CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Don't gag media, Port aux Basques family says
A family in southwestern Newfoundland that has alleged social workers were heavy-handed in removing children from their custody does not want the media to be prevented from reporting fully on their case.
Sources tell CBC News that the provincial government will go to court Thursday to seek a publication ban in the case of Dorothy and Bobby Rodgers of Port aux Basques whose two children were taken into care last year.
The Rodgers spoke out earlier this month when they could not get their two young children out of foster care in part because they scored poorly on a series of tests, including an IQ test. The case has drawn a strong public reaction.
Eileen King, Bobby Rodgers's sister, said the family believes the government wants media reports on her brother's case shut down.
"No names would be mentioned, that the Rodgers family name would not be mentioned," King told CBC News.
'Cover up what they have done'
A publication ban would mean that any media identifying the family would be breaking the law.
"I think it's just another way for them to cover up their track, to cover up what they have done," King said in an interview.
Child, Youth and Family Services Minister Charlene Johnson has suggested there is more to the Rodgers story than has been reported and has said government officials are bound by confidentiality.
King said her family would like to know what government means about what has not been disclosed.
"We have nothing to fear nor do we have anything to hide," she said.
The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services would not comment on the issue of a publication ban, and said it cannot comment on specific cases.
The Rodgers case involves numerous complicated factors, including Dorothy Rodgers's admission that she made false allegations when she stayed at a transition house. She has said she was coping with sexual abuse suffered years ago.
As well, Dorothy Rodgers says she did not trust social workers because of her own experiences growing up in foster care.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/02/16/rodgers-publication-ban-216.html#ixzz1EAeN7a00
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 16, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court could establish a nationwide standard for children's rights, stopping speculation and rumor causing a child''s removal
North Platte Nebraska's newspaper - The North Platte Telegraph. > News
By Mark Young
Court case could end 'speculative' HHS practices
The North Platte Telegraph
A case to soon be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court could establish a nationwide standard for children's rights, stopping speculation and rumor from causing a child's removal from a home.
According to Richard Wexler, executive director for the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, oral arguments will begin in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 1 that could set better guidelines to protect the rights of children.
"It deals with how workers for agencies like DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and law enforcement go about deciding if there is enough evidence to substantiate a case and/or take away a child," said Wexler.
"Right now, in Nebraska, DHHS workers are free to walk into a school, pull a child they think might have been abused out of class, interrogate her for hours, ask all sorts of leading questions and otherwise traumatize her based on no more than someone's anonymous call to a hotline alleging abuse," he added.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Greene family, which has been seeking fundamental rights for children involved in DHHS cases. Since the appeals court decided in favor of the family, according to Wexler, the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to set down minimum standards for all states to follow, ending speculative power given to caseworkers.
"This case may decide if innocent children have the same rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as suspected criminals," he said.
Wexler said he understands that sometimes the trauma of the interrogation is necessary, "but the overwhelming majority of allegations are unfounded," he said. "The minimal protections sought by the Greene family [in Camreta vs. Greene] - protections that are already law in many other states - have been proven to do nothing to impede finding real abuse."
Wexler said a favorable ruling would end "hair-trigger" assumptions that abuse is taking place, which can cause real trauma in a child's life when that child is removed from his or her family based on unfounded accusations.
Organizations want action, not promises
Child Protective Services Director Todd Reckling told the Telegraph on Monday that a system as large as HHS would have breakdowns, but that a system of checks and balances are in place to protect innocent parents while ensuring the safety of children.
Wexler criticized that statement.
"I've said for years that the quickest way to tell when someone at a child welfare agency is being disingenuous is when they tell you there are checks and balances," said Wexler.
Wexler said not even the highest levels of government have the power and authority to intrude into an American citizen's private life as CPS does. Wexler said not even in the aftermath of 9-11 do anti-terrorism agencies have similar power.
"Had [former attorney general John] Ashcroft proposed these kinds of polices, civil libertarians would have been in an uproar, yet this is, in fact, the law governing child welfare," he said. "So where exactly are the 'checks and balances' Reckling is bragging about?"
FAM Director Melanie Williams-Smotherman said Reckling's goals are not the same as her organization, as Reckling stated.
"Mr. Reckling wants people to believe that the goals are the same, but we have to understand that's in rhetoric only," she said. "While senior management at DHHS may like being quoted in the media as having the same goals as advocacy organizations, their actions tell a different story time and again."
