YouTube - Jared Loughner Worked for CPS ? Or Knew of Them? - Removed Facebook Page

YouTube - Jared Loughner Worked for CPS ? Or Knew of Them? - Removed Facebook Page: ""

Flu Shots and Seizures: Officials Investigating Recent Reports

Flu Shots and Seizures: Officials Investigating Recent Reports | Strollerderby
POSTED BY HEATHERTURGEON ON JANUARY 22ND, 2011 AT 1:53 PM


Federal health officials are looking into reports of an uptick in febrile seizures after children ages 6 months to 2 years were given this year’s seasonal flu shot Fluzone, made by drug manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis.
Fluzone is the only flu shot available this season for kids in this age range. On Thursday the CDC reported a higher incidence of seizures in little kids after getting this flu vaccination. Here’s the latest on the reported seizures:
The FDA said there were 43 cases of febrile seizure reported after Fluzone shots as of December 13.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a certain percentage of kids will have a febrile seizure after having flu shots, and in most cases they are fine. “Nearly all children who have a febrile seizure recover quickly and have no long term effects,” says the FDA. Febrile seizures can happen as a result of high temperatures from a cold, flu, or ear infection too.
The drug manufacturer acknowledged that the incidence of seizures was higher than the historical norm but said there wasn’t yet a causal link between the two.
More seizures have only been reported with this particular flu shot for this age range.

Abuse, murder case may net foster child $4 million

Abuse, murder case may net foster child $4 million | Joshua Sabatini | Local | San Francisco Examiner

A boy who suffered abuse while in San Francisco’s foster care system and whose twin sister was murdered by their guardian is poised to receive $4 million to settle a lawsuit he filed against The City.

In 2008, Antioch foster mother Shameeka Davis was charged by the Contra Costa County district attorney with torturing and murdering her 15-year-old niece Jazzmin Davis and abusing her twin brother.

The children were under the supervision of the San Francisco Department of Child Protective Services.

Examinations reportedly showed both had been burned with hot irons and whipped with belts and electrical cords over time. In August 2009, the brother filed a lawsuit against The City.

A $4 million settlement agreement will be introduced Tuesday to the Board of Supervisors for review and approval.

The San Francisco Examiner is not naming the brother because he’s a minor.

The case raised questions about the state of San Francisco’s foster care system.

At the time of the incident, Trent Rhorer, executive director of San Francisco’s Human Services Agency, was quoted in the press as saying neither San Francisco nor Contra Costa children’s services received any reports of suspected abuse. A social worker had visited Jazzmin in March 2008 and reportedly found no evidence of abuse. Jazzmin was found dead in September of that year.

“This is not something that goes away,” said Darren Kessler, the plaintiff’s attorney. “This is something that will be with him for the rest of his life.”

Kessler said a “central focus” of the case should be on why the abuse happened in the first place.

“There has been a lax attitude toward children in the foster care system.” Kessler said, adding, “Hopefully this outcome will make a difference.”

jsabatini@sfexaminer.com



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/01/abuse-murder-case-may-net-foster-child-4-million#ixzz1BopQCAGv

Woman who killed child denied new attorney

Woman who killed child denied new attorney

Sentencing is set to go ahead as planned next week for a Santa Maria woman who murdered her 3-year-old foster son, after a Superior Court judge denied her request for a new attorney.
Sylvia Dominguez, 30, and her attorney, Senior Deputy Public Defender David Ogren, took part Friday in a closed hearing with Judge Edward Bullard in which they apparently discussed Dominguez’s concerns over her legal representation.
When a defendant indicates he or she wants a new lawyer, the judge must hold a “Marsden hearing” if the attorney is court-appointed. A hearing on a Marsden motion is what transpired Friday.

Grandparent's Right's Bill in South Carolina

News

News

News about any new happenings or events related to Grandparents raising their grandchildren will be placed here as soon as we are informed and confirm the event.

Top Stories

JANUARY 3, 2011 TOP NEWS STORY: Grandparents Rights Bill has been introduced in South Carolina. House Bill H.3225 reads as follows:
A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 63-15-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN DETERMINING THE BEST INTERESTS OF A MINOR CHILD FOR AN AWARD OF CHILD CUSTODY, THE FAMILY COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE GRANDPARENTS AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE CHILD FOR CUSTODY AND GIVE PRIORITY FOR CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER EXCEPT OVER A PARENT OF THE CHILD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT IN CONSIDERING PLACEMENT OF A CHILD WITH A GRANDPARENT OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, THE COURT MUST CONSIDER THE RELATIVE CAPABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO CARE FOR THE CHILD, INCLUDING THE CHARACTER, FITNESS, ATTITUDE, AND INCLINATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS THEY WOULD IMPACT THE CHILD, IN ADDITION TO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Article 1, Chapter 15, Title 63 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 63-15-35. In determining the best interests of the child, the family court shall consider the grandparents and immediate family members of the child for custody and give priority for custody to a grandparent or immediate family member except over a parent of the child. In considering placement of a child with a grandparent or immediate family member, the court must consider the relative capability of the individual to care for the child, including the character, fitness, attitude, and inclinations of the individual as they would impact the child, in addition to the totality of the circumstances."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

