More grandparents fighting to stay in grandchildren's lives
Amy Crawford can be reached via e-mail or at 724-850-2856.
By Amy Crawford
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, September 5, 2010
When Carolyn and Dennis Konopka made the three-hour drive to McKean County early last month, they were looking forward to a visit with their granddaughter. They hoped it would not be the last.
The Konopkas, of North Huntingdon, had spent much of the previous year in court, fighting first for visitation — then custody — of Michell Hardy, 23 months.
Michell's mother, Megan Konopka, 21, was murdered in a Bradford hotel in September 2009. Michell had been placed in foster care without the Konopkas' knowledge before her mother's death, and the foster family was trying to adopt her — a move that would terminate their legal relationship with their granddaughter.
"After fighting all this time and maybe losing her, we would almost say, 'Go ahead, raise her, but we want to see her,' " Carolyn said before the Aug. 13 court date that would decide their fate.
While their daughter's murder made their case unusual, the Konopkas are not the only grandparents who have gone to court to protect relationships with their grandchildren.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_698096.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
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Baby LK Report For September 5th 2010 - Bigger, Longer and Deeper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq_uyDsWT_g
Stephen says politics had no role in HHS
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/215187/stephen-says-politics-had-no-role-in-hhs
Please scroll down to the section;Cost Cutting Campaign-4th paragraph which states John Stephen cut the substance abuse budget while he was DHHS Commissioner, yet DCYF who worked under him, were responsible for the court order of medical methadone
detox in Dec. of 2005, for my daughter, in order to regain custody of her
daughter. Because of John Stephens budget cut's, there was NO Medical
Methadone detox programs in the State of NH, which DCYF should have
known, before the recommendation was made. My daughter was court-ordered
into a program that didn't exist, in an effort to make sure her newborn daughter
was NEVER returned. And she Never was returned.
Stephen says politics had no role in HHS
Ex-commissioner's style questioned
By Daniel Barrick / Monitor staff
September 5, 2010 UPDATED 19 SECONDS AGO
When John Stephen assumed the top job at the state Department of Health and Human Services, one year after a failed run for Congress, he assured his employees he was leaving politics behind. His new job was about following the letter of the law, Stephen said, not partisanship.
"I wanted them to know I didn't wear an R, a D or an I," Stephen said, referring to Republican, Democrat and independent labels.
But in his four years on the job, Stephen regularly clashed with lawmakers and the Democratic governor he's now seeking to replace. Stephen's critics saw his political ambition driving his decisions as commissioner and questioned whether he had his eye on a future run for elected office. Stephen, however, says his only fights were on behalf of taxpayers.
As he runs for governor this year, Stephen, a Republican, puts his term as health commissioner at the center of his campaign. He says the record shows he saved the state money and was innovative. Many Republicans recall his tenure fondly. Some observers, however, remember the period mostly for the unusual rancor between Stephen and key lawmakers and the state's health community - and an atmosphere that often made it difficult for him to advance his policy agenda.
"When John Stephen managed his department within budget, he was following the Legislature's policies, but he was always perceived as somewhat uncaring," said state Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican. "And that just isn't true. But that was the perception, because he accepted the financial constraints and didn't wear his heart on his sleeve."
Cost-cutting campaign
Stephen wasn't the first choice to take over the Department of Health and Human Services when he was appointed in 2003 by then-Gov. Craig Benson. Nick Vailas, whom Benson had originally appointed, resigned because of perceived ethics conflicts.
Stephen struck many as an odd fit for the job, considering his lack of experience in the health care field. He had worked as a prosecutor at the attorney general's office and as the deputy commissioner at the state Department of Safety. But Benson described Stephen's lack of expertise as a plus.
"Sometimes it's better to come from the outside and not be so tuned in to the industry," Benson said at the time.
It was a steep learning curve for the new commissioner. Within weeks of taking the job, Stephen was told to draw up a plan to cut $20 million from his budget.
"Stephen did so, in part by trimming payments to hospitals, mental health centers, and alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs." The task was an early example of Stephen's term as commissioner. While some lawmakers praised Stephen's approach, others said he seemed uninterested in the effects the cuts to services would have on the people who used them.
Please scroll down to the section;Cost Cutting Campaign-4th paragraph which states John Stephen cut the substance abuse budget while he was DHHS Commissioner, yet DCYF who worked under him, were responsible for the court order of medical methadone
detox in Dec. of 2005, for my daughter, in order to regain custody of her
daughter. Because of John Stephens budget cut's, there was NO Medical
Methadone detox programs in the State of NH, which DCYF should have
known, before the recommendation was made. My daughter was court-ordered
into a program that didn't exist, in an effort to make sure her newborn daughter
was NEVER returned. And she Never was returned.
