Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Friday, October 29, 2010
Food Additives And ADHD Drugs Are Destroying The Health of Our Children
Food Additives And ADHD Drugs Are Destroying The Health of Our Children
Dangerous food additives are creating a toxic environment for our children's health spurring allergies and ADHD. To add fuel to the fire, conventional medicine is addressing the symptoms with ineffective drugs which are essentially useless in the long-term.
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
When Robyn O'Brien served her children scrambled eggs one day for breakfast early in 2006, the mother of four had no clue it would change her life drastically and forever.
"I had made scrambled eggs and put them in front of all four kids and decided to put them in front of the baby," the 36-year-old said. "I put them on her highchair and she didn't want them, fussed and pushed them away. And I didn't think anything of it."
But 9-month-old Tory's aversion to the breakfast staple had little to do with taste, as O'Brien soon found out.
"I put her down for a nap. A few minutes later and there was some mother instinct in me because I went in to check on her for some reason, which I rarely do, and her face was swollen shut," O'Brien said.
A life-threatening reaction to eggs caused grotesque swelling of the infant's face and instantly shook O'Brien to her core. She said her daughter's severe response prompted her to take a closer look at what she was feeding all of her children and to educate herself on food allergies.
"I did not know what was happening. I was so unfamiliar with food allergy and what a reaction looked like," said O'Brien, who lives in Colorado. "That's really when my education began."
Learning About Additives
What O'Brien soon learned was that artificial dyes are used in sugary cereals, candies, sodas and other goodies marketed toward children. Sometimes artificial dyes are even used to simulate the colors of fruits and vegetables.
What further disturbed O'Brien was the fact that U.S. consumers regularly ingest the additives in their food, but they have been removed from the same foods in some other countries.
In fact, Mars Inc. responded to pressure from the British government last year by removing artificial colors from its well-known Starburst and Skittles candies sold in the United Kingdom, after a British study bolstered a hypothesis that such additives increase hyperactivity in children.
Food industry giant Kraft Foods Inc. also did the same thing in early 2007 with its British version of Lunchables.
Whereas British consumers have revolted against artificial food dyes in the U.K., Americans haven't been as vocal as their counterparts. That is something O'Brien hopes to change.
"My goal is simply to have the same value placed on the lives of the American children," O'Brien said.
Mom on a Mission
O'Brien even created a Web site, which she launched on Mother's Day 2006, to serve as a parental resource and forum on children's food allergies.
The site is specific with its concerns.
"At AllergyKids, our concern is that industry funding ties between the agri-chemical companies and pediatric allergists who have served on the FDA 'generally recognized as safe' panels and testified to the safety of MSG, aspartame, glutamate and genetically engineered proteins, may prevent full disclosure of leading global research highlighting a ban of these ingredients in Europe, Australia, the UK and other developed countries in an effort to protect children," the site says.
O'Brien even created a symbol a green stop sign with an exclamation point in the center to identify a child with food allergies. It can be put on lunch bags, wristbands and even shoes.
"My goal now is to say, 'OK, this is what's happening. Let's inspire other mothers to take control so that our children can benefit like the children around the world,'" O'Brien said.
In her own life, O'Brien has gotten strict about what she feeds her children and encourages others to do what she has done: Throw out as much non-organic processed food as they can afford to. Also, avoid anything that's genetically modified, artificially created or raised with hormones and don't eat food with ingredients you are unable to pronounce.
"I thought, 'Well, I want to cook like the moms in Europe and avoid these chemical additives and see if that makes a difference in my children's health and behavior.' And so we did," O'Brien said. "We moved from the tubes of blue yogurt to regular yogurt and we started mixing honey into it. "
Not everyone in her family was happy about the changes.
"I encountered major resistance from my boys," O'Brien said. "They loved that blue yogurt and it was easy and it was convenient, but to see the dramatic improvement in my boys especially as we cleaned out their diets it was amazing. It was incredibly inspiring. They slept better; they were able to concentrate in school. Their behavior improved."
The Allergies-Additives Connection
Two recent British studies found that certain food dyes, as well as the common preservative sodium benzoate, may have an adverse effect on some children's behavior. Researchers said the increase in ADHD diagnoses could be partly to blame on the preservative.
"It can affect their focus, their concentration. They become more easily distractible, become more impulsive. I think we're looking at a whole population of kids with skewed immune systems," said Dr. Kenneth Bock, who wrote a book that supports the theory that food additives could lead to hyperactivity in children.
A Southampton Study in the UK showed that additives cause hyperactivity in children within an hour after consumption. Food additives, especially the artificial colors are made from coal tar derivatives and synthetic chemicals. Within an hour of ingestion, hyperactive behavior is evident.
