OPB News · We'll Call Him Richard: A Story Of Foster Child Abuse
Foster families do some wonderful work in Oregon. But every now and then abusive parents get into the system.
This is the story of a nine-year-old boy, we'll call him Richard. The state only identifies him as RH.
His story shows the state failed to act on a series of reports that he was being abused by the foster parents who adopted him.
Richard was placed at the home of Alona and Roger Hartwig when he was about five.
They lived outside Eugene and were certified to care for up to five children.
A state investigation found four reports of abuse there, before Richard even arrived. They involved very young kids who were bruised or who were losing weight.
Sealing the Cracks in Foster Care - We'll look at the cracks in Oregon's foster care system that allow cases of abuse to go unchecked.
Richard moved in during 2005 and for two years there were no reports of trouble.
Then, when he was about seven, there were calls to say he didn't have enough clothes on for the rainy weather -- and that he had to stand for hours as punishment.
The next year, another call said Richard was made to go days without food and that he was being beaten down mentally and maybe physically.
It also said he was the only child in the house being home schooled -- an indicator, the state now says, of disparate treatment.
Another report that year said the family had been at a wedding and Richard looked scared to death of his adoptive mother.
Foster Care Conundrum: Do Social Workers Get Too Close To See The Problems
Most foster parents provide good, supportive homes for kids. But multiple outside reports identify a system-wide problem.
The same people who recruit and retain foster parents also have to report suspected wrongdoing.
Next year, when he was about nine, someone called to say Richard had weeping sores on his legs -- and that Alona Hartwig had gone on vacation instead of taking him to the doctor.
The report also said she told other children in the house not to talk to Richard -- and coached them on answering questions from state workers.
It's important to know that Richard and other children repeatedly denied any abuse.
Then, last year, he spent more than a month in the hospital with a fractured pelvis and a burn that had turned septic from a lack of treatment.
That finally sparked the investigation that led to charges being filed against the Hartwigs.
By law, the state didn't have to investigate what happened to Richard, because he didn't die. But the abuse was so bad, authorities decided to find out why it took so long to recognize what was going on.
The investigation revealed several flaws.
For one, case workers should have conducted more interviews. And those interviews should have been done individually and in a neutral location -- so the kids would feel free to speak.
Related Coverage
DHS Computer System Can Be The 'Gap' Foster Children Fall Through
Foster Care Youth Ask Legislature For Tuition Credits Children's Group Calls For Changes To Stop Abuse
Oregon Seeks More Foster Homes For Troubled Youths
The state found that if similar abuse allegations were made nowadays, there would have been more investigation.
The state also found that by 2008 the sheer number of reports should have triggered further inquiry.
Richard still lives in a foster home in Lane County.
Case workers say he is doing well.
Meanwhile, Alona Hartwig pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment.
She was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Roger Hartwig got five years for second-degree assault. A report on whether the state has made changes as a result of this case, has yet to be published.
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
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Child Maltreatment 2009 from ACF
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf
This publication is available on the Children’s Bureau Web site at the following address
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can.
For more information, please contact info@childwelfare.gov or the NCANDS Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative at the following address:
Dr. John A. Gaudiosi
Mathematical Statistician
Children’s Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20024
john.gaudiosi@acf.hhs.gov
This publication is available on the Children’s Bureau Web site at the following address
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can.
For more information, please contact info@childwelfare.gov or the NCANDS Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative at the following address:
Dr. John A. Gaudiosi
Mathematical Statistician
Children’s Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20024
john.gaudiosi@acf.hhs.gov
Please pray for the passage of NH house bill 506-FN
This letter was forwarded to me by a concerned NH citizen in regard's to Bill 506-FN-AN ACT relative to false allegations of child abuse, which was sent to the NH Legislature. I really liked it and am happy I was given permission to post it. I think it's perfect!