Stephen says politics had no role in HHS
Ex-commissioner's style questioned
By Daniel Barrick / Monitor staff
September 5, 2010 UPDATED 19 SECONDS AGO
When John Stephen assumed the top job at the state Department of Health and Human Services, one year after a failed run for Congress, he assured his employees he was leaving politics behind. His new job was about following the letter of the law, Stephen said, not partisanship.
"I wanted them to know I didn't wear an R, a D or an I," Stephen said, referring to Republican, Democrat and independent labels.
But in his four years on the job, Stephen regularly clashed with lawmakers and the Democratic governor he's now seeking to replace. Stephen's critics saw his political ambition driving his decisions as commissioner and questioned whether he had his eye on a future run for elected office. Stephen, however, says his only fights were on behalf of taxpayers.
As he runs for governor this year, Stephen, a Republican, puts his term as health commissioner at the center of his campaign. He says the record shows he saved the state money and was innovative. Many Republicans recall his tenure fondly. Some observers, however, remember the period mostly for the unusual rancor between Stephen and key lawmakers and the state's health community - and an atmosphere that often made it difficult for him to advance his policy agenda.
"When John Stephen managed his department within budget, he was following the Legislature's policies, but he was always perceived as somewhat uncaring," said state Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican. "And that just isn't true. But that was the perception, because he accepted the financial constraints and didn't wear his heart on his sleeve."
Cost-cutting campaign
Stephen wasn't the first choice to take over the Department of Health and Human Services when he was appointed in 2003 by then-Gov. Craig Benson. Nick Vailas, whom Benson had originally appointed, resigned because of perceived ethics conflicts.
Stephen struck many as an odd fit for the job, considering his lack of experience in the health care field. He had worked as a prosecutor at the attorney general's office and as the deputy commissioner at the state Department of Safety. But Benson described Stephen's lack of expertise as a plus.
"Sometimes it's better to come from the outside and not be so tuned in to the industry," Benson said at the time.
It was a steep learning curve for the new commissioner. Within weeks of taking the job, Stephen was told to draw up a plan to cut $20 million from his budget.
"Stephen did so, in part by trimming payments to hospitals, mental health centers, and alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs." The task was an early example of Stephen's term as commissioner. While some lawmakers praised Stephen's approach, others said he seemed uninterested in the effects the cuts to services would have on the people who used them.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Only 34% would report child abuse
Only 34% would report child abuse
September 5, 2010 - 1:49AM
A survey has found that only 34 per cent of respondents would contact child protection authorities or the police if they knew a child was being harmed.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/only-34-would-report-child-abuse-20100905-14vj1.html
September 5, 2010 - 1:49AM
A survey has found that only 34 per cent of respondents would contact child protection authorities or the police if they knew a child was being harmed.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/only-34-would-report-child-abuse-20100905-14vj1.html
Friday, September 3, 2010
Here are $88 million more reasons to hide what is going on in California's child welfare system:
Here are $88 million more reasons to hide what is going on in California's child welfare system:
California Title IVE Audit 2009
California Title IVE Audit 2009
Special recognition to the investigative monitoring of Legally Kidnapped and their affiliates at Drugging Children. Without their dedication and databases, transparency of this magnitude would not happen.
Posted by beverly tran
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2010/09/fraud-lies-legislative-cover-ups-in.html
California Title IVE Audit 2009
California Title IVE Audit 2009
Special recognition to the investigative monitoring of Legally Kidnapped and their affiliates at Drugging Children. Without their dedication and databases, transparency of this magnitude would not happen.
Posted by beverly tran
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2010/09/fraud-lies-legislative-cover-ups-in.html
L.A. County Children And Family Services Might Have Had Incentive To Withold Information About Child Abuse Deaths
L.A. County Children And Family Services Might Have Had Incentive To Withold Information About Child Abuse Deaths
An examination of how Los Angeles County officials have restricted information about the controversial, abuse-related deaths of children under the jurisdiction of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) found on Monday that in many cases "there may be either conscious or unconscious incentives for child protective service officials to adopt a narrow" view of what documents need to be released under state law.
The county Office of Independent Review examination also found that, in the last year or so, law enforcement almost uniformly objected to the release of such information, making it difficult for county supervisors and media outlets alike not only to get to the bottom of the juvenile deaths, but in some cases to even be aware that abuse might have been a factor in their demise.
Release of public files in the deaths "have largely been forestalled by the 2009 and 2010 blanket objections lodged by law enforcement," according to the review.
California SB39 Implementation Status on Releasing Information on Child Deaths
California SB39 Implementation Status on Releasing Information on Child Deaths
Los Angeles County didn't report child deaths
Officials failed to publicly disclose fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect, an audit finds.
Los Angeles County officials have failed to follow state law that requires them to publicly disclose child fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect, according to an independent audit released Monday.
The violations involve "potentially dozens" of child fatalities, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said.