ADHD Drugs Don't Work
It was a team of American scientists researching what is called the "Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD -- MTA for short, who found that ADHD drugs are useless over long-term use. The drugs used to treat ADHD such as Ritalin and Concerta are ineffective treatment methodolgies which are constantly promoted by conventional medicine. They have no benefits whatsoever after three years and even though they may show some short-term benefits depending on who is watching, and depending on their judgment of the child's behavior, the truth is there is no long-term benefit whatsoever.
They found that these drugs stunt the growth of children. "They were not growing as much as other children in terms of both their height and their weight," said the report's co-author, Prof. William Pelham from the University of Buffalo. "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study," he added in reference to a study they did a few years ago where they declared that these drugs were helping children.
"We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That did not happen to be the case. The children had a substantial decrease in their growth rate," he continued. The second point was that there were no benefits to children taking these drugs whatsoever.
What they did not say in the results of this study is that the same drugs also stunt the growth of the children's brains. MRI brain scans later proved that children on ADHD medications had brains that were three years behind schedule in development. 80% of the children who were looked at with MRI scans were on ADHD medications.
Children taking stimulants as a treatment for ADHD are also 20 percent more likely to visit a doctor with heart-related symptoms, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida and published in the journal Pediatrics.
Researchers examined the records on 55,000 children between the ages of 3 and 20 who had undergone treatment for ADHD using central nervous system stimulants between 1994 and 2004. Their health profiles were compared with those of nearly two million other children in the Florida Medicaid database, making the current study the largest ever on the safety of ADHD drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Credo: Sell, Sell, Sell
This is what the ADHD industry is like. It is as if they have to carry on this outrageous lie, and they cannot really tell the truth because then the whole house of cards would collapse and everybody would realize this is all one giant fraud.
They cannot tell the truth so they have to keep coming up with new lies to try to market this to more people. First, it was just a children's disorder. Then the drug companies realized they could sell this same speed drug to adults. Children are only a small part of the total market.
They have to keep pushing these drugs onto more children. They have to keep those parents in a state of fear. That's how they sell more drugs. They have to keep people believing in this fictitious disease. That's the only way they are going to make money. This is an industry that makes money by exploiting the bodies of children, and the evidence is very clear.
Even the NIH is now saying that these drugs stunt the growth of children. That is a scientific fact announced by a mainstream medical research organization. This is not fringe science. This is not alternative medicine. This is not conjecture on the part of some person who has an axe to grind with psychiatry. This is mainstream medicine announcing that these drugs stunts the growth of children.
Flawed Children or Flawed System?
The Multi-Modal Treatment Study's co-author is Professor William Pelham at the University of Buffalo. He is the one who found out that these drugs do not help children at all in the long run. He says, "In the short run, medication will help the child behave better. In the long run, it will not and that information should be made very clear to parents."
Dr. Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the person who is working on some new guidelines about ADHD for the NHS) says, "A generous understanding would be to say that doctors have reached the point where they do not know what else to offer."
He says, "I hope we will be able to make recommendations that will give people a comprehensive approach to treatment…" there is that word "treatment" again. He continues, "and that will advise about what teachers might be able to do within the classroom when they are trying to deal with children who have difficult problems of this kind. I think the important thing is we have a comprehensive approach that does not focus on just one type of treatment."
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
http://preventdisease.com/home/tips89.shtml
Dangerous food additives are creating a toxic environment for our children's health spurring allergies and ADHD. To add fuel to the fire, conventional medicine is addressing the symptoms with ineffective drugs which are essentially useless in the long-term.
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
When Robyn O'Brien served her children scrambled eggs one day for breakfast early in 2006, the mother of four had no clue it would change her life drastically and forever.
"I had made scrambled eggs and put them in front of all four kids and decided to put them in front of the baby," the 36-year-old said. "I put them on her highchair and she didn't want them, fussed and pushed them away. And I didn't think anything of it."
But 9-month-old Tory's aversion to the breakfast staple had little to do with taste, as O'Brien soon found out.
"I put her down for a nap. A few minutes later and there was some mother instinct in me because I went in to check on her for some reason, which I rarely do, and her face was swollen shut," O'Brien said.
A life-threatening reaction to eggs caused grotesque swelling of the infant's face and instantly shook O'Brien to her core. She said her daughter's severe response prompted her to take a closer look at what she was feeding all of her children and to educate herself on food allergies.
"I did not know what was happening. I was so unfamiliar with food allergy and what a reaction looked like," said O'Brien, who lives in Colorado. "That's really when my education began."
Learning About Additives
What O'Brien soon learned was that artificial dyes are used in sugary cereals, candies, sodas and other goodies marketed toward children. Sometimes artificial dyes are even used to simulate the colors of fruits and vegetables.
