Child Protective Services:
A Guide for
Caseworkers
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/cps/cps.pdf
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Letters to the Editor » Child Protective Services uses children as hostages | Cincinnati Enquirer | Cincinnati.Com
Letters to the Editor » Child Protective Services uses children as hostages | Cincinnati Enquirer | Cincinnati.Com
We have a government agency that treats American citizens like criminals.
Our city revenue gave Child Protective Services the power to make us take off from work at the drop of a dime, when I’m trying my best to support my family. During my 30-day deadline of home repair violations, this government agency threw the book at my family. Being on the People Working Cooperatively waiting list didn’t matter. Day 1 they charged me with child endangerment, but I only found out two weeks later that I’d been charged. So I can lose my job by not completing home repairs. This government agency forces me to do a “mental assessment” – how is this related to home repair?
I had no choice but to take off work to make home repairs. They’re using my daughter as leverage, the same power as a kidnapper. I have to complete my 30-day deadline of home repair violations – while being homeless.
My child endangerment charges were dropped. Child Protective Services returned my daughter back home, but to this very day is using my daughter as leverage, saying if I don’t sign myself into a mental hospital they’ll take my daughter away again. Child Protective Services has funding in that area for job security — at my family’s expense.
We as Americans wish goodwill and peace towards all during this holiday season with a prosperous new year. I’m proud to be an American with liberty and justice for all – but what are my constitutional rights when a government agency is using excessive force?
Bridget Cornett
Elmwood
We have a government agency that treats American citizens like criminals.
Our city revenue gave Child Protective Services the power to make us take off from work at the drop of a dime, when I’m trying my best to support my family. During my 30-day deadline of home repair violations, this government agency threw the book at my family. Being on the People Working Cooperatively waiting list didn’t matter. Day 1 they charged me with child endangerment, but I only found out two weeks later that I’d been charged. So I can lose my job by not completing home repairs. This government agency forces me to do a “mental assessment” – how is this related to home repair?
I had no choice but to take off work to make home repairs. They’re using my daughter as leverage, the same power as a kidnapper. I have to complete my 30-day deadline of home repair violations – while being homeless.
My child endangerment charges were dropped. Child Protective Services returned my daughter back home, but to this very day is using my daughter as leverage, saying if I don’t sign myself into a mental hospital they’ll take my daughter away again. Child Protective Services has funding in that area for job security — at my family’s expense.
We as Americans wish goodwill and peace towards all during this holiday season with a prosperous new year. I’m proud to be an American with liberty and justice for all – but what are my constitutional rights when a government agency is using excessive force?
Bridget Cornett
Elmwood
Welfare rules discourage marriage, Brownback says
Welfare rules discourage marriage, Brownback says - KansasCity.com
TOPEKA | Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback promised to attack rules for welfare programs that he said discourage marriage as he announced two appointments Monday to social services jobs in his Cabinet.
Brownback said his administration would work to strengthen families and support healthy marriages, and he sees changing the rules for social services as a key issue.
He said many participants face losing benefits if they get married, so they remain unwed to avoid having their incomes combined to determine whether they're eligible for benefits. But at least one social service advocate questioned that statement, saying she had not heard of such a problem in Kansas.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/03/2558302/kansas-welfare-rules-discourage.html#ixzz1A7ev9EpY
TOPEKA | Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback promised to attack rules for welfare programs that he said discourage marriage as he announced two appointments Monday to social services jobs in his Cabinet.
Brownback said his administration would work to strengthen families and support healthy marriages, and he sees changing the rules for social services as a key issue.
He said many participants face losing benefits if they get married, so they remain unwed to avoid having their incomes combined to determine whether they're eligible for benefits. But at least one social service advocate questioned that statement, saying she had not heard of such a problem in Kansas.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/03/2558302/kansas-welfare-rules-discourage.html#ixzz1A7ev9EpY
Newark man (Foster Parent) indicted on charges of rape, sexual battery
Newark man indicted on charges of rape, sexual battery | The Newark Advocate | NewarkAdvocate.com
NEWARK -- A Newark man accused of raping a 10-year-old girl and sexually abusing a woman has been indicted.
Delmar A. Grady II, 46, last known address 525 Londonberry Lane, Newark, was charged with four counts of sexual battery, each a third-degree felony; two counts of rape, each a second-degree felony; and two counts of gross sexual imposition, each a third-degree felony.
