day. The chain of generations has added another link, the cycle of life has come round again, and it is time to get busy. They remind us, just by being there, that time is irrevocably passing by—time that we can never get back again.

By reminding us that we are mortal, children concentrate the mind, and galvanize us to accomplish the tasks that are set before us. Because if we don't have all the time in the world, how are we going to spend the time we do have?

This is why children are not merely a boon to creativity, they are, in many ways, a boon to life itself. The dystopia portrayed in the film Children of Men is correct in this, that a world without children is a world without a reason to live. Children are not just the next generation, they are, in many ways, the life-blood of this generation. The fact that a child is born and grows so quickly in maturity and needs, demands a refocusing of ourselves and our energies. It demands that we make decisions about what is really important to us. The responsibility of raising children translates easily into more discipline, more focus, and more of a determination to succeed in what we do.

In other words, children don't just help us be creative or productive. In many cases, they are the very reason we succeed at all.

http://www.lifenews.com/int1621.html

Addressing Psychological Health Needs Within the Foster Care System

Addressing Psychological Health Needs Within the Foster Care System
August 10th, 2010 |

A GoodTherapy.org News Summary

Children in the foster care system are at risk for a number of both short- and long-term mental health issues. This is even more the case for kids who were maltreated before entering foster care. Among these kids, depression is particularly prominent, and untreated through therapy and other intervention, it can lead to a risk of suicidal behavior. Post traumatic stress disorder is also quite common. Other mental health risks for children in foster care include dissociation, ADHD, conduct disorders, and social problems. Medicaid claims indicate that up to 57 percent of children in the foster care system exhibit signs of the mental health needs mentioned here, but the majority of these children do not have access to, or do not receive, the therapy and treatment they need.

A new study, funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health and administered by the University of Colorado, aims to address these mental health needs. A preventive intervention program, called Fostering Healthy Futures (FHF), was developed to provide both group skills training and one-on-one mentoring to a group of almost 80 children in Denver area foster care who had been previously maltreated. The skills training used group activities to address problem solving, anger management, emotion recognition, peer pressure, healthy relationships, and abuse prevention. In the one-on-one mentoring sessions, kids had a chance to practice their skills with their mentors, who were social work graduate students.

The results are promising. The seven-year study assessed kids’ mental health states before, immediately after, and six months after completing the intervention program. In the majority of cases, children who had participated had significantly lower rate of mental health problems, especially dissociation and post traumatic stress disorder, than those who did not participate. These kids also reported feeling a higher quality of life immediately following the intervention. Mental health needs unaddressed by therapy or intervention in youth can translate to both mental and physical health burdens in adulthood. Additional programs and funding such as this may have promise for the overall well being of children who have been maltreated and are adjusting to foster care.

© Copyright 2010 by http://www.GoodTherapy.org Therapist Roswell Bureau - All Rights Reserved.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychological-foster-children/

Foster care finance reform: NAPCWA offers a plan that fears the future

TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010
Foster care finance reform: NAPCWA offers a plan that fears the future

While we don't know if Bryan Samuels, the Commissioner of the Administration for Children Youth and Families really will turn out to be a champion of genuine child welfare finance reform, we know who is chickening out, big-time: the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, the trade association for the people who run state and local government child protective services agencies.

NAPCWA has made public its plan for child welfare finance "reform." And while the reasons may be different, my guess is a lot of people in Congress are going to react to the plan the same way I did: They can't be serious. Indeed, they may not be serious. The plan is so unrealistic and so likely to be Dead on Arrival on Capitol Hill that I have to wonder if a lot of people in NAPCWA simply want to show they tried before pushing for straight "delinking" – something I'll explain below - and nothing more.

The only good news in the document is that NAPCWA calls for restoring the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue waivers like the one that has done so much to improve child welfare in Florida. Other than that, the plan is worthless.

But it's not the fact that this plan is bad policy, with the potential to actually make incentives worse, that is likely to kill it. It's the fact that it is not cost-neutral; not even close. And if I can figure that out, so can the Congressional Budget Office.

In reading this plan, I was struck by how distant it is from a vision President Obama articulated when he signed the health care law. At that time, he said: "We do not fear the future, we shape the future."
In contrast, the plan for child welfare finance reform released by NAPCWA is a plan that suggests NAPCWA is so fearful of the future that it won't even try to shape it. In the process it puts at risk the futures of thousands of vulnerable children.

STILL ADDICTED TO FOSTER CARE
As with so much in child welfare practice, this plan belies the rhetoric about keeping families together being the first goal of the system. What the plan really says is: We will continue to do business as usual, and, if we get lucky and save a little by reducing foster care, we'll put some of that spare change into keeping families together. And because we so fear the future, because we don't really believe our own rhetoric about the success and the value of prevention, we insist on maintaining our addiction to the open-ended entitlement of foster care.
Not only would this plan do little or nothing to change the incentives that promote foster care, if this change is accompanied by "delinking," it actually could make things worse.