----XX----

We have had numerous requests for signs to advertise this new bill. In response, here is a link to a file you can download and print:
Click HERE



NOVEMBER 2010

Election Results are in and Grandparents have some NEW friends in the State House of Representatives. See the results HERE
GREAT NEWS for GRANDPARENTS:
The following legislation was passed in June 2010 and signed by the governor, therefore it is now law:
Passed by the General Assembly on June 15, 2010

Summary: Grandparents visitation
6/24/2010 Signed By Governor

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 63‑3‑530, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, INCLUDING JURISDICTION TO ORDER VISITATION FOR GRANDPARENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MAY ORDER GRANDPARENT VISITATION IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CHILD'S PARENTS ARE UNREASONABLY DEPRIVING THE GRANDPARENT VISITATION WITH THE CHILD AND HAVE DENIED VISITATION FOR MORE THAN NINETY DAYS, THAT THE GRANDPARENT MAINTAINED A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD SIMILAR TO A PARENT‑CHILD RELATIONSHIP, THAT AWARDING VISITATION WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PARENT‑CHILD RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT THE PARENTS ARE UNFIT OR THAT THERE ARE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PARENTAL DECISION IS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST; TO AUTHORIZE THE JUDGE TO AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY; AND TO DEFINE “GRANDPARENT".

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Grandparent visitation revised

SECTION 1. Section 63‑3‑530(A)(33) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 361 of 2008, is amended to read:

“(33) to order visitation for the grandparent of a minor child where either or both parents of the minor child is or are deceased, or are divorced, or are living separate and apart in different habitats, if the court finds that:

(1) the child’s parents or guardians are unreasonably depriving the grandparent of the opportunity to visit with the child, including denying visitation of the minor child to the grandparent for a period exceeding ninety days; and

(2) the grandparent maintained a relationship similar to a parent‑child relationship with the minor child; and

(3) that awarding grandparent visitation would not interfere with the parent‑child relationship; and:

(a) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child's parents or guardians are unfit; or

(b) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there are compelling circumstances to overcome the presumption that the parental decision is in the child's best interest.

The judge presiding over this matter may award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party.

For purposes of this item, ‘grandparent’ means the natural or adoptive parent of any parent to a minor child;”

Time effective
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Ratified the 21st day of June, 2010.
Approved the 24th day of June, 2010.

As reported in the Greenville News:
The former finance director of South Carolina's social services agency was sentenced Monday to 10 years in prison for stealing more than $5 million from the agency, money he has admitted spending on strippers, alcohol and gambling. Read the complete story published by The Greenville News website by clicking the link on the right side of this page.

We will be watching the progress of this case closely as it apparently reflects the general attitude of DSS towards the families of South Carolina. GRASC advocated a SLED investigation of the intire DSS system to insure there are no other breaches of the public trust by this agency.

Serious problems with Custody Evaluators, 730 Evaluators, Child Custody Evaluators, Bad Custody Evaluations » THE PUBLIC COURT

Serious problems with Custody Evaluators, 730 Evaluators, Child Custody Evaluators, Bad Custody Evaluations » THE PUBLIC COURT

