HB 0538
HB 538-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
11-0725
05/04
HOUSE BILL 538-FN
AN ACT establishing a reporting system for court decisions relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities and the appointment of guardians ad litem.
SPONSORS: Rep. Oligny, Rock 8; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. Ulery, Hills 27; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Lambert, Hills 27
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a reporting system for court decisions relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities and the appointment of guardians ad litem.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0725
05/04
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT establishing a reporting system for court decisions relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities and the appointment of guardians ad litem.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Vital Records Administration; Record of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. Amend RSA 5-C by inserting after section 61 the following new section:
5-C:61-a Record of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. The division of vital records shall collect information relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities from the courts, pursuant to RSA 461-A:6-a and RSA 490-D:16. Such information be available to parties with a tangible interest in the record. The department also shall make statistical information relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities available to the public upon request.
2 New Section; Parental Rights and Responsibilities; Information Provided to State Registrar. Amend RSA 461-A by inserting after section 6 the following new section:
461-A:6-a Information Provided to State Registrar. Upon issuing or modifying a temporary or permanent order concerning parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall provide the following information to the state registrar:
I. Whether decision making responsibility for the child shall be with both parents, the mother, the father, or another person.
II. Whether residential responsibility shall be shared equally, or approximately equally, by the child’s parents, or if it shall be primarily the responsibility of the mother, father, or another party.
III. Whether a guardian ad litem was appointed, and whether the guardian ad litem recommended that decision making responsibility and primary residential responsibility be awarded to both parents, the mother, father, or another party.
IV. The type of petition: a petition for divorce, petition for separation, or petition for determination of parental rights and responsibilities.
V. The date of the order relative to parental rights and responsibilities and the date of the divorce decree, if any.
VI. The name of the hearing official.
3 New Section; Family Court Performance Data. Amend RSA 490-D by inserting after section 15 the following new section:
490-D:16 Family Court Performance Data. The judicial branch family division shall collect the following information regarding cases involving the determination of parental rights and responsibilities, and shall submit the information to the division of vital records on a monthly basis:
I. The number of pending cases involving the determination of parental rights and responsibilities.
II. The number of temporary and final orders issued regarding the determination of parental rights and responsibilities.
III. The number of cases assigned a guardian ad litem and, for each case in which a guardian ad litem report was filed, a predetermined reason code summarizing the basis for the guardian ad litem’s recommendation relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The number of reason codes shall be minimized to the extent practicable, while still capturing the basis for the recommendation.
IV. The number of cases in which decision making responsibility was awarded to both parents, the mother, the father, or another person.
V. The number of cases in which residential responsibility was awarded to both parents, the mother, father, or another person.
4 Determination of Parental Rights and Responsibilities; Guardian Ad Litem Performance Data. Amend RSA 461-A:16, VI to read as follows:
VI. The supreme court shall provide the following relative to guardians ad litem appointed pursuant to this section:
(a) Standards and requirements for registration as a guardian ad litem.
(b) Standards for practice, including but not limited to ethical rules.
(c) Disciplinary procedures for violating ethical rules and requirements established under this paragraph.
(d) Penalties for violation of ethical rules and requirements, including, as the court may deem necessary, fines or disciplinary action, or both.
(e) Monthly statistical information relative to the number of guardian ad litem applications, certifications, and denials, including the applicants’ gender and predetermined reason codes summarizing the basis for denials. The number of reason codes shall be minimized to extent practicable, while still capturing the basis for the decision.
(f) Methods for evaluating performance, including the development of a questionnaire to be distributed to each of the parties to cases in which a guardian ad litem was assigned. The questionnaire shall be designed to gauge the parties’ satisfaction with guardian ad litem services and may include questions relative to the guardian ad litem’s performance, legal knowledge, attentiveness, bias and objectivity, and degree of preparedness. A bi-annual report summarizing information gathered under subparagraphs (e) and (f), including statistical information gathered from the questionnaires, shall be made available to the public.
5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
11-0725
01/19/11
HB 538-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT establishing a reporting system for court decisions relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities and the appointment of guardians ad litem.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Due to time constraints, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to provide a fiscal note for this bill at this time. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the House Clerk's Office.
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
Saturday, February 5, 2011
NH HB 0380 Commission on the status of men - New Hampshire is on a Roll!!