What further disturbed O'Brien was the fact that U.S. consumers regularly ingest the additives in their food, but they have been removed from the same foods in some other countries.
In fact, Mars Inc. responded to pressure from the British government last year by removing artificial colors from its well-known Starburst and Skittles candies sold in the United Kingdom, after a British study bolstered a hypothesis that such additives increase hyperactivity in children.
Food industry giant Kraft Foods Inc. also did the same thing in early 2007 with its British version of Lunchables.
Whereas British consumers have revolted against artificial food dyes in the U.K., Americans haven't been as vocal as their counterparts. That is something O'Brien hopes to change.
"My goal is simply to have the same value placed on the lives of the American children," O'Brien said.
Mom on a Mission
O'Brien even created a Web site, which she launched on Mother's Day 2006, to serve as a parental resource and forum on children's food allergies.
The site is specific with its concerns.
"At AllergyKids, our concern is that industry funding ties between the agri-chemical companies and pediatric allergists who have served on the FDA 'generally recognized as safe' panels and testified to the safety of MSG, aspartame, glutamate and genetically engineered proteins, may prevent full disclosure of leading global research highlighting a ban of these ingredients in Europe, Australia, the UK and other developed countries in an effort to protect children," the site says.
O'Brien even created a symbol a green stop sign with an exclamation point in the center to identify a child with food allergies. It can be put on lunch bags, wristbands and even shoes.
"My goal now is to say, 'OK, this is what's happening. Let's inspire other mothers to take control so that our children can benefit like the children around the world,'" O'Brien said.
In her own life, O'Brien has gotten strict about what she feeds her children and encourages others to do what she has done: Throw out as much non-organic processed food as they can afford to. Also, avoid anything that's genetically modified, artificially created or raised with hormones and don't eat food with ingredients you are unable to pronounce.
"I thought, 'Well, I want to cook like the moms in Europe and avoid these chemical additives and see if that makes a difference in my children's health and behavior.' And so we did," O'Brien said. "We moved from the tubes of blue yogurt to regular yogurt and we started mixing honey into it. "
Not everyone in her family was happy about the changes.
"I encountered major resistance from my boys," O'Brien said. "They loved that blue yogurt and it was easy and it was convenient, but to see the dramatic improvement in my boys especially as we cleaned out their diets it was amazing. It was incredibly inspiring. They slept better; they were able to concentrate in school. Their behavior improved."
The Allergies-Additives Connection
Two recent British studies found that certain food dyes, as well as the common preservative sodium benzoate, may have an adverse effect on some children's behavior. Researchers said the increase in ADHD diagnoses could be partly to blame on the preservative.
"It can affect their focus, their concentration. They become more easily distractible, become more impulsive. I think we're looking at a whole population of kids with skewed immune systems," said Dr. Kenneth Bock, who wrote a book that supports the theory that food additives could lead to hyperactivity in children.
A Southampton Study in the UK showed that additives cause hyperactivity in children within an hour after consumption. Food additives, especially the artificial colors are made from coal tar derivatives and synthetic chemicals. Within an hour of ingestion, hyperactive behavior is evident.
ADHD Drugs Don't Work
It was a team of American scientists researching what is called the "Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD -- MTA for short, who found that ADHD drugs are useless over long-term use. The drugs used to treat ADHD such as Ritalin and Concerta are ineffective treatment methodolgies which are constantly promoted by conventional medicine. They have no benefits whatsoever after three years and even though they may show some short-term benefits depending on who is watching, and depending on their judgment of the child's behavior, the truth is there is no long-term benefit whatsoever.
They found that these drugs stunt the growth of children. "They were not growing as much as other children in terms of both their height and their weight," said the report's co-author, Prof. William Pelham from the University of Buffalo. "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study," he added in reference to a study they did a few years ago where they declared that these drugs were helping children.
"We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That did not happen to be the case. The children had a substantial decrease in their growth rate," he continued. The second point was that there were no benefits to children taking these drugs whatsoever.
What they did not say in the results of this study is that the same drugs also stunt the growth of the children's brains. MRI brain scans later proved that children on ADHD medications had brains that were three years behind schedule in development. 80% of the children who were looked at with MRI scans were on ADHD medications.
Children taking stimulants as a treatment for ADHD are also 20 percent more likely to visit a doctor with heart-related symptoms, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida and published in the journal Pediatrics.