Williams-Smotherman said cases have been brought directly to Reckling and that more often than not "have ended in worse retaliation against the families we were trying to help," she said.
Reckling insists that as part of the reform, CPS is actively looking at policy changes, especially when it comes to removing a child from a home.
"Part of the problem with the whole child welfare debate is that we all say the same things, but we mean very different things by what we say," said Wexler. "So it doesn't matter what people like Todd Reckling say. What matters is what they do."
Courts and CPS
The court system can play a big part in CPS cases. Reckling admitted that what is decided in court is most often based on the documentation provided by CPS caseworkers, investigators and guardian ad litems, who are often attorneys assigned by the courts to act on the child's behalf during a case - especially during a custody dispute.
It's this "in between" process where families say injustices are being done, but they also point the finger at guardian ad litems who sometimes enjoy a "cozy" relationship with other attorneys and judges who are involved in the same case.
Williams-Smotherman said the entire system is broken "and not just for the foster parents, as is popular and safe for legislators to suggest," she said. "Every day that judges, attorneys guardian ad litems, service coordinators, the Ombudsman's office, the Foster Care Review Board, our legislators and our governor allow such obvious violations to civil liberties to continue on without demanding immediate sweeping changes, the public is being denied justice."
Williams-Smotherman said it's the worst form of government abuse, "all at the expense of innocent children, who are the most victimized and harmed by these realities," she said.
If you have a CPS story to tell, you can contact Williams-Smotherman at melanie@familyadvocacymovement.com or call (402) 689-9613.
Click on this story at nptelegraph.com to post your comments, or e-mail
mark.young@nptelegraph.com.
(Editor's note: An HHS spokesperson said the Child Protective Services department is prepared to release information on the Brandi Knutson case, featured in a Feb. 12 story in the Telegraph, which according to the spokesperson shows that CPS was no longer active in that case after 2009 and that Lincoln County District Court had authority from that point forward.)
By Mark Young
Court case could end 'speculative' HHS practices
The North Platte Telegraph
A case to soon be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court could establish a nationwide standard for children's rights, stopping speculation and rumor from causing a child's removal from a home.
According to Richard Wexler, executive director for the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, oral arguments will begin in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 1 that could set better guidelines to protect the rights of children.
"It deals with how workers for agencies like DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and law enforcement go about deciding if there is enough evidence to substantiate a case and/or take away a child," said Wexler.
"Right now, in Nebraska, DHHS workers are free to walk into a school, pull a child they think might have been abused out of class, interrogate her for hours, ask all sorts of leading questions and otherwise traumatize her based on no more than someone's anonymous call to a hotline alleging abuse," he added.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Greene family, which has been seeking fundamental rights for children involved in DHHS cases. Since the appeals court decided in favor of the family, according to Wexler, the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to set down minimum standards for all states to follow, ending speculative power given to caseworkers.
"This case may decide if innocent children have the same rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as suspected criminals," he said.
Wexler said he understands that sometimes the trauma of the interrogation is necessary, "but the overwhelming majority of allegations are unfounded," he said. "The minimal protections sought by the Greene family [in Camreta vs. Greene] - protections that are already law in many other states - have been proven to do nothing to impede finding real abuse."
Wexler said a favorable ruling would end "hair-trigger" assumptions that abuse is taking place, which can cause real trauma in a child's life when that child is removed from his or her family based on unfounded accusations.
Organizations want action, not promises
Child Protective Services Director Todd Reckling told the Telegraph on Monday that a system as large as HHS would have breakdowns, but that a system of checks and balances are in place to protect innocent parents while ensuring the safety of children.
Wexler criticized that statement.
"I've said for years that the quickest way to tell when someone at a child welfare agency is being disingenuous is when they tell you there are checks and balances," said Wexler.
Wexler said not even the highest levels of government have the power and authority to intrude into an American citizen's private life as CPS does. Wexler said not even in the aftermath of 9-11 do anti-terrorism agencies have similar power.
"Had [former attorney general John] Ashcroft proposed these kinds of polices, civil libertarians would have been in an uproar, yet this is, in fact, the law governing child welfare," he said. "So where exactly are the 'checks and balances' Reckling is bragging about?"