I was not able to be present to speak in support of house bill 506-FN. I wish for this email to be included in support of this house bill. There have been too many cases of false allegations of abuse/neglect made against a parent by their ex-spouse, and the result is trauma and other harm to the child and to the parent at whom the allegations are made against. Parents may lose their parental rights and children may lose their right to be with that parent, causing immeasurable damage/harm to the child and family. False allegations of abuse/neglect can also be made against a parent, or against parents by state workers, health care workers, allied health workers, medical professionals and made by or supported by legal staff (GAL's, CASA workers, parent aids, attornies, judges, etc) and the result is also very detrimental to the child and family who both suffer enormous trauma and losses as the family is temporarily or permanently ripped apart and the child is placed with foster strangers and the family is not allowed to be a family. There have been situations whereby the courts accept allegations of the state worker via an ex-parte hearing to open up an investigation when there was no actual abuse or neglect, situations whereby falsified documents by state agency workers are presented as court evidence, yet exculpatory evidence that contradicted the state worker allegations was ignored by the court or not presented by the attorney or ruled as not allowable in as evidence by the judge, requested by the state agency as irrelevant to the case (this would include family member testimony, lab results, testing results, etc)......Where is the justice in such practice?
Furthermore there have been adjudicatory hearings out of cases that are based on predictions (and I do mean predictions, similar to that of a fortune teller) of potential future harm based on future potential abuse/neglect, which seem to be based upon personal bias. Just as it's not common practice for a person to undergo an operation for a potential future health condition that doesn't presently exist, and just as no insurance company would pay for damages done to a car for an automobile accident that could potentially happen in the future, and just as a health insurance company wouldn't pay for potential treatment for a medical condition that might happen in the future, and just as a dentist wouldn't drill someone's teeth for future potential dental decay that isn't actual decay, and just as drivers don't drive with their windshield wipers on throughout the day because of a future potential for a rainy day, there must be the same reaction to predictions of future potential harm to a child.
Whenever there is personal or company/business (including affiliate business) gain IE in form of money including title iv funds, increased business, promotions, increased salary, any type of kick-back, notariety, partnerships, awards of any sort as a direct or indirect result of false allegations including guardianship/custody of children, THEN THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH REPORTING. Anyone who makes false abuse or neglect allegations including "predictions" of potential future child abuse/neglect for any direct or for indirect gains has committed perjury and must be held accountable and punished in a criminal capacity and in such a way that those involved cannot ever be in power to repeat such an event. Any and all kickbacks and gains should also be criminally investigated.
I was not able to be present to speak in support of house bill 506-FN. I wish for this email to be included in support of this house bill. There have been too many cases of false allegations of abuse/neglect made against a parent by their ex-spouse, and the result is trauma and other harm to the child and to the parent at whom the allegations are made against. Parents may lose their parental rights and children may lose their right to be with that parent, causing immeasurable damage/harm to the child and family. False allegations of abuse/neglect can also be made against a parent, or against parents by state workers, health care workers, allied health workers, medical professionals and made by or supported by legal staff (GAL's, CASA workers, parent aids, attornies, judges, etc) and the result is also very detrimental to the child and family who both suffer enormous trauma and losses as the family is temporarily or permanently ripped apart and the child is placed with foster strangers and the family is not allowed to be a family. There have been situations whereby the courts accept allegations of the state worker via an ex-parte hearing to open up an investigation when there was no actual abuse or neglect, situations whereby falsified documents by state agency workers are presented as court evidence, yet exculpatory evidence that contradicted the state worker allegations was ignored by the court or not presented by the attorney or ruled as not allowable in as evidence by the judge, requested by the state agency as irrelevant to the case (this would include family member testimony, lab results, testing results, etc)......Where is the justice in such practice?
Furthermore there have been adjudicatory hearings out of cases that are based on predictions (and I do mean predictions, similar to that of a fortune teller) of potential future harm based on future potential abuse/neglect, which seem to be based upon personal bias. Just as it's not common practice for a person to undergo an operation for a potential future health condition that doesn't presently exist, and just as no insurance company would pay for damages done to a car for an automobile accident that could potentially happen in the future, and just as a health insurance company wouldn't pay for potential treatment for a medical condition that might happen in the future, and just as a dentist wouldn't drill someone's teeth for future potential dental decay that isn't actual decay, and just as drivers don't drive with their windshield wipers on throughout the day because of a future potential for a rainy day, there must be the same reaction to predictions of future potential harm to a child.