Grady is suspected of sexually abusing a woman between June 14, 2002, and June 30, 2008, and raping a 10-year-old girl between June 1, 2010, and Dec. 14, 2010, according to the indictment.
The girl was taken to Licking County Children Services after family members suspected abuse had occurred. The woman came forward afterward, Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Dan Huston said.
Grady was a foster parent, but the girl was not his foster child at the time, Newark police Sgt. Scott Snow said. Grady was not caring for foster children at the time of his arrest, Snow said.
John Fisher, director of Licking County Job and Family Services, said confidentiality rules prohibit him from commenting.
Grady remains in the Licking County jail on a $250,000 bond set by Municipal Court Judge Michael Higgins.
NEWARK -- A Newark man accused of raping a 10-year-old girl and sexually abusing a woman has been indicted.
Delmar A. Grady II, 46, last known address 525 Londonberry Lane, Newark, was charged with four counts of sexual battery, each a third-degree felony; two counts of rape, each a second-degree felony; and two counts of gross sexual imposition, each a third-degree felony.
Grady is suspected of sexually abusing a woman between June 14, 2002, and June 30, 2008, and raping a 10-year-old girl between June 1, 2010, and Dec. 14, 2010, according to the indictment.
The girl was taken to Licking County Children Services after family members suspected abuse had occurred. The woman came forward afterward, Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Dan Huston said.
Grady was a foster parent, but the girl was not his foster child at the time, Newark police Sgt. Scott Snow said. Grady was not caring for foster children at the time of his arrest, Snow said.
John Fisher, director of Licking County Job and Family Services, said confidentiality rules prohibit him from commenting.
Grady remains in the Licking County jail on a $250,000 bond set by Municipal Court Judge Michael Higgins.
New Hampshire Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Primary Review
New Hampshire Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Primary Review
New Hampshire Title IV-E
Foster Care Eligibility Review
Review Period 10/01/2008 – 03/31/2009
Introduction
During the week of December 7, 2009, staff from the Regional and Central Offices of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and New Hampshire’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) conducted a subsequent primary eligibility review of the State’s title IV E Federal foster care program. The review was conducted in the DCYF Dolloff Building in Concord, New Hampshire.
The purpose of the title IV-E foster care eligibility review was (1) to determine if New Hampshire was in compliance with the child and provider eligibility requirements as outlined in 45 CFR §1356.71 and §472 of the Social Security Act (SSA); and (2) to validate the basis of New Hampshire’s financial claims to ensure that appropriate payments were made on behalf of eligible children and to eligible homes and institutions.
Scope of the Review
The New Hampshire title IV E foster care eligibility review encompassed a sample of all of the title IV E foster care cases that received a foster care maintenance payment during the period of October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. A computerized statistical sample of 80 cases and an oversample of 20 cases were drawn from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data submission which was transmitted by the State agency to ACF for the period under review (PUR). In each selected case, the child’s file was reviewed for the determination of title IV E eligibility and the provider’s file was reviewed to ensure that the foster home or childcare institution in which the child was placed had undergone the required criminal records and/or safety checks and was fully licensed or approved for the PUR.
During this subsequent primary review, 80 cases were reviewed. One (1) case was determined to be in error during the review period for reasons that are identified in the Case Record Summary section of this report. Since the number of error cases in New Hampshire did not exceed the established threshold level of four (4), the ACF has determined the State to be in substantial compliance with the title IV-E Federal Foster Care program eligibility requirements. No other improper payments were identified for the reviewed cases. Thus, other than the processing of a financial adjustment for the disallowance action associated with the error case, no further action is required by the State. The next primary review will not be conducted until Federal fiscal year 2013.
Strengths and Model Practices
New Hampshire continues to operate a reliable system for determining title IV-E eligibility by maintaining files that show clear evidence of the documentation used to establish financial need and deprivation of parental support according to the State’s July 16, 1996 guidelines for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as required for title IV-E eligibility determinations of children removed from home and placed into foster care.
All foster home and childcare institution licensing records were available for review and contained the required foster care provider license information for the PUR. Criminal records checks were consistently completed on foster family homes and childcare staff employed in childcare institutions for all of the cases reviewed.
DCYF Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and the Court Improvement Project of New Hampshire District Court have worked together to establish court protocols that address safety and permanency planning for children in child welfare and juvenile justice court orders. Adjudicatory hearings are frequently conducted on cases within one month of the child’s removal. Documentation of case-specific findings was frequently evident in the court orders observed for child cases reviewed during this title IV-E eligibility review.