And what is this grand plan? Essentially it all boils down to this:

Keep the open-ended entitlement under which states are reimbursed for a large share of the cost of holding children in foster care – with no comparable entitlement for better alternatives.
If a state nevertheless manages to reduce foster care, let the state, in effect, pretend it's still taking away just as many children as ever and use the savings for alternatives, including prevention, family preservation and adoption. It's even possible, though not clear from the plan, that some of the savings could be plowed right back into foster care.
But if foster care goes up, states would continue to receive reimbursement for every child taken away. And it would be every child, not just every "eligible child" because the other key component of the plan is --

"delinking," the Holy Grail of the foster care-industrial complex. Under delinking the proportion of children whose cases are eligible for federal aid would roughly double, and the gradual erosion of the proportion of cases eligible for aid – the one tiny financial incentive that runs against shoveling ever more children into foster care – would end. (This is not what makes the plan so costly – NAPCWA admits that to get delinking it would have to cut the amount reimbursed per child. It's the part about keeping the entitlement that risks big cost increases, as is discussed below).

ALL CARROT, NO STICK

In every possible way, the incentives in child welfare favor foster care: The personal incentives for everyone from the frontline caseworker to the child welfare agency chief, favor it, the political incentives favor it and the financial incentives favor it. Even if one argues that this plan neutralizes the financial incentives – and I don't think it does - it doesn't change the other incentives. So there will be no serious push to reduce foster care. More important, when the going gets tough – when the local newspaper suddenly discovers that a state or county has a child welfare agency and sometimes children known to that agency die - there is no incentive to resist foster-care panic – because, under this plan, the state or county still gets a huge share of foster care costs reimbursed.

Los Angeles County is a good example. As has been noted often on this Blog, the Los Angeles Times has been running lots of stories about deaths of children known-to-the-system and, initially, scapegoating efforts to keep families together. (There's been a change in direction on the spin lately, but it's too little, too late.) The Los Angeles County child welfare agency director claimed there was no foster-care panic. But when she reneged on a promise to provide the actual numbers, NCCPR filed a California Public Records Act to get them.

The data show there is a foster-care panic in Los Angeles County. However, the panic is not nearly as bad as other places have endured under nearly-identical circumstances. That almost certainly is because Los Angeles County accepted a Florida-style waiver limiting its foster care funding from the federal government. So, to the extent that there is a foster-care panic in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County actually has to pay for it.

In contrast, under the NAPCWA plan, Los Angeles wouldn't have to pay more than under the status quo for the rest of the nation and, for reasons I'll get to below, might actually pay a little less.

A ceiling on foster care expenditures is essential to stiffen the spines of many child welfare leaders and most elected officials, in the face of newspaper crusades and other pressure to "take the child and run."

DELINKING MAY MAKE THINGS WORSE
Even more frightening is the possibility that, were this plan enacted in it's entirely, the incentives in a time of foster-care panic could get worse.

Again, consider the Los Angeles example:

●Because of the waiver, Los Angeles County has to pay the full cost of its current foster-care panic.
●If Los Angeles County were like most of America today, in contrast, it would be reimbursed for a sizable share of the cost of additional placements caused by foster care panic (or any other cause) – but only for "eligible" children.
●Under the NAPCWA plan, Los Angeles actually would be reimbursed for part of the cost of every child wrongfully placed in foster care because of a foster-care panic. (Although the proportion of federal aid per case would be lower, the fine print about something called "claiming rates" appears to mean that, in fact, Los Angeles, and everyplace else, actually would get more. And, of course the gradual reduction in the proportion of cases eligible for reimbursement would end).
Thus, the NAPCWA plan actually encourages foster-care panic even more than the status quo.

THE PLAN IS NOT COST NEUTRAL – AND CONGRESS WILL NOTICE

Although NAPCWA says this plan is cost neutral, it isn't. As noted above, I am not referring to delinking – I understand that the idea is to make delinking itself close to cost-neutral, by lowering the reimbursement per case. The increased costs come about in a different way:

●Under the status quo, the federal government pays more when foster care entries go up, but saves money when they come down.
●Under waivers like Florida's the federal government doesn't pay less when foster care entries go down, but it doesn't pay more either, aside from a small annual increase negotiated with the state to account for inflation. And, of course, it doesn't pay more when entries rise.

The federal government, and all taxpayers, also reap huge savings in other areas, like running criminal justice systems (especially jails), paying unemployment compensation and public assistance, and maintaining adult psychiatric centers, since reducing needless foster care also reduces the terrible outcomes that plague so many former foster children.
● But under the NAPCWA plan, the federal government would continue to pay more when entries increase but achieve no direct savings when numbers go down.