Whenever there is personal or company/business (including affiliate business) gain IE in form of money including title iv funds, increased business, promotions, increased salary, any type of kick-back, notariety, partnerships, awards of any sort as a direct or indirect result of false allegations including guardianship/custody of children, THEN THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH REPORTING. Anyone who makes false abuse or neglect allegations including "predictions" of potential future child abuse/neglect for any direct or for indirect gains has committed perjury and must be held accountable and punished in a criminal capacity and in such a way that those involved cannot ever be in power to repeat such an event. Any and all kickbacks and gains should also be criminally investigated.
New DCF commissioner: Agency must place more children with relatives | The Connecticut Mirror
New DCF commissioner: Agency must place more children with relatives | The Connecticut Mirror
March 4, 2011
By Jacqueline Rabe
When Sabra Mayo heard a knock on her door last summer, the last person she was expecting to be there was the grandson she'd seen just a handful of times since the state Department of Children and Families took him from his mother seven years before.
"They just dropped him off on my doorstep," she said. "I have been asking for my grandbaby back for years. I guess they decided they were finally done with him."
In fact, her grandson Keewann had turned 18, "aged out" of DCF custody, and decided to go where he had always wanted to live: with family.
"I am his family. I am who he belongs with," Sabra Mayo said.
Connecticut's record of placing children with family members when DCF determines they can't remain at home is among the worst in the nation. "That has to change immediately," new DCF Commissioner Joette Katz says.
Sabra Mayo questions why she had to wait until her grandson was 18 years old before DCF would let him live with her
Merva Jackson, who advocates for disabled children in DCF custody, says family members come to her daily seeking her help to get their relatives back.
"If you don't know how to advocate your way through their maze then that's the nail in your coffin to getting your relative back," said Jackson, executive director of the African-Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities.
Katz's $887 million agency has been under federal court supervision for two decades, following a class-action lawsuit accusing the agency failing to protect at-risk children and to provide adequate care for children in its custody.
Since oversight began, the number of children in DCF care overall has decreased. But for the nearly 4,700 children who currently are in DCF custody, advocates and Katz agree too few are placed with relatives. One national advocacy group reports that Connecticut ranks well above the national average in removal of children from their homes and near the bottom in terms of placing those children with relatives.
Katz's goal is to have half of children in DCF custody placed with relatives--double the national average and far above the state's current 14 percent rate.
DCF spokesman Gary Kleeblatt said the numbers show the agency's record of placing children with family members has declined over the last decade. Ten years ago, he said, one out of every four children was placed with a relative when it was determined they could not remain in their home. Today, just one in every seven children is sent to live with a relative.
"I don't think there's been adequate focus on this," Kleeblatt said.
"Connecticut grossly underuses the least harmful [type of care] -- placement with a relative," says Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, which issued the reports on Connecticut's family placement record.
A report by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's transition team has also highlighted the problem.
"DCF regulations and practice are barriers to kinship care; resulting in the number of DCF children living in relative foster care to fall well below the national average," the report said.
Agency officials and advocates agree that if a child must be taken from their home the best alternative is to place them with their relatives.
"People have a need to know where they came from. They want to know their family and their chances for success also improve when they stay with them," Katz said.
"It just doesn't make any sense. Why are we keeping so few families together?" echoed Sarah Eagan, a lawyer for the Center for Children's Advocacy. "This is contributing to a gridlock in the whole system."
Katz: 'People want to know where they came from'
So why exactly has the agency fallen short in keeping families together?
Katz blames the long list of agency regulations and requirements for families to take in a relative, which are identical to the requirements strangers have when fostering these children.
"I am not sure our rules make sense in every case. There's this catch-all. If Great Aunt Sally doesn't meet one requirement then that automatically eliminates her," said Katz. "Instead, we should be asking ourselves, 'Is this is something we can work around?' We need to start taking educated risks with the goal of keeping kids with relatives."
This long list of requirements ranges from ensuring that homes have working lights and heat to insisting on separate beds for same-sex relatives and separate bedrooms for opposite-sex relatives. Not all of them make sense when the issue is keeping children with their families, she says.
"It's punishing people for poverty. Lot's of people share bedrooms and they are fine," Katz said. "I am telling my [social] workers to start making more exceptions when they believe it makes sense, effective immediately... I will back their decisions."