Researchers examined the records on 55,000 children between the ages of 3 and 20 who had undergone treatment for ADHD using central nervous system stimulants between 1994 and 2004. Their health profiles were compared with those of nearly two million other children in the Florida Medicaid database, making the current study the largest ever on the safety of ADHD drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Credo: Sell, Sell, Sell
This is what the ADHD industry is like. It is as if they have to carry on this outrageous lie, and they cannot really tell the truth because then the whole house of cards would collapse and everybody would realize this is all one giant fraud.
They cannot tell the truth so they have to keep coming up with new lies to try to market this to more people. First, it was just a children's disorder. Then the drug companies realized they could sell this same speed drug to adults. Children are only a small part of the total market.
They have to keep pushing these drugs onto more children. They have to keep those parents in a state of fear. That's how they sell more drugs. They have to keep people believing in this fictitious disease. That's the only way they are going to make money. This is an industry that makes money by exploiting the bodies of children, and the evidence is very clear.
Even the NIH is now saying that these drugs stunt the growth of children. That is a scientific fact announced by a mainstream medical research organization. This is not fringe science. This is not alternative medicine. This is not conjecture on the part of some person who has an axe to grind with psychiatry. This is mainstream medicine announcing that these drugs stunts the growth of children.
Flawed Children or Flawed System?
The Multi-Modal Treatment Study's co-author is Professor William Pelham at the University of Buffalo. He is the one who found out that these drugs do not help children at all in the long run. He says, "In the short run, medication will help the child behave better. In the long run, it will not and that information should be made very clear to parents."
Dr. Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the person who is working on some new guidelines about ADHD for the NHS) says, "A generous understanding would be to say that doctors have reached the point where they do not know what else to offer."
He says, "I hope we will be able to make recommendations that will give people a comprehensive approach to treatment…" there is that word "treatment" again. He continues, "and that will advise about what teachers might be able to do within the classroom when they are trying to deal with children who have difficult problems of this kind. I think the important thing is we have a comprehensive approach that does not focus on just one type of treatment."
One mother is leading the movement to raise awareness of allergens in food.
http://preventdisease.com/home/tips89.shtml
ADHD Misdiagnosed In Nearly 1 Million U.S. Kids Say Researchers
ADHD Misdiagnosed In Nearly 1 Million U.S. Kids Say Researchers
Two studies published recently suggest there could be something wrong with the way ADHD is diagnosed in young children in the US, one found that nearly 1 million kids are potentially misdiagnosed just because they are the youngest in their kindergarten year, with the youngest in class twice as likely to be on stimulant medication, while the other study confirmed that whether children were born just before or just after the kindergarten cutoff date significantly affected their chances of being diagnosed with ADHD.
Papers on both studies by US researchers are in press, to be published in the Journal of Health Economics, the first being a corrected proof that was first available online in June, and the other appeared online on 4 August.
In the first paper, Dr Todd Elder, assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University, looked at a sample of nearly 12,000 children from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort, which is funded by the National Center for Education Statistics. He analysed the difference in ADHD diagnosis and medication rates between the youngest and the oldest children in a kindergarten grade.
He found that the youngest children were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and to be prescribed behavior-modifying stimulants such as Ritalin than their older classmates. He told the press that the "smoking gun" was that the diagnoses depended on the children's age relative to classmates and the teacher's perceptions of whether they had symptoms.
Elder said:
"If a child is behaving poorly, if he's inattentive, if he can't sit still, it may simply be because he's 5 and the other kids are 6."
"There's a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD," he urged.
Elder said medicating such children inappropriately was a cause for concern not just because of the effect of long term stimulant use on their health but also because it costs a lot of money: he estimated about 320 to 500 million US dollars is being wasted on unnecessary medication of young children for ADHD, of which 80 to 90 million is funded by Medicaid.
From his analysis, Elder found that the youngest kindergarten kids were 60 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade, and also, by the time those groups reached the fifth and eighth grades, the youngest were more than twice as likely to be on prescription stimulants.
Elder estimated that overall in the US, the misdiagnosis rate is about 1 in 5, that is around 900,000 of the 4.5 million children currently diagnosed with ADHD have been misdiagnosed.
Like the researchers in the second study, Elder used kindergarten eligibility cutoff dates to distinguish between the youngest and the oldest kids in a grade. While this date differs among states in the US, the most commonly used one is that used by 15 states to rule that kids must be 5 years old on or before 1st September to be eligible for kindergarten.
He found the same definitive pattern both in the case of individual states and when he compared across states.
Michigan for example has a cutoff date of 1st December for kindergarten attendance. Elder found higher rates of diagnosed ADHD among Michigan kids born on 1st December than born on 2nd December. Those born on the 1st December would have been the youngest in their grade, while those born on the 2nd, just one day later, because of the cutoff date, would have enrolled a year later and therefore been among the oldest in their grade.