FAM Director Melanie Williams-Smotherman said Reckling's goals are not the same as her organization, as Reckling stated.
"Mr. Reckling wants people to believe that the goals are the same, but we have to understand that's in rhetoric only," she said. "While senior management at DHHS may like being quoted in the media as having the same goals as advocacy organizations, their actions tell a different story time and again."
Williams-Smotherman said cases have been brought directly to Reckling and that more often than not "have ended in worse retaliation against the families we were trying to help," she said.
Reckling insists that as part of the reform, CPS is actively looking at policy changes, especially when it comes to removing a child from a home.
"Part of the problem with the whole child welfare debate is that we all say the same things, but we mean very different things by what we say," said Wexler. "So it doesn't matter what people like Todd Reckling say. What matters is what they do."
Courts and CPS
The court system can play a big part in CPS cases. Reckling admitted that what is decided in court is most often based on the documentation provided by CPS caseworkers, investigators and guardian ad litems, who are often attorneys assigned by the courts to act on the child's behalf during a case - especially during a custody dispute.
It's this "in between" process where families say injustices are being done, but they also point the finger at guardian ad litems who sometimes enjoy a "cozy" relationship with other attorneys and judges who are involved in the same case.
Williams-Smotherman said the entire system is broken "and not just for the foster parents, as is popular and safe for legislators to suggest," she said. "Every day that judges, attorneys guardian ad litems, service coordinators, the Ombudsman's office, the Foster Care Review Board, our legislators and our governor allow such obvious violations to civil liberties to continue on without demanding immediate sweeping changes, the public is being denied justice."
Williams-Smotherman said it's the worst form of government abuse, "all at the expense of innocent children, who are the most victimized and harmed by these realities," she said.
If you have a CPS story to tell, you can contact Williams-Smotherman at melanie@familyadvocacymovement.com or call (402) 689-9613.
Click on this story at nptelegraph.com to post your comments, or e-mail
mark.young@nptelegraph.com.
(Editor's note: An HHS spokesperson said the Child Protective Services department is prepared to release information on the Brandi Knutson case, featured in a Feb. 12 story in the Telegraph, which according to the spokesperson shows that CPS was no longer active in that case after 2009 and that Lincoln County District Court had authority from that point forward.)
Foster care pay rate on state budget chopping block - Longview News-Journal: Local News
Foster care pay rate on state budget chopping block - Longview News-Journal: Local News
AUSTIN (AP) — Proposed budget cuts could so severely underfund the Department of Family and Protective Services that hundreds of foster children would be forced to live in the agency’s offices, a department official told Texas lawmakers Tuesday.
The draft budget being considered in the Senate could result in a situation seen four years ago when 611 foster children lived in offices instead of homes, Department Commissioner Anne Heiligenstein told members of the Senate Finance Committee.
The Senate’s proposed budget reduces the rate that foster care providers are reimbursed and doesn’t fund inevitable caseload growth, which Heiligenstein expects will affect the department’s ability to find homes for foster children.
AUSTIN (AP) — Proposed budget cuts could so severely underfund the Department of Family and Protective Services that hundreds of foster children would be forced to live in the agency’s offices, a department official told Texas lawmakers Tuesday.
The draft budget being considered in the Senate could result in a situation seen four years ago when 611 foster children lived in offices instead of homes, Department Commissioner Anne Heiligenstein told members of the Senate Finance Committee.
The Senate’s proposed budget reduces the rate that foster care providers are reimbursed and doesn’t fund inevitable caseload growth, which Heiligenstein expects will affect the department’s ability to find homes for foster children.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Council backs bill to help remove barriers to grandparents’ rights
Council backs bill to help remove barriers to grandparents’ rights - Niagara Advance - Ontario, CA
Penny Coles
Niagara Advance
MPP Kim Craitor has the backing of town councillors as he presses forward with his commitment to extend the rights of grandparents to maintain ties with the grandchildren.
Craitor first asked for support of his private member's bill in December, but Councillor Jamie King, fresh from a fall election that handed him his first term on council, had some hesitation about wading in on an issue that didn't seem to have much to do with municipal council. The request was deferred, and when it came back to NOTL councillors last week, King said he had talked to the MPP, had a better understanding of the issue and had no trouble supporting a bill that Craitor has been working on for four years.