HB 0380
HB 380 – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
11-0451
05/09
HOUSE BILL 380
AN ACT exempting the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and adding a duty to the commission.
SPONSORS: Rep. W. Smith, Rock 18; Rep. Nevins, Rock 15; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5; Rep. L. Perkins, Rock 14; Rep. Oligny, Rock 8
COMMITTEE: Executive Departments and Administration
ANALYSIS
This bill exempts the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and directs the commission to examine the social and economic consequences of the absence of fathers from the home.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0451
05/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT exempting the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and adding a duty to the commission.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Commission on the Status of Men; Reinstatement. Pursuant to 2009, 144:87, I(a), the commission on the status of men, established in RSA 19-I, is hereby reinstated.
2 New Paragraph; Duties of the Commission on the Status of Men. Amend RSA 19-I:4 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. Identifying the economic and social costs of the absence of fathers from the home and the steps the state can take to reduce those costs. The commission shall make an interim report of its findings and recommendations regarding this issue to the governor and council, the commissioner of administration services, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representative on or before October 1, 2011.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
HB 380 – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
11-0451
05/09
HOUSE BILL 380
AN ACT exempting the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and adding a duty to the commission.
SPONSORS: Rep. W. Smith, Rock 18; Rep. Nevins, Rock 15; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5; Rep. L. Perkins, Rock 14; Rep. Oligny, Rock 8
COMMITTEE: Executive Departments and Administration
ANALYSIS
This bill exempts the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and directs the commission to examine the social and economic consequences of the absence of fathers from the home.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0451
05/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT exempting the commission on the status of men from repeal on June 30, 2011 and adding a duty to the commission.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Commission on the Status of Men; Reinstatement. Pursuant to 2009, 144:87, I(a), the commission on the status of men, established in RSA 19-I, is hereby reinstated.
2 New Paragraph; Duties of the Commission on the Status of Men. Amend RSA 19-I:4 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. Identifying the economic and social costs of the absence of fathers from the home and the steps the state can take to reduce those costs. The commission shall make an interim report of its findings and recommendations regarding this issue to the governor and council, the commissioner of administration services, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representative on or before October 1, 2011.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Congratulation's on Your Graduation Candy!!!!! We Knew You Could Do It!!!
We are extremely proud of our daughter Candy. She proved Maggie Bishop and the rest of DCYF wrong. She proved Judge Raymond Cloutier wrong and everybody else who wouldn't give her a chance. All they cared about was auctioning off her daughter. They never once thought about what they were doing to her. Their too greedy!
We're so happy that she turned her life around and graduated from Cosmetology School, her lifelong dream. A dream she had to put on hold while fighting false allegation's for the return of her daughter, stolen by DCYF, ILLEGALLY!
We are extremely proud to have her as a part of our family. Just think, if it were up to DCYF's Maggie Bishop, she would have been dead by now, after telling me to leave her to die. To not get her the medical attention she needed. And then asked me, "Why isn't Candy dead?" Probably the same wish she has for me! Too bad Maggie! I'm sticking around to make your life Hell! And Judge Cloutier stated she would never do anything with her life, when he wrote up all those lies in his court decision severing all rights to her daughter.I guess the DCYF and court Psychic's need to ALL be fired. All they are is useless baby stealer's!
All the recommendation's she has received, stating she's an upstanding citizen!
It does pay to stand by your children and help them in any way you can.
I hope Maggie Bishop and the rest of Satan's Spawn, along with Judge Cloutier like the mud on their faces. Candy has proven them all wrong!
Candy, we love you and congratulate you on all your accomplishment's.
"The Child" Movie
'The Child' Movie
Share · Public Event
Time
Saturday, April 2 · 2:00pm - 8:00pm
Location New Boston Community Center
Main Street
New Boston, IL
Created By
Ralyn Sue Speerly Schraceo, Laurie Bluedorn
More Info 'The Child' movie presentation with guest speakers (speakers to be announced). If you are a parent, this concerns YOU. Parental rights are in danger all across our country - come join us to learn more about the Parental Rights Amendment and the U.N. Rights of the Child Treaty.
We will be doing a double showing of the movie, one in the afternoon and one in the evening.
2:00-4:00 pm
&
6:00-8:00 pm
Refreshments will be served...