Elder remarked that even though these kids were only born a day apart, they were assessed differently because they were being compared with classmates of a different age set.
Looking across states, Elder gave the example of Illinois and Michigan. In Illinois, where the cutoff date for kindergarten is 1st September, August-born kids were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD than Michigan kids born in August of the same year.
Elder's study defined a diagnosis of ADHD as including evidence of multiple symptoms, including inattention and hyperactivity sustained for six months or more observed in two settings, for instance the home and school, before the age of seven.
Although a mental health professional performs the diagnosis, the opinions of teachers often influence whether a child is sent for evaluation in the first place, said Elder.
"Many ADHD diagnoses may be driven by teachers' perceptions of poor behavior among the youngest children in a kindergarten classroom," said Elder, but the "symptoms" that teachers perceive may "merely reflect emotional or intellectual immaturity among the youngest students".
ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder for kids in the United States, and currently there are no neurological markers for ADHD (such as a blood test for example). Experts disagree on how common it is, hotting up public debate about whether it is under- or over-diagnosed, said Elder.
In the second paper, researchers at North Carolina (NC) State University, Notre Dame and the University of Minnesota drew very similar conclusions to those of Elder's study.
Co-author Dr Melinda Morrill, a research assistant professor of economics at NC State, told the press that:
"The question we asked was whether children who are relatively young compared to their classroom peers were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD."
Morrill and colleagues looked at kids born just before the kindergarten eligibility cutoff date and those born shortly after and found large discrepancies in rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment based on small differences in birth dates.
For the study they analyzed data from two national health surveys and a national database of private health insurance claims. The data covered several periods between 1996 and 2006.
They found that kids who were "relatively old-for-grade", that is those born just after the kindergarten cutoff date, were 25 per cent less likely to have received a diagnosis for ADHD than their the "relatively young-for-grade" peers, that is kids born just before the cutoff date.
As their premise was that children born a few days apart should have the same underlying risk of developing ADHD, finding a significant discrepancy based on small differences in age suggests the problem is inappropriate diagnosis, concluded the researchers.
"This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons," said Morrill.
"We believe that younger children may be mistakenly diagnosed as having ADHD, when in fact they are simply less mature," she added, drawing the same conclusion as Elder in the first study.
However, she wished to stress that their study is "not downplaying the existence or significance of ADHD in children".
"What our research shows is that similar students have significantly different diagnosis rates depending on when their birthday falls in relation to the school year," she pointed out.
"The importance of relative standards in ADHD diagnoses: Evidence based on exact birth dates."
Todd E. Elder
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 June 2010
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.06.003
"Measuring Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis and Treatment in Survey Data: The Case of ADHD among School-Age Children."
William N. Evans, Melinda S. Morrill, Stephen T. Parente
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 August 2010.
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.005
-- Journal of Health Economics
Sources:
Michigan State University, North Carolina State University.
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102910_adhd_misdiagnosed.shtml
Two studies published recently suggest there could be something wrong with the way ADHD is diagnosed in young children in the US, one found that nearly 1 million kids are potentially misdiagnosed just because they are the youngest in their kindergarten year, with the youngest in class twice as likely to be on stimulant medication, while the other study confirmed that whether children were born just before or just after the kindergarten cutoff date significantly affected their chances of being diagnosed with ADHD.
Papers on both studies by US researchers are in press, to be published in the Journal of Health Economics, the first being a corrected proof that was first available online in June, and the other appeared online on 4 August.
In the first paper, Dr Todd Elder, assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University, looked at a sample of nearly 12,000 children from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort, which is funded by the National Center for Education Statistics. He analysed the difference in ADHD diagnosis and medication rates between the youngest and the oldest children in a kindergarten grade.
He found that the youngest children were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and to be prescribed behavior-modifying stimulants such as Ritalin than their older classmates. He told the press that the "smoking gun" was that the diagnoses depended on the children's age relative to classmates and the teacher's perceptions of whether they had symptoms.
Elder said:
"If a child is behaving poorly, if he's inattentive, if he can't sit still, it may simply be because he's 5 and the other kids are 6."
"There's a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD," he urged.
Elder said medicating such children inappropriately was a cause for concern not just because of the effect of long term stimulant use on their health but also because it costs a lot of money: he estimated about 320 to 500 million US dollars is being wasted on unnecessary medication of young children for ADHD, of which 80 to 90 million is funded by Medicaid.
From his analysis, Elder found that the youngest kindergarten kids were 60 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade, and also, by the time those groups reached the fifth and eighth grades, the youngest were more than twice as likely to be on prescription stimulants.
Elder estimated that overall in the US, the misdiagnosis rate is about 1 in 5, that is around 900,000 of the 4.5 million children currently diagnosed with ADHD have been misdiagnosed.