Area in Need of Improvement
Judicial removals pursuant to a court order must be the result of judicial determinations of “contrary to the welfare” and “reasonable efforts.” A removal is considered to not have occurred in situations in which the child is judicially removed from the parent or another specified relative and the child is permitted to remain in that same relative’s home under the supervision of the State agency. The physical removal from the home must coincide with the judicial ruling that authorizes the child’s removal from the home and placement in foster care under the responsibility of the State agency.
The title IV-E review conducted during the week of December 7, 2009 revealed one error case where the judicial removal order found the child to be in imminent danger in the parent’s home and awarded protective supervision and custody to the State agency. However, the State permitted the child to remain in the home with the child’s mother with conditions that would allow the agency to remove the child should those conditions be violated by the mother. Following this court order, the child remained in the mother’s home for eleven (11) days before being removed from her care and placed in a foster home by the State agency. There was no subsequent court order sanctioning the child’s removal from the mother’s care by the agency. The error in this case is the lack of a valid judicial removal order for the child resulting in the case not meeting the eligibility requirements for title IV-E reimbursement for the duration of the child’s foster care episode.
Case Record Summary
The following details the error cases, reasons for ineligibility, ineligible periods and amount for each ineligible claim. There were no identified underpayments or other improper payments.
Error Cases:
Sample # Case ID Reason* Period Disallowance
Main. Adm.
4 561925 1 12/26/08-present $779 $1,235
Total $779 $1,235
FFP @ 56.2% for Maintenance Assistance Payments and 50% for Administrative Costs $438 $618
* Ineligible Codes for Error Cases
1. Contrary to Welfare court determinations not met according to requirements at 45 CFR 1356.21 (c).
Disallowances
Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.71(j), a total disallowance in the amount of $1,056 in Federal Financial Participation (FFP) is assessed for ineligible payments claimed for error and non-error cases.
The erroneous maintenance payments and administrative costs associated with the one (1) error case ($1,056 FFP) includes all payments claimed on behalf of the child for the entire period of time that the case was determined ineligible for title IV-E payments. No future claims should be submitted on this error case until it has been determined that all eligibility requirements are met.
New Hampshire Title IV-E
Foster Care Eligibility Review
Review Period 10/01/2008 – 03/31/2009
Introduction
During the week of December 7, 2009, staff from the Regional and Central Offices of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and New Hampshire’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) conducted a subsequent primary eligibility review of the State’s title IV E Federal foster care program. The review was conducted in the DCYF Dolloff Building in Concord, New Hampshire.
The purpose of the title IV-E foster care eligibility review was (1) to determine if New Hampshire was in compliance with the child and provider eligibility requirements as outlined in 45 CFR §1356.71 and §472 of the Social Security Act (SSA); and (2) to validate the basis of New Hampshire’s financial claims to ensure that appropriate payments were made on behalf of eligible children and to eligible homes and institutions.
Scope of the Review
The New Hampshire title IV E foster care eligibility review encompassed a sample of all of the title IV E foster care cases that received a foster care maintenance payment during the period of October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. A computerized statistical sample of 80 cases and an oversample of 20 cases were drawn from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data submission which was transmitted by the State agency to ACF for the period under review (PUR). In each selected case, the child’s file was reviewed for the determination of title IV E eligibility and the provider’s file was reviewed to ensure that the foster home or childcare institution in which the child was placed had undergone the required criminal records and/or safety checks and was fully licensed or approved for the PUR.
During this subsequent primary review, 80 cases were reviewed. One (1) case was determined to be in error during the review period for reasons that are identified in the Case Record Summary section of this report. Since the number of error cases in New Hampshire did not exceed the established threshold level of four (4), the ACF has determined the State to be in substantial compliance with the title IV-E Federal Foster Care program eligibility requirements. No other improper payments were identified for the reviewed cases. Thus, other than the processing of a financial adjustment for the disallowance action associated with the error case, no further action is required by the State. The next primary review will not be conducted until Federal fiscal year 2013.
Strengths and Model Practices
New Hampshire continues to operate a reliable system for determining title IV-E eligibility by maintaining files that show clear evidence of the documentation used to establish financial need and deprivation of parental support according to the State’s July 16, 1996 guidelines for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as required for title IV-E eligibility determinations of children removed from home and placed into foster care.
All foster home and childcare institution licensing records were available for review and contained the required foster care provider license information for the PUR. Criminal records checks were consistently completed on foster family homes and childcare staff employed in childcare institutions for all of the cases reviewed.