Craitor explained that politicians are often asked to help a constituent, whether or not the problem falls within their jurisdiction,and King said he was grateful for the insight.
The bill asks that parents and others with custody of children be prevented from placing obstacles to relationships between grandparents and their grandchildren. It talks of the importance of maintaining emotional ties and the need to encourage contact whenever it's in the best interest of the child.
King says in addition to his reservation about a municipal representative weighing in on provincial issues, he was concerned that the bill might be an infringement of parents' rights.
But Craitor explained the bill was careful to ensure that a child's best interest would always come first—that a judge would not force a relationship with a grandparent if it were not in the best interest of the child.
King said he was also concerned with the process—that council was asked to support the bill without any time to look into the issue. He wanted time to do some research, and was grateful that he was afforded that opportunity.
"We should be able to take some time to examine something as important as this, before being asked for our support. It also gives the public a chance to contact us if they have some concerns," he said.
"But in this case, it had been brought forward as a resolution to be passed that evening. I wasn't comfortable with that."
Council voted unanimously last week to notify the province and the region that they support Craitor's bill, which has passed second reading in the legislature and is now the subject of further research.
Penny Coles
Niagara Advance
MPP Kim Craitor has the backing of town councillors as he presses forward with his commitment to extend the rights of grandparents to maintain ties with the grandchildren.
Craitor first asked for support of his private member's bill in December, but Councillor Jamie King, fresh from a fall election that handed him his first term on council, had some hesitation about wading in on an issue that didn't seem to have much to do with municipal council. The request was deferred, and when it came back to NOTL councillors last week, King said he had talked to the MPP, had a better understanding of the issue and had no trouble supporting a bill that Craitor has been working on for four years.
Craitor explained that politicians are often asked to help a constituent, whether or not the problem falls within their jurisdiction,and King said he was grateful for the insight.
The bill asks that parents and others with custody of children be prevented from placing obstacles to relationships between grandparents and their grandchildren. It talks of the importance of maintaining emotional ties and the need to encourage contact whenever it's in the best interest of the child.
King says in addition to his reservation about a municipal representative weighing in on provincial issues, he was concerned that the bill might be an infringement of parents' rights.
But Craitor explained the bill was careful to ensure that a child's best interest would always come first—that a judge would not force a relationship with a grandparent if it were not in the best interest of the child.
King said he was also concerned with the process—that council was asked to support the bill without any time to look into the issue. He wanted time to do some research, and was grateful that he was afforded that opportunity.
"We should be able to take some time to examine something as important as this, before being asked for our support. It also gives the public a chance to contact us if they have some concerns," he said.
"But in this case, it had been brought forward as a resolution to be passed that evening. I wasn't comfortable with that."
Council voted unanimously last week to notify the province and the region that they support Craitor's bill, which has passed second reading in the legislature and is now the subject of further research.
Homeless Mom Given Tough Choice: Leave DC or Place Children in Foster Care | …With Housing and Justice For All
Homeless Mom Given Tough Choice: Leave DC or Place Children in Foster Care | …With Housing and Justice For All
By Marta Beresin, Staff Attorney
Last week a mother of three was given an ultimatum by the DC Child and Family Services Administration: get on a Greyhound bus for a shelter placement in another state or we’ll place your children in foster care. The alleged neglect or abuse? Being financially unable to afford to provide a home for her children. As a matter of law, the District had no basis for making such a threat. It is firmly established that parents have a Constitutional right to care for their children and that a parent’s inability to provide for a child due to circumstances of poverty is not a basis for removing a child.
What’s sadly ironic is that this mother had been to the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center (“FRC”), the central intake site for homeless families in need of shelter repeatedly during the prior two weeks, pleading for the very thing that the District claimed she was neglectfully failing to provide. Each time she had been told – as many others have been this winter – that there was no room for her and her children at DC General, the filled-to-capacity (with 152 families as of 2/10/11) winter shelter for families in the District.