For more information on this event, to volunteer to help or to speak at this event, please contact Ralyn Schraceo @ 217-492-1163
For more information on 'The Child' movie:
http://www.parentalrights.org/
Share · Public Event
Time
Saturday, April 2 · 2:00pm - 8:00pm
Location New Boston Community Center
Main Street
New Boston, IL
Created By
Ralyn Sue Speerly Schraceo, Laurie Bluedorn
More Info 'The Child' movie presentation with guest speakers (speakers to be announced). If you are a parent, this concerns YOU. Parental rights are in danger all across our country - come join us to learn more about the Parental Rights Amendment and the U.N. Rights of the Child Treaty.
We will be doing a double showing of the movie, one in the afternoon and one in the evening.
2:00-4:00 pm
&
6:00-8:00 pm
Refreshments will be served...
For more information on this event, to volunteer to help or to speak at this event, please contact Ralyn Schraceo @ 217-492-1163
For more information on 'The Child' movie:
http://www.parentalrights.org/
Child Protector Racket: Child Protectors Just "Snatch" Children
Child Protector Racket: Child Protectors Just "Snatch" Children
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2011
Child Protectors Just "Snatch" Children
They SAY there is “evidence” of “psychological issues” they can’t detail or describe. But that didn’t stop them from just TAKING the children because they are being “home schooled." Authorities even fined the parents $5,000 for home schooling them in the past. Of course, this happened in Sweden where the laws are different. But evidence shows that our own “child protectors” operate the same way and are ALLOWED to do so. And have done so many times in the past. They CLAIM their activities are “civil,” not criminal, and thus constitutional protections don’t apply.
But that’s just a dodge that allows them to operate “extra-constitutionally” in their efforts to collect the myriad “fees” the feds give them at every point in “the process,” from the FIRST DAY after they “snatch” a child until they are either returned to their parents or adopted out. They have a very definite conflict of interest here, in that they PROFIT ($4.500 to $6,000 each) from severing parental rights and manage to adopt the children out. Meanwhile they get “fees” for every day those children are “in the system.” It is to their monetary advantage to delay the return of the children as long as they can.They collect a fee if the child is "in the system" ONE DAY. It's a simple moneymaking scam.
With my own children more than 35 years ago, they stalled and stalled, lying (having NOTHING for which to keep them) about the dates of hearings, and finally succeeding in severing my parental rights by doing so. I was never charged with ANYTHING, but they kept the kids anyway, collecting I don’t know how much in “interim fees” and the final $12,000 [$6,000 each] they collected for adopting them out (I have not seen, nor heard from or about them since. I don’t know if they’re alive or dead. CPS wouldn’t tell me, anyway). $12, 000 because they were “declared” special needs kids—which is not unusual after being removed from their loving home and being “passed around” among foster homes for years while being brainwashed by CPS about how lousy their parents are. What child would NOT be “special needs” child after that? (World Net Daily)
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2011
Child Protectors Just "Snatch" Children
They SAY there is “evidence” of “psychological issues” they can’t detail or describe. But that didn’t stop them from just TAKING the children because they are being “home schooled." Authorities even fined the parents $5,000 for home schooling them in the past. Of course, this happened in Sweden where the laws are different. But evidence shows that our own “child protectors” operate the same way and are ALLOWED to do so. And have done so many times in the past. They CLAIM their activities are “civil,” not criminal, and thus constitutional protections don’t apply.
But that’s just a dodge that allows them to operate “extra-constitutionally” in their efforts to collect the myriad “fees” the feds give them at every point in “the process,” from the FIRST DAY after they “snatch” a child until they are either returned to their parents or adopted out. They have a very definite conflict of interest here, in that they PROFIT ($4.500 to $6,000 each) from severing parental rights and manage to adopt the children out. Meanwhile they get “fees” for every day those children are “in the system.” It is to their monetary advantage to delay the return of the children as long as they can.They collect a fee if the child is "in the system" ONE DAY. It's a simple moneymaking scam.
With my own children more than 35 years ago, they stalled and stalled, lying (having NOTHING for which to keep them) about the dates of hearings, and finally succeeding in severing my parental rights by doing so. I was never charged with ANYTHING, but they kept the kids anyway, collecting I don’t know how much in “interim fees” and the final $12,000 [$6,000 each] they collected for adopting them out (I have not seen, nor heard from or about them since. I don’t know if they’re alive or dead. CPS wouldn’t tell me, anyway). $12, 000 because they were “declared” special needs kids—which is not unusual after being removed from their loving home and being “passed around” among foster homes for years while being brainwashed by CPS about how lousy their parents are. What child would NOT be “special needs” child after that? (World Net Daily)
Legal Child Abduction: How the Government Profits by Stealing Your Children
Legal Child Abduction: How the Government Profits by Stealing Your Children
Posted By Dr. Mercola | February 05 2011 | 4,782 views
By Dr. Mercola
Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.