Like the researchers in the second study, Elder used kindergarten eligibility cutoff dates to distinguish between the youngest and the oldest kids in a grade. While this date differs among states in the US, the most commonly used one is that used by 15 states to rule that kids must be 5 years old on or before 1st September to be eligible for kindergarten.
He found the same definitive pattern both in the case of individual states and when he compared across states.
Michigan for example has a cutoff date of 1st December for kindergarten attendance. Elder found higher rates of diagnosed ADHD among Michigan kids born on 1st December than born on 2nd December. Those born on the 1st December would have been the youngest in their grade, while those born on the 2nd, just one day later, because of the cutoff date, would have enrolled a year later and therefore been among the oldest in their grade.
Elder remarked that even though these kids were only born a day apart, they were assessed differently because they were being compared with classmates of a different age set.
Looking across states, Elder gave the example of Illinois and Michigan. In Illinois, where the cutoff date for kindergarten is 1st September, August-born kids were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD than Michigan kids born in August of the same year.
Elder's study defined a diagnosis of ADHD as including evidence of multiple symptoms, including inattention and hyperactivity sustained for six months or more observed in two settings, for instance the home and school, before the age of seven.
Although a mental health professional performs the diagnosis, the opinions of teachers often influence whether a child is sent for evaluation in the first place, said Elder.
"Many ADHD diagnoses may be driven by teachers' perceptions of poor behavior among the youngest children in a kindergarten classroom," said Elder, but the "symptoms" that teachers perceive may "merely reflect emotional or intellectual immaturity among the youngest students".
ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder for kids in the United States, and currently there are no neurological markers for ADHD (such as a blood test for example). Experts disagree on how common it is, hotting up public debate about whether it is under- or over-diagnosed, said Elder.
In the second paper, researchers at North Carolina (NC) State University, Notre Dame and the University of Minnesota drew very similar conclusions to those of Elder's study.
Co-author Dr Melinda Morrill, a research assistant professor of economics at NC State, told the press that:
"The question we asked was whether children who are relatively young compared to their classroom peers were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD."
Morrill and colleagues looked at kids born just before the kindergarten eligibility cutoff date and those born shortly after and found large discrepancies in rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment based on small differences in birth dates.
For the study they analyzed data from two national health surveys and a national database of private health insurance claims. The data covered several periods between 1996 and 2006.
They found that kids who were "relatively old-for-grade", that is those born just after the kindergarten cutoff date, were 25 per cent less likely to have received a diagnosis for ADHD than their the "relatively young-for-grade" peers, that is kids born just before the cutoff date.
As their premise was that children born a few days apart should have the same underlying risk of developing ADHD, finding a significant discrepancy based on small differences in age suggests the problem is inappropriate diagnosis, concluded the researchers.
"This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons," said Morrill.
"We believe that younger children may be mistakenly diagnosed as having ADHD, when in fact they are simply less mature," she added, drawing the same conclusion as Elder in the first study.
However, she wished to stress that their study is "not downplaying the existence or significance of ADHD in children".
"What our research shows is that similar students have significantly different diagnosis rates depending on when their birthday falls in relation to the school year," she pointed out.
"The importance of relative standards in ADHD diagnoses: Evidence based on exact birth dates."
Todd E. Elder
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 June 2010
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.06.003
"Measuring Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis and Treatment in Survey Data: The Case of ADHD among School-Age Children."
William N. Evans, Melinda S. Morrill, Stephen T. Parente
Journal of Health Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 August 2010.
DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.005
-- Journal of Health Economics
Sources:
Michigan State University, North Carolina State University.
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102910_adhd_misdiagnosed.shtml
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Mental health agency blasted-Keene, NH
Mental health agency blasted
Monadnock Family Services faces discipline
By Dave Eisenstadter
Sentinel Staff
Published: Thursday, October 28, 2010
On the heels of several state-level cuts to mental health services, Keene-based Monadnock Family Services faces a threat of a different kind.
Through a recent performance audit, the N.H. Bureau of Behavioral Health has slammed Monadnock Family Services with more than a dozen concerns requiring immediate action.
If the organization’s board of directors fails to come up with a plan to address the concerns by Nov. 14, Monadnock Family Services will lose its designation as community mental health center for the Monadnock Region.
Read More:
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/10/28/news/local/free/id_417057.txt
Monadnock Family Services faces discipline
By Dave Eisenstadter
Sentinel Staff
Published: Thursday, October 28, 2010
On the heels of several state-level cuts to mental health services, Keene-based Monadnock Family Services faces a threat of a different kind.