DCYF Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and the Court Improvement Project of New Hampshire District Court have worked together to establish court protocols that address safety and permanency planning for children in child welfare and juvenile justice court orders. Adjudicatory hearings are frequently conducted on cases within one month of the child’s removal. Documentation of case-specific findings was frequently evident in the court orders observed for child cases reviewed during this title IV-E eligibility review.
Area in Need of Improvement
Judicial removals pursuant to a court order must be the result of judicial determinations of “contrary to the welfare” and “reasonable efforts.” A removal is considered to not have occurred in situations in which the child is judicially removed from the parent or another specified relative and the child is permitted to remain in that same relative’s home under the supervision of the State agency. The physical removal from the home must coincide with the judicial ruling that authorizes the child’s removal from the home and placement in foster care under the responsibility of the State agency.
The title IV-E review conducted during the week of December 7, 2009 revealed one error case where the judicial removal order found the child to be in imminent danger in the parent’s home and awarded protective supervision and custody to the State agency. However, the State permitted the child to remain in the home with the child’s mother with conditions that would allow the agency to remove the child should those conditions be violated by the mother. Following this court order, the child remained in the mother’s home for eleven (11) days before being removed from her care and placed in a foster home by the State agency. There was no subsequent court order sanctioning the child’s removal from the mother’s care by the agency. The error in this case is the lack of a valid judicial removal order for the child resulting in the case not meeting the eligibility requirements for title IV-E reimbursement for the duration of the child’s foster care episode.
Case Record Summary
The following details the error cases, reasons for ineligibility, ineligible periods and amount for each ineligible claim. There were no identified underpayments or other improper payments.
Error Cases:
Sample # Case ID Reason* Period Disallowance
Main. Adm.
4 561925 1 12/26/08-present $779 $1,235
Total $779 $1,235
FFP @ 56.2% for Maintenance Assistance Payments and 50% for Administrative Costs $438 $618
* Ineligible Codes for Error Cases
1. Contrary to Welfare court determinations not met according to requirements at 45 CFR 1356.21 (c).
Disallowances
Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.71(j), a total disallowance in the amount of $1,056 in Federal Financial Participation (FFP) is assessed for ineligible payments claimed for error and non-error cases.
The erroneous maintenance payments and administrative costs associated with the one (1) error case ($1,056 FFP) includes all payments claimed on behalf of the child for the entire period of time that the case was determined ineligible for title IV-E payments. No future claims should be submitted on this error case until it has been determined that all eligibility requirements are met.
Pro Se Case Law
Pro Se Case Law
A judge is required to show a little lenience toward a Pro Se litigant: Hayes vs Kerner and children
OUTLINE
CASE LAW PARTIICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE PRO SE LITIGANT
Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer
Defense against dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim
On Judicial Immunity
On Absolute Immunity for Judges
On Judges violation of oath of office
Arbitrary Exercise of Government Powers
Pro Se litigants entitled to attorney's fees
U.S. Constitutional Issues (5th, 7th, 13th, 14th)
Civil Rights Issues (1983, 1985)
Judicial Notice: definition
Reasons to Vacate Void Judgments - Lack of Jurisdiction
Powe v. US: what does "citizen" mean?
============================================================================
TOPIC: PRO SE LITIGANT CASE LAW
============================================================================
Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer
Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this
case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are
not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th
Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In
Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less
stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth
Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the
principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on
the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which
holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
Defense against dismissal of complaint under Rule 12-B
A judge is required to show a little lenience toward a Pro Se litigant: Hayes vs Kerner and children
OUTLINE
CASE LAW PARTIICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE PRO SE LITIGANT
Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer
Defense against dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim
On Judicial Immunity
On Absolute Immunity for Judges
On Judges violation of oath of office
Arbitrary Exercise of Government Powers
Pro Se litigants entitled to attorney's fees
U.S. Constitutional Issues (5th, 7th, 13th, 14th)
Civil Rights Issues (1983, 1985)
Judicial Notice: definition
Reasons to Vacate Void Judgments - Lack of Jurisdiction
Powe v. US: what does "citizen" mean?
============================================================================
TOPIC: PRO SE LITIGANT CASE LAW
============================================================================
Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer
Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this
case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are
not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th
Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In
Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less
stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth
Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the
principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on
the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which
holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
Defense against dismissal of complaint under Rule 12-B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)