Grandparents desperate for custody of grandkids - NBCActionNews.com - Kansas City
KANSAS CITY, Kansas - Kansas senators are considering giving grandparents new rights. They would be given a voice in child custody courts. However, even some advocates for the bill believe it is woefully inadequate.
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
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tortured Teen Will Sue CPS
Tortured Teen Will Sue CPS - Sacramento News Story - KCRA Sacramento
A teenager who was abused for years at a home in Tracy plans to file a lawsuit on Wednesday against Sacramento County's Child Protective Services, according to a news release issued Tuesday.
File
The teenager, identifed only as Kyle Doe, escaped in December 2008 to a nearby gym after being hit with a baseball bat, beaten with a flashlight, cut with a knife and chained to a table.
A teenager who was abused for years at a home in Tracy plans to file a lawsuit on Wednesday against Sacramento County's Child Protective Services, according to a news release issued Tuesday.
File
The teenager, identifed only as Kyle Doe, escaped in December 2008 to a nearby gym after being hit with a baseball bat, beaten with a flashlight, cut with a knife and chained to a table.
Police: Foster child steals cash, buys drugs for other foster teens - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York
Police: Foster child steals cash, buys drugs for other foster teens - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York
A Port Leyden foster child has been accused of stealing $500 from his foster parent and using the money to buy marijuana, state police in Lowville said.
A Port Leyden foster child has been accused of stealing $500 from his foster parent and using the money to buy marijuana, state police in Lowville said.
DCF -- the gift that keeps on giving
DCF -- the gift that keeps on giving - Helen Ubinas | Notes from HeL
When the Department of Children and Families screw up, they do it big.
Turns out that DCF, which had questions about Carlina White's identity in 2005, not only failed to reunite her with her biological family.
But they also cost her the trust fund that her parents established with proceeds from a settlement they received after she was kidnapped as a baby from a New York hospital.
When the Department of Children and Families screw up, they do it big.
Turns out that DCF, which had questions about Carlina White's identity in 2005, not only failed to reunite her with her biological family.
But they also cost her the trust fund that her parents established with proceeds from a settlement they received after she was kidnapped as a baby from a New York hospital.
House passes parental rights memorial 49-20, after much debate - Eye On Boise - Spokesman.com - Feb. 7, 2011
House passes parental rights memorial 49-20, after much debate - Eye On Boise - Spokesman.com - Feb. 7, 2011
Eye On Boise
House passes parental rights memorial 49-20, after much debate
Posted by Betsy
Feb. 7, 2011 11:01 a.m. • 4 comments
After much debate, the House has voted 49-20 to pass a non-binding memorial from Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d'Alene, urging a new “parental rights amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, was among the opponents. “It is a sovereignty issue, it's a 10th Amendment issue, and these decisions should be left up to the state and we the people,” she told the House. “The federal government does not observe the Constitution nine times out of 10 as it is, so why give them something else to ignore?”
Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, a supporter of the measure, said, “I have a real concern when we have treaties directing what we can and cannot do with our children.” He also said he worries about statements by Justice Antonin Scalia regarding parental rights. “The courts are stepping out now in places that we don't want to go, and we oughta get 'em back,” Moyle said. He said “if this thing gets out of control,” the state could choose not to ratify such an amendment. “But I still think we need to send a message,” he said.
Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, spoke against the measure as a pediatrician, and told of a 2-year-old who died of serious nutritional deficiency after his parents chose to feed him nothing but cow's milk. “Let's not put the rights of the lives of children in an inferior position,” Rusche said. “I think there is a real opportunity to do harm with this.”
Nonini, responding to the debate, said the major home-school group that has come out against an amendment “is way out of mainstream with home educators,” and said numerous “pro-family” groups support it, and think the measure will “protect Idaho's families.” Nonini said, “This amendment will protect parents from interference both from the federal government and from state governments.” The measure now moves to the Senate.
Eye On Boise
House passes parental rights memorial 49-20, after much debate
Posted by Betsy
Feb. 7, 2011 11:01 a.m. • 4 comments
After much debate, the House has voted 49-20 to pass a non-binding memorial from Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d'Alene, urging a new “parental rights amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, was among the opponents. “It is a sovereignty issue, it's a 10th Amendment issue, and these decisions should be left up to the state and we the people,” she told the House. “The federal government does not observe the Constitution nine times out of 10 as it is, so why give them something else to ignore?”
Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, a supporter of the measure, said, “I have a real concern when we have treaties directing what we can and cannot do with our children.” He also said he worries about statements by Justice Antonin Scalia regarding parental rights. “The courts are stepping out now in places that we don't want to go, and we oughta get 'em back,” Moyle said. He said “if this thing gets out of control,” the state could choose not to ratify such an amendment. “But I still think we need to send a message,” he said.
Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, spoke against the measure as a pediatrician, and told of a 2-year-old who died of serious nutritional deficiency after his parents chose to feed him nothing but cow's milk. “Let's not put the rights of the lives of children in an inferior position,” Rusche said. “I think there is a real opportunity to do harm with this.”
Nonini, responding to the debate, said the major home-school group that has come out against an amendment “is way out of mainstream with home educators,” and said numerous “pro-family” groups support it, and think the measure will “protect Idaho's families.” Nonini said, “This amendment will protect parents from interference both from the federal government and from state governments.” The measure now moves to the Senate.
House Bill 1680 Washington will Screw over Parent's Even More!
Contact Your State Legislator's IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
Why should Child Protective Services be Immune to ALL their Deceitful practices without fear of lawsuit's? Enough is enough!!!!! Make your voices heard!!!~
H-1173.2 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 1680
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Eddy, Anderson, Carlyle, Morris, Kagi, Takko,
Maxwell, and Clibborn
Read first time 01/28/11. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to child abuse investigations and proceedings;
2 amending RCW 26.44.010 and 26.44.125; adding a new section to chapter
3 26.44 RCW; and adding a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 26.44 RCW
6 to read as follows:
7 The legislature finds that judicial interpretation of child abuse
8 investigation statutes has imposed potentially irreconcilable duties on
9 the department of social and health services and governmental entities
10 that are obligated to investigate child abuse and neglect referrals.
11 Courts have ruled that investigators of child abuse allegations have
12 the obligation to protect children by removing them from unsafe homes
13 but also have ruled that these same statutes establish an equal duty to
14 protect the family unit, even where the parent is the alleged abuser.
15 The legislature finds that concerns about tort liability arising from
16 these conflicting duties impair investigators' ability to perform their
17 statutory obligations. While recognizing the rights of parents and the
18 importance of the family unit, the legislature finds that the paramount
19 purpose of this chapter is to benefit children. When the child's
p. 1 HB 1680 1 interests of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety
2 conflict with the parents' interests, the interests of the child should
3 prevail. In conducting investigations under this chapter, safety of
4 the child during or immediately after the investigation shall be the
5 department's paramount concern.
6 The legislature expressly intends to:
7 (1) Overrule Tyner v. DSHS and other cases in which the courts have
8 held that this chapter creates an implied right of action for parents
9 or other caretakers who are alleged abusers;
10 (2) Codify the portions of the holdings in M.W. v. DSHS and
11 Roberson v. Perez that tort liability arising out of this chapter is
12 confined to the initial placement decision and not the manner in which
13 the investigation was conducted;
14 (3) Clarify that (a) child abuse investigators are entitled to the
15 same witness immunity as other witnesses in court proceedings; and (b)
16 liability shall not be imposed on the state in cases where the
17 department or child abuse investigators are following orders of the
18 court.
19 (4) Have the interests of the parents protected through the
20 judicial review and other procedures established pursuant to RCW
21 26.44.100 through 26.44.125 and chapter 13.34 RCW.
22 Sec. 2. RCW 26.44.010 and 1999 c 176 s 27 are each amended to read
23 as follows:
24 The Washington state legislature finds and declares: The bond
25 between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of
26 paramount importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is
27 also an intervention into the life of the parent, custodian, or
28 guardian; however, instances of nonaccidental injury, neglect, death,
29 sexual abuse and cruelty to children by their parents, custodians or
30 guardians have occurred, and in the instance where a child is deprived
31 of his or her right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and
32 safety, the state is justified in emergency intervention based upon
33 verified information; and therefore the Washington state legislature
34 hereby provides for the reporting of such cases to the appropriate
35 public authorities. It is the intent of the legislature that, as a
36 result of such reports, protective services shall be made available in
37 an effort to prevent further abuses, and to safeguard the general
HB 1680 p. 2 1 welfare of such children((: PROVIDED, That such)). When the child's
2 interests of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety
3 conflict with the parents' interests, the interests of the child should
4 prevail. When determining whether a parent and child should be
5 separated during or immediately following an investigation of alleged
6 child abuse or neglect, the safety of the child shall be the
7 department's paramount concern. Reports of child abuse and neglect
8 shall be maintained and disseminated with strictest regard for the
9 privacy of the subjects of such reports and so as to safeguard against
10 arbitrary, malicious or erroneous information or actions((: PROVIDED
11 FURTHER, That)). This chapter shall not be construed to authorize
12 interference with child-raising practices, including reasonable
13 parental discipline, which are not proved to be injurious to the
14 child's health, welfare and safety.