In part, this mother’s odyssey may have been due to action the DC Council took in December, when 9 members of the Council passed the Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (“HSRA Amendment”). The bill establishes, for the first time, strict residency verification requirements for families applying for life-saving hypothermia shelter. While the HSRA Amendment has yet to become law, some of its harshest consequences are already being visited on families. The attempt to force the aforementioned mother to move to another state for shelter for her family was born out of the misimpression that she was not a District resident. Nobody at the FRC had checked her ID (which was a DC driver’s license) or her other documents showing existing ties to the District
Unfortunately, the denial of shelter to families has been commonplace this winter, even on days when freezing temperatures trigger the right to shelter. Residency has been but one illegal barrier placed in the way of families accessing shelter: FRC staff have also demanded custody orders and verifiable proof that the family is in an unsafe place or sleeping outside, the absence of which cannot be grounds for denying shelter placement under current law.
The myriad barriers to families accessing shelter have made clear that, more than the recently passed residency bill, shelter denials are the result of poor planning by the Department of Human Services and the Interagency Council on Homelessness (“ICH”). As advocates on the ICH had predicted, the Winter Plan did not create enough capacity for homeless families this winter. The District’s plan to move families into housing to free up enough shelter space to meet the increased winter need has not moved forward as fully or quickly as promised. Every day, the FRC sees many more families than the system can accommodate; it is District parents and children who are forced to pay the price.
What’s more, a huge budget deficit looms for FY 2012, and the DC Council has shown little inclination towards raising revenues to preserve safety net programs – despite the fact that we are in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression and that as a result family homelessness has risen 35% between 2008 and 2010. For families in crisis trying to access shelter, any cut to homeless services in FY 2012 clearly will have devastating consequences given the already inadequate system of support currently in place.
The family described above is now sheltered safely in the District, but you can help us assure that no parent again faces such a choice. Join us in asking the Mayor to open up additional hypothermia capacity for families so that the next family in crisis who turns to the public safety net for assistance can secure the lifesaving supports they need to survive the harsh winter months. You can email Mayor Gray at eom@dc.gov.
By Marta Beresin, Staff Attorney
Last week a mother of three was given an ultimatum by the DC Child and Family Services Administration: get on a Greyhound bus for a shelter placement in another state or we’ll place your children in foster care. The alleged neglect or abuse? Being financially unable to afford to provide a home for her children. As a matter of law, the District had no basis for making such a threat. It is firmly established that parents have a Constitutional right to care for their children and that a parent’s inability to provide for a child due to circumstances of poverty is not a basis for removing a child.
What’s sadly ironic is that this mother had been to the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center (“FRC”), the central intake site for homeless families in need of shelter repeatedly during the prior two weeks, pleading for the very thing that the District claimed she was neglectfully failing to provide. Each time she had been told – as many others have been this winter – that there was no room for her and her children at DC General, the filled-to-capacity (with 152 families as of 2/10/11) winter shelter for families in the District.
In part, this mother’s odyssey may have been due to action the DC Council took in December, when 9 members of the Council passed the Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (“HSRA Amendment”). The bill establishes, for the first time, strict residency verification requirements for families applying for life-saving hypothermia shelter. While the HSRA Amendment has yet to become law, some of its harshest consequences are already being visited on families. The attempt to force the aforementioned mother to move to another state for shelter for her family was born out of the misimpression that she was not a District resident. Nobody at the FRC had checked her ID (which was a DC driver’s license) or her other documents showing existing ties to the District
Unfortunately, the denial of shelter to families has been commonplace this winter, even on days when freezing temperatures trigger the right to shelter. Residency has been but one illegal barrier placed in the way of families accessing shelter: FRC staff have also demanded custody orders and verifiable proof that the family is in an unsafe place or sleeping outside, the absence of which cannot be grounds for denying shelter placement under current law.
The myriad barriers to families accessing shelter have made clear that, more than the recently passed residency bill, shelter denials are the result of poor planning by the Department of Human Services and the Interagency Council on Homelessness (“ICH”). As advocates on the ICH had predicted, the Winter Plan did not create enough capacity for homeless families this winter. The District’s plan to move families into housing to free up enough shelter space to meet the increased winter need has not moved forward as fully or quickly as promised. Every day, the FRC sees many more families than the system can accommodate; it is District parents and children who are forced to pay the price.
What’s more, a huge budget deficit looms for FY 2012, and the DC Council has shown little inclination towards raising revenues to preserve safety net programs – despite the fact that we are in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression and that as a result family homelessness has risen 35% between 2008 and 2010. For families in crisis trying to access shelter, any cut to homeless services in FY 2012 clearly will have devastating consequences given the already inadequate system of support currently in place.