What do Custody Evaluators Steven Adam and Stephen Doyne have in common?
“A Los Angeles Times news item from 1992 states that court justices reverse a decision which dropped Adam from a lawsuit brought by a woman who sued him for approving unmonitored visits to her daughter by her ex-husband.. The appeal justices’ ruling stated court-appointed evaluators such as Adam do not get “blanket immunity for all negligenct conduct.” Mark I. Pinsky, “Court of Appeal Reverses Verdict in Murder Case, Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1992.” This case answers the question for so many families caught in the family court trap, “Can I sue my custody evaluator?” The answer in California is, “Yes, you can, in particularly, for negligence.”
AND
“Adam is also the poster child for stepping out of the scope in the court orders for a custody evaluator. In the Seagondollar case, the appeal justices spanked Adam for not following the court orders that defined a custody evaluation. Adam, took it upon himself to follow his own rules. The court of appeal justices caught Adam stepping out of the scope in the well known California Family Law Appeal case known as The Seagondollar Case. This lead to mandated classes for all custody evaluators across the U.S. regarding how they must follow court orders in how a custody evaluation is to be conducted. In the courts terms and not dictated by the custody evaluator.” Seagondollar Appellate case opinion
What is of significant importance in regard to Adam and the Segondollar case is that in the entire San Diego County, prior to July 24, 2009, CA Rules of Court were never followed, never administered, when they are very clear that ‘each court must’ follow them. Well in the case of Tadros vs. Doyne this is highlighted by Emad Tadros and Chris Morris (Associate of Mike Aguirre) in that they had 20″ x 30″ inch poster boards showing the very forms having to do with the Rules that were violated in front of Judge Jay Bloom and he completely ignored the violations Stephen Doyne and Court itself had violated for years. Judge Bloom granted Doyne the Anti-Slapp and ordered Tadros MD to pay Doyne 80k for blowing the whistle on him and the Court.
Stephen Doyne and all of the rest of the Custody Evaluators in San Diego County as well as all of the Judges in San Diego County, NEVER used these forms (FL-327 and FL-326) as mandated by the Court.
Mr. Michael C. Roddy, Court Executive Officer of San Diego Superior Court participated in Judicial Counsel meetings where the Rules (CRC 5.225-5.230) pertaining to these forms were first introduced, and then he attended another JC meeting and voted on amending to them, continuing to make them more detailed and important in protecting the Public from fraudulent and unqualified Custody Evaluators. However, Mr. Roddy NEVER administered the Rules of Court he voted on to protect the Public! These Rules also protect Evaluators as well in substantiating their background training and qualifications in order to perform evaluations or serve as expert witness of the court, and they are to be signed under the penalty of perjury. Precisely, because these forms were never filled out and filed in the time sensitive, mandatory 10-day period they were to be completed by, NOT a single Evaluator in San Diego County over several years were NEVER qualified to serve as expert witness — They were UNQUALIFIED! Stephen Doyne should never have been granted the Anti-Slapp ruling precisely because he never legally attached to Tadros MD’s evaluation in the first place. The Rules are very clear, if you don’t complete the form FL-326 then you cannot serve as expert witness, but they all have been doing it anyway, committing to HIPAA violations in the act, denying litigants their due process, and well, essentially being illegal interlopers in the act of conducting 730 Custody Evaluations. These are just the broad sweeps of what is at issue, there are many more details to these Rules of Court known as CRC 5.225 – 5.230 and how San Diego’s Custody Evaluators are conducting themselves.
It is very clear that the precedents that the Segaondollar case went ignored by San Diego County and it’s corrupt team of so-called court professionals. Why did San Diego ignore these Rules of Court when every other county in the State of CA complied with them??? If you really want to know, follow the money…and good luck!

Family Law Audit Finds Sloppy Record-Keeping

Family Law Audit Finds Sloppy Record-Keeping


SACRAMENTO — Family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties can't prove that many of the professionals they hire to sort out emotionally charged custody cases have the required training and experience to do their jobs, according to a state auditor's report released Thursday.

In Sacramento, seven of 20 court-employed mediators and evaluators couldn't show the auditor's staff that they had met qualification and training standards set by state law and the California Rules of Court, the report found. The same was true for seven mediators in Marin County Superior Court, according to the auditor.

That lack of documentation means court leaders can't evaluate whether family court professionals have the skills "to guide the parties through mediation effectively or to assess properly a family's condition and ensure that the outcome is in the best interests of the children," the auditor concluded.

The report also faulted the courts for poor tracking of complaints against evaluators and mediators and for weak policies regarding conflicts of interest among family court officials.

The 113-page report, commissioned by the Legislature in 2009, cites shoddy record-keeping and a failure by court officials to strictly adhere to policies of the state and sometimes their own courts. It does not, however, link any lack of training to a child being harmed. And it does not address the more hot-button allegations made by some court critics of chummy relationships between judges and family court staff.

"The scope of the audit was rather limited but what they did uncover was, I think, fairly scathing," said Kathleen Russell, executive director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Mill Valley-based parents group that has been critical of family court operations statewide.

"This document clearly delivers the proof that unqualified court employees are making these decisions that affect thousands of children," Russell said.

While leaders of both courts generally welcomed the auditor's recommendations for better documentation, they also challenged a number of the report's findings.

"All Family Court Services mediators and evaluators currently meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements under the law," Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Steve White wrote in response to the report. "The court will not assign any matter to a FCS mediator/evaluator who fails to meet the mandatory qualification or training requirements."

Marin Presiding Judge Terrence Boren questioned whether the auditor was nit-picking.

"While the court intends to implement the recommended changes … it is questionable as to whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability. Frankly, some of them fail the test of materiality from the court's perspective," Boren wrote.

State law requires a family court mediator to have a master's degree and at least two years experience in counseling or psychotherapy when they are hired. They must also complete 40 hours of initial training in mediation plus at least 12 hours a year of ongoing education. Evaluators have to meet certain licensure or court-certification requirements as well as continuing training requirements.

For years, family court critics have lobbied lawmakers to overhaul what they say is an insular judicial system that favors wealthy parents and has little accountability. Court leaders counter that much of the criticism is brought by disgruntled parents angry with their experiences in the heated arena of child-custody battles.

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, led efforts to secure the state audit of the two family law courts. He called the auditor's findings "disturbing."

"In the private sector, if I hang a shingle on my door and declare myself a psychiatrist … and I can't [prove that] I am, I don't get to call it a book-keeping error. I get called a fraud and probably get taken to court," Leno said.

The family courts "are making immensely important decisions and these courts can't even prove that these employees should be in their jobs," he said.

Leno said state Auditor Elaine Howle told him Thursday that she would be reviewing the courts' progress on making the recommended changes over the next year.

"We will give them time to self-correct, but if there's need for legislative action, there will be," Leno said.