That's why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It's exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.
But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you're not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?
The Legal Abduction of Children
Horrendous as it sounds, it's true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!
Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective service programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.
A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.
"Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county," John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper. "These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.
Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact. "As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children's lives," he said.
He then cited San Diego CPS for "egregious behaviors" that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.
The ugly truth is that San Diego isn't the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry "foul."
About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services' Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.
As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.
In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.
But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.
In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.
Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.
How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports
What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together."1
As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouraged more adoptions.
Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give "bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number," NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. "About the only parents the federal government won't help indefinitely are birth parents," NCCPR found.
But the injustices don't stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.
"CPS nationally are doing a job they've never been trained to do," says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years. They're investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.
This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting."
The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.
"And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they're wrong," she said.
"So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers."
How are States Spending this Extra Money?
According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This is based on President Obama's $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.
But this decrease is based on "placement of children in more permanent settings." In other words, states are getting more money to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.
The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.
The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!
In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn't get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going. But a look at any state's budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children's services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .
Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse
This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it's a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn't do. It also doesn't explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).
Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.
While the numbers may not seem exceedingly large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.
On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen
In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down. But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county's recent court cases they'd lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.
When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.
The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well as entire websites devoted to helping people who've been falsely accused of child abuse.
Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?
Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
"This is an inverted pyramid," Yazbak says. "It's an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.
This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it's the other side that's making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.
It's obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they're literally convicting people before they're even accused. It's the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent."
A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their "businesses" going.
Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.
Again, the numbers tell the story:
In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation. Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS "investigations." Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.
But with a "more inclusive" definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.
But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn't explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.
So what can you or I do about it?
According to Hart, this is an issue that can't be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It's a national problem that's gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.
Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse "prevention" that I've talked about here.
In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I've included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.
While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it's possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the "immunity" clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can't do so without being held responsible.
References:
1 National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Related Links:
Child Abuse by the Government
The Hidden Truth: Why the Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs
Congressman Ron Paul on Washington’s Dirtiest Secrets
Posted By Dr. Mercola | February 05 2011 | 4,782 views
By Dr. Mercola
Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.
That's why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It's exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.
But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you're not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?
The Legal Abduction of Children
Horrendous as it sounds, it's true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!
Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective service programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.
A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.
"Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county," John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper. "These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.
Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact. "As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children's lives," he said.
He then cited San Diego CPS for "egregious behaviors" that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.
The ugly truth is that San Diego isn't the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry "foul."
About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services' Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.
As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.
In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.
But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.
In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.
Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.
How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports
What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together."1
As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouraged more adoptions.
Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give "bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number," NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. "About the only parents the federal government won't help indefinitely are birth parents," NCCPR found.
But the injustices don't stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.
"CPS nationally are doing a job they've never been trained to do," says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years. They're investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.
This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting."
The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.
"And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they're wrong," she said.
"So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers."
How are States Spending this Extra Money?
According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This is based on President Obama's $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.
But this decrease is based on "placement of children in more permanent settings." In other words, states are getting more money to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.
The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.
The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!
In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn't get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going. But a look at any state's budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children's services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .
Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse
This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it's a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn't do. It also doesn't explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).
Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.
While the numbers may not seem exceedingly large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.
On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen
In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down. But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county's recent court cases they'd lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.
When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.
The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well as entire websites devoted to helping people who've been falsely accused of child abuse.
Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?
Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
"This is an inverted pyramid," Yazbak says. "It's an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.
This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it's the other side that's making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.
It's obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they're literally convicting people before they're even accused. It's the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent."
A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their "businesses" going.
Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.
Again, the numbers tell the story:
In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation. Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS "investigations." Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.
But with a "more inclusive" definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.
But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn't explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.
So what can you or I do about it?
According to Hart, this is an issue that can't be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It's a national problem that's gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.
Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse "prevention" that I've talked about here.
In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I've included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.
While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it's possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the "immunity" clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can't do so without being held responsible.