"The board has been misled, but more importantly the public has been misled and that is really inexcusable," Yaroslavsky said. "There is only one possible motivation here, other than the right hand not doing what the left hand is doing, and that is an intent to withhold information from the public."
Audit: Los Angeles Co. underreports child deaths
County withheld files on foster-child deaths
Gennaco described many of the documents in question as benign - they contained information that would not have jeopardized any legal proceedings.
Tuesday's public discussion of the investigation was in many ways reflective of the reluctance by some officials to talk publicly about the deaths of children in foster care. The county's attorney, Andrea Sheridan Ordin, interrupted at times, urging board members to discuss specifics of cases in closed session.
L.A. County orders disclosure of all child deaths from abuse or neglect
Los Angeles County supervisors ordered child welfare officials to disclose deaths resulting from abuse or neglect, amid questions Tuesday about why dozens of such fatalities apparently were not made public.
Supervisors told county staff to come up with a plan to implement a series of recommendations proposed by Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the county's Office of Independent Review. Gennaco, who was asked by the board to conduct an independent audit, reported that the inquiry uncovered at least 22 cases in the last 2 1/2 years in which the county had not disclosed the deaths of children under the scrutiny of the child welfare system.
Department of Children and Family Services Director Trish Ploehn told supervisors "there is no excuse" for how the department had handled the disclosures.
Gennaco said the failure to publicly disclose those deaths violated state law. Among his recommendations:
The release of all records inappropriately concealed.
An end to the department's practice of asking law enforcement agencies to issue any objections to the disclosure of records without first giving investigators an opportunity to review them.
An independent auditor to regularly evaluate the department's decisions about which fatalities to disclose to the public.
Murdered kids' info should be sealed, votes Assembly/Senate
Sparked by a recent leak to the Los Angeles Times from the LA County Department of Children and Family Services, legislation landed on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk yesterday that will, if signed, result in the permanent sealing of autopsy reports of murdered children. The bill, written by Senate minority leader Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula, (at right), passed a 60-1 vote in the Assembly and a 33-1 vote in the Senate Monday.
The legislation, SB5, allows family members to request that autopsies and other evidence be kept private if a child was killed during a crime. The request can be made only after a conviction.
The California Newspaper Association, which says the reports are important public documents, was the only opposition to the bill.
Reporting duties: Child protective agency must begin accurately reporting child deaths
THE county's reporting of child abuse deaths raises a serious question: Namely, who is the Department of Children and Family Services protecting? The children, or itself?
The background is that the rules for reporting the death of children from abuse or neglect changed under Senate Bill 39. Starting in 2008, protective service agencies were required by state law to make public information about child abuse or neglect death. The idea was that more transparency might increase the efforts that protective services agencies made to ensure children did not die in protective custody.
While he stopped short of saying it was a cover-up, Michael Gennaco, who heads the OIR, wrote in the report: "There has been some voiced concern about whether DCFS has interpreted child fatalities too narrowly in determining what qualify for purposes of SB 39." Later, he notes that "it stands to reason that the information provided by the disclosure of provisions of SB39 might ultimately cause criticism of the child protective services to occur. Accordingly, there may be either conscious or unconscious incentives for child protective service officials to adopt a narrow rather than broad view of whether, in a particular case, the SB 39 connectivity requirements for disclosure exist." He also noted that it's a lot of work for the agency to meet the reporting requirements for cases subjected to SB 39.
What's even more disturbing is that this mislabeling may have put more kids in danger if the failure to make that report meant other kids were left in homes where siblings died of abuse or neglect.
This is totally unacceptable. The reporting rules were adopted precisely to shine a light on the needless death of each and every child in the hopes of preventing future deaths. DCFS, either through intent or criminal ignorance, subverted that rule. And it makes one wonder if the organization thought there was something to hide.
An examination of how Los Angeles County officials have restricted information about the controversial, abuse-related deaths of children under the jurisdiction of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) found on Monday that in many cases "there may be either conscious or unconscious incentives for child protective service officials to adopt a narrow" view of what documents need to be released under state law.
The county Office of Independent Review examination also found that, in the last year or so, law enforcement almost uniformly objected to the release of such information, making it difficult for county supervisors and media outlets alike not only to get to the bottom of the juvenile deaths, but in some cases to even be aware that abuse might have been a factor in their demise.
Release of public files in the deaths "have largely been forestalled by the 2009 and 2010 blanket objections lodged by law enforcement," according to the review.
California SB39 Implementation Status on Releasing Information on Child Deaths
California SB39 Implementation Status on Releasing Information on Child Deaths
Los Angeles County didn't report child deaths
Officials failed to publicly disclose fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect, an audit finds.
Los Angeles County officials have failed to follow state law that requires them to publicly disclose child fatalities resulting from abuse or neglect, according to an independent audit released Monday.