During Katz's first days on the job she streamlined the process for getting regulations waived for family members. Previously, several people would need to sign off before the waiver would get to the commissioner's desk for final approval. Now Katz isn't even requiring it make it to her desk. Case workers and their managers contact Kenneth Mysogland, who is in charge of where children in DCF custody are placed, directly for final approval.
"It was 10 levels of signatures. She eliminated that," Mysogland said. "I am seeing a significant number of waiver requests come through that would have never come through before."
Mayo said when her grandson was taken from his mother years ago a social worker did come to her home in Hartford with a clipboard and what looked like a checklist to inspect after she requested custody.
When read some of the requirements that exist today, she said the requirements may sound reasonable, but the reality is she couldn't afford to have a bigger place with a separate bedroom for Keewann.
"I don't think we need to be judged by their standards of living," she said.
Jackson agrees.
"I am sure that relatives wish they could have another bedroom for them. But who's going to pay for that?" she said. "Over the years we have been a responsive state and made these regulations for everyone to abide by based on a situation that arises. We have to stop doing that. It's not a one size fits all."
Katz and Mysogland agree the regulations should not be a barrier.
"We are telling our staff licensing is not a checklist. The response in previous administrations was 'no' when someone didn't meet every requirement. That is no longer the case," Mysogland said.
This issue has also captured legislator's attention. The Select Committee on Children voted this week in favor of several bills aimed at increasing relative placement, including no longer requiring relatives have a separate bedroom to take in a child. Another proposal backed by DCF would expand a program that places children removed from their homes with familiar people such as clergy, teachers or family friends.
Currently children under the age of 10 cannot be placed with anyone not licensed by DCF -- a process that can take up to 6 months. Instead DCF wants to treat these familiar people like family members and allow children to be immediately placed in their homes while they work to get licensed, assuming they pass a home inspection.
"There are plenty of people who you may call family but you don't have a blood connection with them. I think we are losing people as the days and the weeks go on and they try to get a license," Mysogland said. "This change would immediately have a positive result for that child. It allows them to stay with someone they are familiar with instead of stranger in a foster home."
March 4, 2011
By Jacqueline Rabe
When Sabra Mayo heard a knock on her door last summer, the last person she was expecting to be there was the grandson she'd seen just a handful of times since the state Department of Children and Families took him from his mother seven years before.
"They just dropped him off on my doorstep," she said. "I have been asking for my grandbaby back for years. I guess they decided they were finally done with him."
In fact, her grandson Keewann had turned 18, "aged out" of DCF custody, and decided to go where he had always wanted to live: with family.
"I am his family. I am who he belongs with," Sabra Mayo said.
Connecticut's record of placing children with family members when DCF determines they can't remain at home is among the worst in the nation. "That has to change immediately," new DCF Commissioner Joette Katz says.
Sabra Mayo questions why she had to wait until her grandson was 18 years old before DCF would let him live with her
Merva Jackson, who advocates for disabled children in DCF custody, says family members come to her daily seeking her help to get their relatives back.
"If you don't know how to advocate your way through their maze then that's the nail in your coffin to getting your relative back," said Jackson, executive director of the African-Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities.
Katz's $887 million agency has been under federal court supervision for two decades, following a class-action lawsuit accusing the agency failing to protect at-risk children and to provide adequate care for children in its custody.
Since oversight began, the number of children in DCF care overall has decreased. But for the nearly 4,700 children who currently are in DCF custody, advocates and Katz agree too few are placed with relatives. One national advocacy group reports that Connecticut ranks well above the national average in removal of children from their homes and near the bottom in terms of placing those children with relatives.
Katz's goal is to have half of children in DCF custody placed with relatives--double the national average and far above the state's current 14 percent rate.
DCF spokesman Gary Kleeblatt said the numbers show the agency's record of placing children with family members has declined over the last decade. Ten years ago, he said, one out of every four children was placed with a relative when it was determined they could not remain in their home. Today, just one in every seven children is sent to live with a relative.
"I don't think there's been adequate focus on this," Kleeblatt said.
"Connecticut grossly underuses the least harmful [type of care] -- placement with a relative," says Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, which issued the reports on Connecticut's family placement record.