Consider two hypothetical states. Each state had 100,000 "foster care days" for eligible children last year (number of children in foster care at any point in the year multiplied by the number of days they were there), for a total of 200,000 days in all. Let's also assume that, in each of these hypothetical states, the federal government pays an average of $100 per foster care day. Total cost to the federal government: $10 million per state, $20 million in all.

Now, let's suppose in the following year, one state cuts 10,000 foster care days while the other adds 10,000 foster care days. The total cost remains the same, because what the federal government loses in one state it saves in the other.

But under the NAPCWA plan, the federal government has to pay for those 10,000 extra days in one state, but saves nothing from the reduction in the other state. It winds up paying for the equivalent of 210,000 days – an increase in cost to the federal government of $1million.

Why would a federal government that is drowning in debt do something like that?

NAPCWA's document is more of a wish than a plan. It suggests an organization that views prevention as a luxury that would be nice to have, rather than an organization that is "fired up, ready to go" and reform child welfare.

Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 8:27 AM

http://nccpr.blogspot.com/

5,000 Children Separated From Parents by Recession to Reunite

5,000 Children Separated From Parents by Recession to Reunite
BY TONIC STAFFToday

HUD awards $20 million to bring hard luck families back together.
Since the economic downturn in late 2008, the headlines about foreclosures and unemployment have become familiar and all too commonplace. What is less known is that the economy has fractured many families, separating parents and children. Now, a $20 million HUD grant hopes to reunite more than 5,000 homeless youngsters with their parents and provide affordable housing to another 750 young people leaving foster care.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) award supports partnerships between public housing authorities and local child welfare agencies across the country. The program is known as Family Unification Program and provides local child welfare organizations with resources to prevent family homelessness or reunite families who have been unable to regain custody of their children primarily due to housing issues.
Some youngsters have been channeled into foster care, a far more costly and traumatic alternative. One Connecticut mother, Teresa Russell, is pleased by the prospect that there is such a program of support to offer her family relief. "Having a voucher would make me more independent and able to keep my family together under one roof. Without a voucher I would not afford my rent," she said. "I would be homeless and not able to keep my children together."
"Finding and keeping affordable housing is a challenge for many parents and this lack of stability can result in breaking up families and placing children in foster care," said Senator Patty Murray. "These vouches will help families in Washington state and across the country live under the same roof while they work to get back on their feet. And they are a strong step forward in our national goal to end homelessness."

http://www.fastcompany.com/1680076/5000-children-separated-from-parents-by-recession-to-reunite

San Diego County Grand Jury Cites Further CPS Misconduct

San Diego County Grand Jury Cites Further CPS Misconduct

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33306169/San-Diego-County-Grand-Jury-Cites-Further-CPS-Misconduct

Family Judge's Rant at Pro Se Litigant Draws Ethics Charges

Family Judge's Rant at Pro Se Litigant Draws Ethics Charges
Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law JournalAugust 10, 2010

Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Max Baker has been hit with ethics charges for allegedly launching into a tirade against an unrepresented family court litigant who complained about a child-visitation schedule he ordered.

The heated invective called into question Baker's ability to remain impartial, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct counsel Candace Moody alleged in a complaint made public Friday.

The outburst allegedly took place during a hearing last Dec. 31 on cross-complaints for restraining orders brought by Michael and Dana Pilla, both of whom were pro se. After granting Dana's request for an adjournment to obtain counsel, Baker inquired about the couple's minor child and visitation.

On learning that Michael had not seen the child for more than a week, Baker imposed a temporary visitation schedule. When Dana expressed concern about the arrangements, Baker "became irate ... screamed at her, and, among other things, accused her of being a bad parent, and threatened her with incarceration if she disobeyed his Order regarding visitation," the ACJC complaint says.

Baker then made a series of additional remarks "again in an extremely harsh and loud tone, that created an appearance of or reasonable belief that he was not objective and impartial," the complaint continues.

Moody called the remarks "disrespectful and insulting" and in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3A(3), which requires that judges be "patient, dignified, and courteous to all those with whom they deal in an official capacity."

Baker also violated Canons 1 and 2A of the code in that he did not maintain high standards of conduct and did not act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, Moody said.

Baker has been sitting in the Criminal Part since July 1, though Winnie Comfort, the judiciary's spokeswoman, says there is no information to suggest that the transfer was related to job performance.

But Baker has a reputation for poor demeanor, according to the New Jersey Law Journal's most recent Superior Court Judicial Survey, published last year.

In the category of courtesy and respect to litigants and lawyers, lawyers graded Baker 4.76 on a 1-to-10 scale -- the lowest score in the Atlantic-Cape May vicinage and 349th out of 350 judges statewide. His overall score of 6.63 was also dead last in the vicinage.

Baker, 64, was appointed to the bench by Gov. Christine Todd Whitman in 1998 and was granted tenure in 2005. He did not return a message left at his chambers on Friday.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464404207&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=nw20100810&kw=