The violations involve "potentially dozens" of child fatalities, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said.
"The board has been misled, but more importantly the public has been misled and that is really inexcusable," Yaroslavsky said. "There is only one possible motivation here, other than the right hand not doing what the left hand is doing, and that is an intent to withhold information from the public."
Audit: Los Angeles Co. underreports child deaths
County withheld files on foster-child deaths
Gennaco described many of the documents in question as benign - they contained information that would not have jeopardized any legal proceedings.
Tuesday's public discussion of the investigation was in many ways reflective of the reluctance by some officials to talk publicly about the deaths of children in foster care. The county's attorney, Andrea Sheridan Ordin, interrupted at times, urging board members to discuss specifics of cases in closed session.
L.A. County orders disclosure of all child deaths from abuse or neglect
Los Angeles County supervisors ordered child welfare officials to disclose deaths resulting from abuse or neglect, amid questions Tuesday about why dozens of such fatalities apparently were not made public.
Supervisors told county staff to come up with a plan to implement a series of recommendations proposed by Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the county's Office of Independent Review. Gennaco, who was asked by the board to conduct an independent audit, reported that the inquiry uncovered at least 22 cases in the last 2 1/2 years in which the county had not disclosed the deaths of children under the scrutiny of the child welfare system.
Department of Children and Family Services Director Trish Ploehn told supervisors "there is no excuse" for how the department had handled the disclosures.
Gennaco said the failure to publicly disclose those deaths violated state law. Among his recommendations:
The release of all records inappropriately concealed.
An end to the department's practice of asking law enforcement agencies to issue any objections to the disclosure of records without first giving investigators an opportunity to review them.
An independent auditor to regularly evaluate the department's decisions about which fatalities to disclose to the public.
Murdered kids' info should be sealed, votes Assembly/Senate
Sparked by a recent leak to the Los Angeles Times from the LA County Department of Children and Family Services, legislation landed on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk yesterday that will, if signed, result in the permanent sealing of autopsy reports of murdered children. The bill, written by Senate minority leader Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula, (at right), passed a 60-1 vote in the Assembly and a 33-1 vote in the Senate Monday.
The legislation, SB5, allows family members to request that autopsies and other evidence be kept private if a child was killed during a crime. The request can be made only after a conviction.
The California Newspaper Association, which says the reports are important public documents, was the only opposition to the bill.
Reporting duties: Child protective agency must begin accurately reporting child deaths
THE county's reporting of child abuse deaths raises a serious question: Namely, who is the Department of Children and Family Services protecting? The children, or itself?
The background is that the rules for reporting the death of children from abuse or neglect changed under Senate Bill 39. Starting in 2008, protective service agencies were required by state law to make public information about child abuse or neglect death. The idea was that more transparency might increase the efforts that protective services agencies made to ensure children did not die in protective custody.
While he stopped short of saying it was a cover-up, Michael Gennaco, who heads the OIR, wrote in the report: "There has been some voiced concern about whether DCFS has interpreted child fatalities too narrowly in determining what qualify for purposes of SB 39." Later, he notes that "it stands to reason that the information provided by the disclosure of provisions of SB39 might ultimately cause criticism of the child protective services to occur. Accordingly, there may be either conscious or unconscious incentives for child protective service officials to adopt a narrow rather than broad view of whether, in a particular case, the SB 39 connectivity requirements for disclosure exist." He also noted that it's a lot of work for the agency to meet the reporting requirements for cases subjected to SB 39.
What's even more disturbing is that this mislabeling may have put more kids in danger if the failure to make that report meant other kids were left in homes where siblings died of abuse or neglect.
This is totally unacceptable. The reporting rules were adopted precisely to shine a light on the needless death of each and every child in the hopes of preventing future deaths. DCFS, either through intent or criminal ignorance, subverted that rule. And it makes one wonder if the organization thought there was something to hide.
Fraud, Lies & Legislative Cover Ups In California Child Welfare
It's a compliance issue. The incentives are financial. Producing the records would uncover a pattern of pervasive false claims, jeopardizing significant levels of federal funding to the state.
Here is a federal review of Medicaid payments for services claimed for deceased beneficiaries. The probability that there were foster care billing after the deaths of these children is plausible.
Review of Medicaid Payments for Services Claimed for Deceased Beneficiaries in California
Review of Medicaid Payments for Services Claimed for Deceased Beneficiaries in California
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2010/09/fraud-lies-legislative-cover-ups-in.html
Here is a federal review of Medicaid payments for services claimed for deceased beneficiaries. The probability that there were foster care billing after the deaths of these children is plausible.
Review of Medicaid Payments for Services Claimed for Deceased Beneficiaries in California
Review of Medicaid Payments for Services Claimed for Deceased Beneficiaries in California
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2010/09/fraud-lies-legislative-cover-ups-in.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)