Through a recent performance audit, the N.H. Bureau of Behavioral Health has slammed Monadnock Family Services with more than a dozen concerns requiring immediate action.
If the organization’s board of directors fails to come up with a plan to address the concerns by Nov. 14, Monadnock Family Services will lose its designation as community mental health center for the Monadnock Region.
Read More:
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/10/28/news/local/free/id_417057.txt
CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Jane Boyer
Subject: CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:36:44 -0400
From: Michigan for Parental Rights
CPS Case Law
Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000)
In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing her from her parents' custody. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
"This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be."
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals (2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's Department, who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
"The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children's development, even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently." A brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989)
"[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained, while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." No qualified immunity claim to be found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. The state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)
Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received specific information questioning the safety of children," they acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together without governmental interference and will not be separated without due process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
NEW! Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th Cir. 1999)
"The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster care was well established as of 1991.
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution." Section 1983 case reinforces that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.
Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child into protective custody."
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
"We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished)
"It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is unreasonable."
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
"In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed."
Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
"Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from altering parental custody rights." What I find interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Guess again!
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in this section 1983 action.
--
Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287 MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com Social Network
miparentalrights@gmail.com E-mail Address
616-848-0664
Jane Boyer
Subject: CPS CASE LAW CASES NO IMMUNTITY FOR STATE ACTORS CPS
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:36:44 -0400
From: Michigan for Parental Rights
CPS Case Law
Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000)
In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing her from her parents' custody. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
"This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be."
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals (2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's Department, who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
"The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children's development, even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently." A brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989)
"[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained, while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." No qualified immunity claim to be found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. The state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)
Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received specific information questioning the safety of children," they acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together without governmental interference and will not be separated without due process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
NEW! Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th Cir. 1999)
"The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster care was well established as of 1991.
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution." Section 1983 case reinforces that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.
Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child into protective custody."
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
"We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished)
"It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is unreasonable."
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
"In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed."
Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
"Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from altering parental custody rights." What I find interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Guess again!
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in this section 1983 action.
--
Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287 MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com Social Network
miparentalrights@gmail.com E-mail Address
616-848-0664
Judge finds NYC Administration for Children Services in contempt for not placing child with uncle
Judge finds NYC Administration for Children Services in contempt for not placing child with uncle
September 18th, 2009 1:00 pm ET
Judge Bryanne Hamill, of Kings' County Family Court, found the New York City Administration for Children's Services in contempt earlier this week for not placing a child in the custody of her uncle as ordered by the court. Judge Hamill also fined ACS $2,500 plus costs and expenses in the Matter of Lanaya B., for failure to release the child into the custody of her uncle on May 19 as ordered.
Lanaya B. and her two siblings were removed from the mother's care when Lanaya was hospitalized for failure to thrive. The mother, suffering from depression, was unable to properly feed her.
According to the judge's decision:
"On May 14, 2009, ACS requested a removal of the three subject children from their mother and a remand to ACS, which was granted by the presiding intake Judge. On May 14, 2009 the Court issued an order directing ACS, pursuant to Family Court Act (hereinafter "FCA") §1017 (1), to investigate the children's maternal uncle as a resource for the children. The respondent requested a FCA §1028 hearing, which was adjourned to this Court on May 19, 2009."
"On May 19, 2009, the parties agreed to a partial settlement. The two older children were placed into the care and custody of their mother, who consented to the continued remand of the infant, Lanaya, with the understanding that the infant would be placed with the maternal uncle. ACS informed the Court that it had conducted a State Central Registry clearance for the uncle, but failed to submit a written investigative report on him, pursuant to FCA §1017, as ordered on May 14, 2009."
Because of the failure of ACS to submit a written report, the Court investigated the uncle on May 19 and found that he was a suitable person for placing Lanaya. The court also ordered that Lanaya's mother could have liberal visits with her, supervised by the uncle, so that she and the infant could bond. The infant's law guardian was in agreement with the plan.
Later testimony revealed that during these visits the mother spent upwards of eight hours a day with the child, fed, burped and washed her and brought the siblings along so they could bond with her also. In contrast, while in foster care the mother was only allowed to visit with her baby for a maximum of two hours a day, during the few days she was allowed to visit.
While ACS presented many arguments to explain why the agency did not turn the child over to the uncle as ordered, the judge would have none of them. In short ACS argued that they were unable to fulfill the court order. Judge Hamill said that the inability to fulfill the order was self-created. In her decision, Judge Hamill also stated that the law (FCA §1017) does not give ACS the authority to "stay" a court ordered placement.