References:
1 National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Related Links:
Child Abuse by the Government
The Hidden Truth: Why the Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs
Congressman Ron Paul on Washington’s Dirtiest Secrets
Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children: Summary of State Laws
Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children: Summary of State Laws
Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2009
Current Through December 2009
You may wish to review this introductory text to better understand the information contained in your State's statute. To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
Concurrent planning initially developed as a type of permanency planning in which reunification services were provided to the family of a child in out-of-home care at the same time that an alternative permanency plan was made for the child, in case reunification efforts failed. To be effective, concurrent planning requires not only the identification of an alternative plan, but also the implementation of active efforts toward both plans simultaneously, with the full knowledge of all case participants. Compared to more traditional sequential planning for permanency, in which one permanency plan is ruled out before an alternative is developed, concurrent planning may provide earlier permanency for the child.1
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) mandated shortened timelines for achieving permanency for children in foster care. To meet these timelines, many States have come to rely on concurrent planning. Approximately 42 States and the District of Columbia have statutes that address the issue of concurrent planning.2 The language in these statutes ranges from general statements that simply authorize concurrent planning activity to statutes that provide, in some detail, the elements that must be included when making a concurrent permanency plan.
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act has helped identify the need for expanding concurrent planning beyond very young children. Concurrent permanency planning efforts with a teen may include aggressively recruiting adoptive parents while simultaneously helping the youth develop positive relationships with relatives and other adults. The goal is for the youth to have emotional supports in place if an adoptive home cannot be identified by the time the youth turns 18.
Currently, most State concurrent planning statutes allow but do not require concurrent planning. Other States require the use of concurrent planning under specific circumstances. For example, the statute in California states, "If out-of-home services are used and the goal is reunification, the case plan shall describe the services to be provided to assist in reunification and the services to be provided concurrently to achieve legal permanency if efforts to reunify fail." Idaho, Oregon, Texas, and Utah also require that the family's case plan include concurrent efforts toward an alternative permanency goal.
Two States (Mississippi and Oklahoma) require agencies to engage in concurrent planning from the time the child first comes into care. Connecticut and Florida require an assessment of the family when the child has been in care for 6 months; if at that time the prospect of reunification seems unlikely, a concurrent permanency plan must then be developed. Five States and the District of Columbia direct that concurrent planning efforts be utilized to find a permanent placement for the child at the time that proceedings to terminate parental rights have been initiated.3
Minnesota requires the concurrent development of an alternative permanency plan for children who are placed in foster care by a court order or who have been voluntarily placed out of the home by the parents for 60 days or more. The 60-day time limit does not apply if the children who have been voluntarily placed are developmentally delayed or emotionally disturbed. Kentucky uses concurrent planning only when a newborn has been abandoned. In that situation, a foster parent agrees to work with the Cabinet for Children and Families on reunification with the birth parents (if known) and to adopt the infant if reunification fails.
Four States provide definitions of concurrent planning in statute.4 Idaho, for example, specifies that a concurrent plan "…prepares for and implements different outcomes at the same time." In Louisiana, "Concurrent planning means departmental efforts to preserve and reunify a family or to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian, which are made simultaneously." The definition in Montana emphasizes the need to implement as well as develop a concurrent plan in addition to identifying a plan for reunification.
The statutes in Connecticut, Florida, and Minnesota include the requirement for the concurrent plan to be fully disclosed to the family. The statutes in Connecticut and Minnesota specifically state that, "Concurrent permanency planning programs must include involvement of parents and full disclosure of their rights and responsibilities..."
There are a number of State statutes that articulate the need to consider the potential of the first placement in foster care to both support reunification efforts and be a possible adoptive placement for the child if reunification is not achieved. For example, Illinois specifies, "At the time of placement, consideration should also be given so that if reunification fails or is delayed, the placement made is the best available placement to provide permanency for the child."
Statutes in four States reflect the need for collaboration between the court system and the State.5 These statutes spell out the need for the court to make findings of reasonable efforts on the part of the agency to achieve both concurrent plans during the judicial reviews of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency.