The family described above is now sheltered safely in the District, but you can help us assure that no parent again faces such a choice. Join us in asking the Mayor to open up additional hypothermia capacity for families so that the next family in crisis who turns to the public safety net for assistance can secure the lifesaving supports they need to survive the harsh winter months. You can email Mayor Gray at eom@dc.gov.
Is There Life After CPS/DCYF Steal's Your Children? Not For This Mother!
The mother I'm writing about, lost her two children five year's ago after a false report was called in against her. Criminal charges were dropped, yet her two children were never returned. Her caseworker and CASA vowed to make sure that didn't happen.
This mother was a good mother. Her children had everything. A clean home, plenty of food,clean clothes and an overabundance of love and affection. They were never abused or neglected. She took them everywhere. They were her life. A life she no longer has. A life destroyed by CPS and a Judicial System that ALWAY's sides with CPS.
After the children were taken, she didn't have the strength to fight back. The abuse's of a system designed to help families, had torn her family apart, as they've done to so many families and are still doing.
She turned to drug's to make it through each day without the children, who were her life. She couldn't bear thinking about them every minute of the day. Never sleeping at night. Worrying if they were alright. Worrying if they were being abused in foster care. Worrying if they were fed. Longing to hold them. Longing to tell them she loves them more than anything else in the world. Knowing their being brainwashed into believing she's a bad mother and doesn't want them. Knowing their being told she's no longer their mother, even before her right's are terminated.
She finally realized with the corruption within CPS, the judicial system and CASA, she would never get her children back. No matter how hard she tried, they pushed her more and more over the edge, like they do to all parent's. So many law's broken and nowhere to turn. Her life has spiraled steadily downhill, separated from her husband by a corrupt CPS caseworker and her children illegally stolen by a money hungry government agency who believe they have the prower of God, given to them by our own government!
She's lost everything. Her children, her husband, her home and her will to live. She finally got the strength to stop using drug's. After all, where does that get you? Nowhere but into trouble. A step in the right direction, but useless in CPS's and the court's eyes.
She's not the same happy mother of two children any longer. Used by anyone and everyone, but first and foremost, used by our own Government agency and a corrupt Judicial system designed to protect and preserve families. Not destroy them.
Used by a greedy, rogue government agency accountable to no-one. How many more lives will be destroyed before our government put's a stop to the abuse of Families? Are our children really only a paycheck to fuel the corruption within CPS and the Court's? You're dam right they are!
This mother was a good mother. Her children had everything. A clean home, plenty of food,clean clothes and an overabundance of love and affection. They were never abused or neglected. She took them everywhere. They were her life. A life she no longer has. A life destroyed by CPS and a Judicial System that ALWAY's sides with CPS.
After the children were taken, she didn't have the strength to fight back. The abuse's of a system designed to help families, had torn her family apart, as they've done to so many families and are still doing.
She turned to drug's to make it through each day without the children, who were her life. She couldn't bear thinking about them every minute of the day. Never sleeping at night. Worrying if they were alright. Worrying if they were being abused in foster care. Worrying if they were fed. Longing to hold them. Longing to tell them she loves them more than anything else in the world. Knowing their being brainwashed into believing she's a bad mother and doesn't want them. Knowing their being told she's no longer their mother, even before her right's are terminated.
She finally realized with the corruption within CPS, the judicial system and CASA, she would never get her children back. No matter how hard she tried, they pushed her more and more over the edge, like they do to all parent's. So many law's broken and nowhere to turn. Her life has spiraled steadily downhill, separated from her husband by a corrupt CPS caseworker and her children illegally stolen by a money hungry government agency who believe they have the prower of God, given to them by our own government!
She's lost everything. Her children, her husband, her home and her will to live. She finally got the strength to stop using drug's. After all, where does that get you? Nowhere but into trouble. A step in the right direction, but useless in CPS's and the court's eyes.
She's not the same happy mother of two children any longer. Used by anyone and everyone, but first and foremost, used by our own Government agency and a corrupt Judicial system designed to protect and preserve families. Not destroy them.
Used by a greedy, rogue government agency accountable to no-one. How many more lives will be destroyed before our government put's a stop to the abuse of Families? Are our children really only a paycheck to fuel the corruption within CPS and the Court's? You're dam right they are!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)