15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW
16 to read as follows:
17 (1) Governmental entities, and their officers, agents, employees,
18 and volunteers, are not liable in tort to alleged perpetrators of abuse
19 or neglect for acts or omissions in investigation of reports of child
20 abuse under chapter 26.44 RCW.
21 (2) The duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of child abuse
22 or neglect upon a referral runs only to children who are the subject of
23 a referral under chapter 26.44 RCW and is limited to the duty to act
24 reasonably when making a placement decision during or immediately
25 following the investigation.
26 (3) The department and its employees shall comply with the orders
27 of the court, including shelter care and other dependency orders, and
28 are not liable for acts performed to comply with such court orders. In
29 providing reports and recommendations to the court, caseworkers are
30 entitled to the same witness immunity as would be provided to any other
31 witness.
32 Sec. 4. RCW 26.44.125 and 1998 c 314 s 9 are each amended to read
33 as follows:
34 (1) A person who is named as an alleged perpetrator after October
35 1, 1998, in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to
36 seek review and amendment of the finding as provided in this section.
p. 3 HB 1680 1 Nothing in this chapter creates any other cause of action or right of
2 review for a person who is named as an alleged perpetrator of child
3 abuse or neglect.
4 (2) Within twenty calendar days after receiving written notice from
5 the department under RCW 26.44.100 that a person is named as an alleged
6 perpetrator in a founded report of child abuse or neglect, he or she
7 may request that the department review the finding. The request must
8 be made in writing. If a request for review is not made as provided in
9 this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further challenge the
10 finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an adjudicative
11 hearing or judicial review of the finding.
12 (3) Upon receipt of a written request for review, the department
13 shall review and, if appropriate, may amend the finding. Management
14 level staff within the children's administration designated by the
15 secretary shall be responsible for the review. The review must be
16 conducted in accordance with procedures the department establishes by
17 rule. Upon completion of the review, the department shall notify the
18 alleged perpetrator in writing of the agency's determination. The
19 notification must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
20 to the person's last known address.
21 (4) If, following agency review, the report remains founded, the
22 person named as the alleged perpetrator in the report may request an
23 adjudicative hearing to contest the finding. The adjudicative
24 proceeding is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW and this section. The
25 request for an adjudicative proceeding must be filed within thirty
26 calendar days after receiving notice of the agency review
27 determination. If a request for an adjudicative proceeding is not made
28 as provided in this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further
29 challenge the finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an
30 adjudicative hearing or judicial review of the finding.
31 (5) Reviews and hearings conducted under this section are
32 confidential and shall not be open to the public. Information about
33 reports, reviews, and hearings may be disclosed only in accordance with
34 federal and state laws pertaining to child welfare records and child
35 protective services reports.
36 (6) The department may adopt rules to implement this section.
--- END ---
HB 1680 p. 4
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1680.pdf
Why should Child Protective Services be Immune to ALL their Deceitful practices without fear of lawsuit's? Enough is enough!!!!! Make your voices heard!!!~
H-1173.2 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 1680
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Eddy, Anderson, Carlyle, Morris, Kagi, Takko,
Maxwell, and Clibborn
Read first time 01/28/11. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to child abuse investigations and proceedings;
2 amending RCW 26.44.010 and 26.44.125; adding a new section to chapter
3 26.44 RCW; and adding a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 26.44 RCW
6 to read as follows:
7 The legislature finds that judicial interpretation of child abuse
8 investigation statutes has imposed potentially irreconcilable duties on
9 the department of social and health services and governmental entities
10 that are obligated to investigate child abuse and neglect referrals.
11 Courts have ruled that investigators of child abuse allegations have
12 the obligation to protect children by removing them from unsafe homes
13 but also have ruled that these same statutes establish an equal duty to
14 protect the family unit, even where the parent is the alleged abuser.
15 The legislature finds that concerns about tort liability arising from
16 these conflicting duties impair investigators' ability to perform their
17 statutory obligations. While recognizing the rights of parents and the
18 importance of the family unit, the legislature finds that the paramount
19 purpose of this chapter is to benefit children. When the child's
p. 1 HB 1680 1 interests of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety
2 conflict with the parents' interests, the interests of the child should
3 prevail. In conducting investigations under this chapter, safety of
4 the child during or immediately after the investigation shall be the
5 department's paramount concern.
6 The legislature expressly intends to:
7 (1) Overrule Tyner v. DSHS and other cases in which the courts have
8 held that this chapter creates an implied right of action for parents
9 or other caretakers who are alleged abusers;
10 (2) Codify the portions of the holdings in M.W. v. DSHS and
11 Roberson v. Perez that tort liability arising out of this chapter is
12 confined to the initial placement decision and not the manner in which
13 the investigation was conducted;
14 (3) Clarify that (a) child abuse investigators are entitled to the
15 same witness immunity as other witnesses in court proceedings; and (b)
16 liability shall not be imposed on the state in cases where the
17 department or child abuse investigators are following orders of the
18 court.