To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
1 For a more complete discussion of the implementation of concurrent planning, see Information Gateway's Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows. back
2 The word approximately is used to stress that the States frequently amend their laws. As of December 2009, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia do not address the issue of concurrent planning in their statutes. back
3 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wyoming require concurrent planning when a termination petition is filed. Wyoming and the District of Columbia also allow concurrent planning while reasonable efforts are being made to reunify the family. back
4 Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, and Montana. back
5 Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Utah. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2009
Current Through December 2009
You may wish to review this introductory text to better understand the information contained in your State's statute. To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
Concurrent planning initially developed as a type of permanency planning in which reunification services were provided to the family of a child in out-of-home care at the same time that an alternative permanency plan was made for the child, in case reunification efforts failed. To be effective, concurrent planning requires not only the identification of an alternative plan, but also the implementation of active efforts toward both plans simultaneously, with the full knowledge of all case participants. Compared to more traditional sequential planning for permanency, in which one permanency plan is ruled out before an alternative is developed, concurrent planning may provide earlier permanency for the child.1
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) mandated shortened timelines for achieving permanency for children in foster care. To meet these timelines, many States have come to rely on concurrent planning. Approximately 42 States and the District of Columbia have statutes that address the issue of concurrent planning.2 The language in these statutes ranges from general statements that simply authorize concurrent planning activity to statutes that provide, in some detail, the elements that must be included when making a concurrent permanency plan.
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act has helped identify the need for expanding concurrent planning beyond very young children. Concurrent permanency planning efforts with a teen may include aggressively recruiting adoptive parents while simultaneously helping the youth develop positive relationships with relatives and other adults. The goal is for the youth to have emotional supports in place if an adoptive home cannot be identified by the time the youth turns 18.
Currently, most State concurrent planning statutes allow but do not require concurrent planning. Other States require the use of concurrent planning under specific circumstances. For example, the statute in California states, "If out-of-home services are used and the goal is reunification, the case plan shall describe the services to be provided to assist in reunification and the services to be provided concurrently to achieve legal permanency if efforts to reunify fail." Idaho, Oregon, Texas, and Utah also require that the family's case plan include concurrent efforts toward an alternative permanency goal.
Two States (Mississippi and Oklahoma) require agencies to engage in concurrent planning from the time the child first comes into care. Connecticut and Florida require an assessment of the family when the child has been in care for 6 months; if at that time the prospect of reunification seems unlikely, a concurrent permanency plan must then be developed. Five States and the District of Columbia direct that concurrent planning efforts be utilized to find a permanent placement for the child at the time that proceedings to terminate parental rights have been initiated.3
Minnesota requires the concurrent development of an alternative permanency plan for children who are placed in foster care by a court order or who have been voluntarily placed out of the home by the parents for 60 days or more. The 60-day time limit does not apply if the children who have been voluntarily placed are developmentally delayed or emotionally disturbed. Kentucky uses concurrent planning only when a newborn has been abandoned. In that situation, a foster parent agrees to work with the Cabinet for Children and Families on reunification with the birth parents (if known) and to adopt the infant if reunification fails.
Four States provide definitions of concurrent planning in statute.4 Idaho, for example, specifies that a concurrent plan "…prepares for and implements different outcomes at the same time." In Louisiana, "Concurrent planning means departmental efforts to preserve and reunify a family or to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian, which are made simultaneously." The definition in Montana emphasizes the need to implement as well as develop a concurrent plan in addition to identifying a plan for reunification.
The statutes in Connecticut, Florida, and Minnesota include the requirement for the concurrent plan to be fully disclosed to the family. The statutes in Connecticut and Minnesota specifically state that, "Concurrent permanency planning programs must include involvement of parents and full disclosure of their rights and responsibilities..."
There are a number of State statutes that articulate the need to consider the potential of the first placement in foster care to both support reunification efforts and be a possible adoptive placement for the child if reunification is not achieved. For example, Illinois specifies, "At the time of placement, consideration should also be given so that if reunification fails or is delayed, the placement made is the best available placement to provide permanency for the child."
Statutes in four States reflect the need for collaboration between the court system and the State.5 These statutes spell out the need for the court to make findings of reasonable efforts on the part of the agency to achieve both concurrent plans during the judicial reviews of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency.
To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.
1 For a more complete discussion of the implementation of concurrent planning, see Information Gateway's Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows. back
2 The word approximately is used to stress that the States frequently amend their laws. As of December 2009, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia do not address the issue of concurrent planning in their statutes. back
3 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wyoming require concurrent planning when a termination petition is filed. Wyoming and the District of Columbia also allow concurrent planning while reasonable efforts are being made to reunify the family. back
4 Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, and Montana. back
5 Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Utah. back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)