In awarding the mother compensation for the actions by ACS, the judge stated:
"The record here is clear: the respondent mother suffered loss of visiting and bonding time of eight or more hours per day with her daughter for each day that ACS failed to comply with this Court's mandate. For nine days of her infant's life, this mother was not able to hold, feed, parent and bond with Lanaya, because she was placed in a stranger's home instead of the home of a loving relative that this Court held to be in the best interests of Lanya. The FCA §1028 hearing testimony supports that when Lanaya was placed with her uncle, nine days after it was first Court-ordered, her mother was able to spend up to eight hours per day with her, and Lanaya, in turn, was able to be parented by her mother. Thus, this Court finds that this mother suffered daily compensable harm for which she shall be compensated for each day ACS was in contempt of its order."
Judge Hamill's decision also referenced the law in regard to the importance of placing children with suitable relatives rather than with strangers. She also made it clear that the definition of liberal visitation is liberal visitation, quoting from respondent's counsel who argued in her reply, "Liberal as applied to visits is widely understood to describe visits that are unrestricted in their frequency."
For more info: Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child custody, child abuse and related matters.
http://www.examiner.com/cps-and-family-court-in-albany/judge-finds-nyc-administration-for-children-services-contempt-for-not-placing-child-with-uncle
September 18th, 2009 1:00 pm ET
Judge Bryanne Hamill, of Kings' County Family Court, found the New York City Administration for Children's Services in contempt earlier this week for not placing a child in the custody of her uncle as ordered by the court. Judge Hamill also fined ACS $2,500 plus costs and expenses in the Matter of Lanaya B., for failure to release the child into the custody of her uncle on May 19 as ordered.
Lanaya B. and her two siblings were removed from the mother's care when Lanaya was hospitalized for failure to thrive. The mother, suffering from depression, was unable to properly feed her.
According to the judge's decision:
"On May 14, 2009, ACS requested a removal of the three subject children from their mother and a remand to ACS, which was granted by the presiding intake Judge. On May 14, 2009 the Court issued an order directing ACS, pursuant to Family Court Act (hereinafter "FCA") §1017 (1), to investigate the children's maternal uncle as a resource for the children. The respondent requested a FCA §1028 hearing, which was adjourned to this Court on May 19, 2009."
"On May 19, 2009, the parties agreed to a partial settlement. The two older children were placed into the care and custody of their mother, who consented to the continued remand of the infant, Lanaya, with the understanding that the infant would be placed with the maternal uncle. ACS informed the Court that it had conducted a State Central Registry clearance for the uncle, but failed to submit a written investigative report on him, pursuant to FCA §1017, as ordered on May 14, 2009."
Because of the failure of ACS to submit a written report, the Court investigated the uncle on May 19 and found that he was a suitable person for placing Lanaya. The court also ordered that Lanaya's mother could have liberal visits with her, supervised by the uncle, so that she and the infant could bond. The infant's law guardian was in agreement with the plan.
Later testimony revealed that during these visits the mother spent upwards of eight hours a day with the child, fed, burped and washed her and brought the siblings along so they could bond with her also. In contrast, while in foster care the mother was only allowed to visit with her baby for a maximum of two hours a day, during the few days she was allowed to visit.
While ACS presented many arguments to explain why the agency did not turn the child over to the uncle as ordered, the judge would have none of them. In short ACS argued that they were unable to fulfill the court order. Judge Hamill said that the inability to fulfill the order was self-created. In her decision, Judge Hamill also stated that the law (FCA §1017) does not give ACS the authority to "stay" a court ordered placement.
In awarding the mother compensation for the actions by ACS, the judge stated:
"The record here is clear: the respondent mother suffered loss of visiting and bonding time of eight or more hours per day with her daughter for each day that ACS failed to comply with this Court's mandate. For nine days of her infant's life, this mother was not able to hold, feed, parent and bond with Lanaya, because she was placed in a stranger's home instead of the home of a loving relative that this Court held to be in the best interests of Lanya. The FCA §1028 hearing testimony supports that when Lanaya was placed with her uncle, nine days after it was first Court-ordered, her mother was able to spend up to eight hours per day with her, and Lanaya, in turn, was able to be parented by her mother. Thus, this Court finds that this mother suffered daily compensable harm for which she shall be compensated for each day ACS was in contempt of its order."
Judge Hamill's decision also referenced the law in regard to the importance of placing children with suitable relatives rather than with strangers. She also made it clear that the definition of liberal visitation is liberal visitation, quoting from respondent's counsel who argued in her reply, "Liberal as applied to visits is widely understood to describe visits that are unrestricted in their frequency."
For more info: Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child custody, child abuse and related matters.
http://www.examiner.com/cps-and-family-court-in-albany/judge-finds-nyc-administration-for-children-services-contempt-for-not-placing-child-with-uncle
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)