19 (4) Have the interests of the parents protected through the
20 judicial review and other procedures established pursuant to RCW
21 26.44.100 through 26.44.125 and chapter 13.34 RCW.
22 Sec. 2. RCW 26.44.010 and 1999 c 176 s 27 are each amended to read
23 as follows:
24 The Washington state legislature finds and declares: The bond
25 between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of
26 paramount importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is
27 also an intervention into the life of the parent, custodian, or
28 guardian; however, instances of nonaccidental injury, neglect, death,
29 sexual abuse and cruelty to children by their parents, custodians or
30 guardians have occurred, and in the instance where a child is deprived
31 of his or her right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and
32 safety, the state is justified in emergency intervention based upon
33 verified information; and therefore the Washington state legislature
34 hereby provides for the reporting of such cases to the appropriate
35 public authorities. It is the intent of the legislature that, as a
36 result of such reports, protective services shall be made available in
37 an effort to prevent further abuses, and to safeguard the general
HB 1680 p. 2 1 welfare of such children((: PROVIDED, That such)). When the child's
2 interests of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety
3 conflict with the parents' interests, the interests of the child should
4 prevail. When determining whether a parent and child should be
5 separated during or immediately following an investigation of alleged
6 child abuse or neglect, the safety of the child shall be the
7 department's paramount concern. Reports of child abuse and neglect
8 shall be maintained and disseminated with strictest regard for the
9 privacy of the subjects of such reports and so as to safeguard against
10 arbitrary, malicious or erroneous information or actions((: PROVIDED
11 FURTHER, That)). This chapter shall not be construed to authorize
12 interference with child-raising practices, including reasonable
13 parental discipline, which are not proved to be injurious to the
14 child's health, welfare and safety.
15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW
16 to read as follows:
17 (1) Governmental entities, and their officers, agents, employees,
18 and volunteers, are not liable in tort to alleged perpetrators of abuse
19 or neglect for acts or omissions in investigation of reports of child
20 abuse under chapter 26.44 RCW.
21 (2) The duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of child abuse
22 or neglect upon a referral runs only to children who are the subject of
23 a referral under chapter 26.44 RCW and is limited to the duty to act
24 reasonably when making a placement decision during or immediately
25 following the investigation.
26 (3) The department and its employees shall comply with the orders
27 of the court, including shelter care and other dependency orders, and
28 are not liable for acts performed to comply with such court orders. In
29 providing reports and recommendations to the court, caseworkers are
30 entitled to the same witness immunity as would be provided to any other
31 witness.
32 Sec. 4. RCW 26.44.125 and 1998 c 314 s 9 are each amended to read
33 as follows:
34 (1) A person who is named as an alleged perpetrator after October
35 1, 1998, in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to
36 seek review and amendment of the finding as provided in this section.
p. 3 HB 1680 1 Nothing in this chapter creates any other cause of action or right of
2 review for a person who is named as an alleged perpetrator of child
3 abuse or neglect.
4 (2) Within twenty calendar days after receiving written notice from
5 the department under RCW 26.44.100 that a person is named as an alleged
6 perpetrator in a founded report of child abuse or neglect, he or she
7 may request that the department review the finding. The request must
8 be made in writing. If a request for review is not made as provided in
9 this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further challenge the
10 finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an adjudicative
11 hearing or judicial review of the finding.
12 (3) Upon receipt of a written request for review, the department
13 shall review and, if appropriate, may amend the finding. Management
14 level staff within the children's administration designated by the
15 secretary shall be responsible for the review. The review must be
16 conducted in accordance with procedures the department establishes by
17 rule. Upon completion of the review, the department shall notify the
18 alleged perpetrator in writing of the agency's determination. The
19 notification must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
20 to the person's last known address.
21 (4) If, following agency review, the report remains founded, the
22 person named as the alleged perpetrator in the report may request an
23 adjudicative hearing to contest the finding. The adjudicative
24 proceeding is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW and this section. The
25 request for an adjudicative proceeding must be filed within thirty
26 calendar days after receiving notice of the agency review
27 determination. If a request for an adjudicative proceeding is not made
28 as provided in this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further
29 challenge the finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an
30 adjudicative hearing or judicial review of the finding.
31 (5) Reviews and hearings conducted under this section are
32 confidential and shall not be open to the public. Information about
33 reports, reviews, and hearings may be disclosed only in accordance with
34 federal and state laws pertaining to child welfare records and child
35 protective services reports.
36 (6) The department may adopt rules to implement this section.
--- END ---
HB 1680 p. 4
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1680.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)