A report by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's transition team has also highlighted the problem.
"DCF regulations and practice are barriers to kinship care; resulting in the number of DCF children living in relative foster care to fall well below the national average," the report said.
Agency officials and advocates agree that if a child must be taken from their home the best alternative is to place them with their relatives.
"People have a need to know where they came from. They want to know their family and their chances for success also improve when they stay with them," Katz said.
"It just doesn't make any sense. Why are we keeping so few families together?" echoed Sarah Eagan, a lawyer for the Center for Children's Advocacy. "This is contributing to a gridlock in the whole system."
Katz: 'People want to know where they came from'
So why exactly has the agency fallen short in keeping families together?
Katz blames the long list of agency regulations and requirements for families to take in a relative, which are identical to the requirements strangers have when fostering these children.
"I am not sure our rules make sense in every case. There's this catch-all. If Great Aunt Sally doesn't meet one requirement then that automatically eliminates her," said Katz. "Instead, we should be asking ourselves, 'Is this is something we can work around?' We need to start taking educated risks with the goal of keeping kids with relatives."
This long list of requirements ranges from ensuring that homes have working lights and heat to insisting on separate beds for same-sex relatives and separate bedrooms for opposite-sex relatives. Not all of them make sense when the issue is keeping children with their families, she says.
"It's punishing people for poverty. Lot's of people share bedrooms and they are fine," Katz said. "I am telling my [social] workers to start making more exceptions when they believe it makes sense, effective immediately... I will back their decisions."
During Katz's first days on the job she streamlined the process for getting regulations waived for family members. Previously, several people would need to sign off before the waiver would get to the commissioner's desk for final approval. Now Katz isn't even requiring it make it to her desk. Case workers and their managers contact Kenneth Mysogland, who is in charge of where children in DCF custody are placed, directly for final approval.
"It was 10 levels of signatures. She eliminated that," Mysogland said. "I am seeing a significant number of waiver requests come through that would have never come through before."
Mayo said when her grandson was taken from his mother years ago a social worker did come to her home in Hartford with a clipboard and what looked like a checklist to inspect after she requested custody.
When read some of the requirements that exist today, she said the requirements may sound reasonable, but the reality is she couldn't afford to have a bigger place with a separate bedroom for Keewann.
"I don't think we need to be judged by their standards of living," she said.
Jackson agrees.
"I am sure that relatives wish they could have another bedroom for them. But who's going to pay for that?" she said. "Over the years we have been a responsive state and made these regulations for everyone to abide by based on a situation that arises. We have to stop doing that. It's not a one size fits all."
Katz and Mysogland agree the regulations should not be a barrier.
"We are telling our staff licensing is not a checklist. The response in previous administrations was 'no' when someone didn't meet every requirement. That is no longer the case," Mysogland said.
This issue has also captured legislator's attention. The Select Committee on Children voted this week in favor of several bills aimed at increasing relative placement, including no longer requiring relatives have a separate bedroom to take in a child. Another proposal backed by DCF would expand a program that places children removed from their homes with familiar people such as clergy, teachers or family friends.
Currently children under the age of 10 cannot be placed with anyone not licensed by DCF -- a process that can take up to 6 months. Instead DCF wants to treat these familiar people like family members and allow children to be immediately placed in their homes while they work to get licensed, assuming they pass a home inspection.
"There are plenty of people who you may call family but you don't have a blood connection with them. I think we are losing people as the days and the weeks go on and they try to get a license," Mysogland said. "This change would immediately have a positive result for that child. It allows them to stay with someone they are familiar with instead of stranger in a foster home."
Friday, March 4, 2011
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News
Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.
The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.
In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.
Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children.
Where to Find the Children
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned.
The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.
How DSS Is Helped
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.
For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.
But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe."
If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees.
Benefits for Foster Parents
That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.
After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can.
According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check.
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]
The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills."
I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.
That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News
Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.
The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.
In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.
Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children.
Where to Find the Children
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned.
The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.
How DSS Is Helped
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.
For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.
But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe."
If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees.
Benefits for Foster Parents
That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.
After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can.
According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check.
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]
The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills."
I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.
That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)