Brooklyn tot covered in bruises fights for his life after suffering horrific abuse, foster mom eyed
Doctors told detectives the boy has numerous internal and external injuries, some old enough to suggest repeated abuse.
Detectives were questioning a Brooklyn foster mom Friday about the brutal beating of a 17-month-old boy in her care, police sources said.
As cops grilled Teyuana Cummings, the city Administration for Children's Services launched their own investigation into the suspected abuse of little Kymell Oram.
The agency also asked the Family Court "to place the two other children from the home into ACS' protective custody," spokeswoman Elysia Murphy said.
In addition to Kymell, Cummings takes care of another foster child - a troubled 9-year-old boy - and is the biological mother of a 10-year-old, sources said.
Neither child showed obvious signs of abuse, they said.
Cummings, 32, has not been charged with a crime, sources said. But cops responding to her 911 call about a child unable to breath were horrified by what they found when they arrived at her East New York apartment about 9:15 a.m. Thursday.
Kymell looked "like he was thrown against the wall on a daily basis" and was "covered with deep bruises," sources said.
Doctors at Brookdale University Hospital, where the boy was in critical condition and barely clinging to life, also found numerous internal injuries - some old enough to suggest repeated abuse, the sources said.
Cops were also seeking to question Cummings' 19-year-old boyfriend, Kysheen Oliver, who lives nearby with an aunt on Howard Ave., about the baby's beating.
"They asked me if I was hiding him in my apartment," said Oliver's neighbor, Chris Otero, 28, who said cops banged on his door Thursday night looking for Oliver. "I don't know if he's capable of that. He's a baby himself."
This is not Cummings' first brush with the law.
In November 2009, she was charged with two counts of assault, menacing, criminal mischief and harassment, records show. It was not clear what happened after that because the case was sealed.
Then last October, Cummings was charged with possession of stolen property after she was caught shoplifting at a Target store on Flatbush Ave.
It was not clear whether Cummings was already taking care of Kymell when she was arrested.
Cummings' next door neighbor Maribel Pejada couldn't say when Kymell came to live with her, but said she was horrible to the boy.
"Sometimes when the baby was crying they would leave the baby outside the door," she said. "They would just leave him there all by himself for hours sometimes. Everyone would hear him crying and crying. He would hit his head against the door trying to get in. It was awful."
Pejada said she heard arguing next door and Kymell crying again on Wednesday night.
"Then I heard a loud thump on the wall and the baby stopped crying," she said.
The crying resumed on Thursday morning.
"The little baby was screaming again," Pejada said. "Screaming real loud. I heard lots of fighting. Lots of arguing."
Pejada said it didn't alarm her - or prompt her to call this cops.
"I hear screaming all the time from that apartment," she said.
Neighbors said Oliver, known in the building as Kiki, wasn't a father to figure to any of Cummings' kids. They said he was just "one of the boys she f----d."
Oliver's older sister said he would never raise a hand against a child.
"My brother would never hurt that baby, not in a million years," said Jackie Oliver, 44. "I don't know about the mother."
With Matthew Lysiak, Rich Schapiro and Kerry Burke
rparascandola@nydailynews.com
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/03/18/2011-03-18_brooklyn_infant_fights_for_his_life_after_suffering_horrific_abuse_say_cops.html#ixzz1H5ikJfP7
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Saturday, March 19, 2011
New Hampshire Family Division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk:New Hampshire Family Division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
POV
The following text was inserted a while ago and is clearly slanted to one viewpoint and probably constitutes original research. If someone wishes to cover any controversy regarding the Family Division, they need to do so using published sources and in a balanced manner.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the deleted text:
The Family Division is viewed with considerable public scrutiny and is often considered corrupt, gender biased again litigants and deemed to act to promote family breakup and excess litigation. Doing so is not considered by many to be in the "best interests" of children and believed to be done in order to maximize the inflow of federal Title IV-D incentive monetary funds into the state.
Many efforts are underway to reform the family courts which are referred to as "family eating machines". Unfortunately, however, recent efforts such as "The Citizens Commission on the Courts" and the 2004 Report from "The Commission on Child Support and Child Custody Related Issues" (available here: www.cbelow.org/Child Support Commission Final Report 12-1-04.pdf), along with its minority report have been ignored by the state and no action has been taken. For a thorough analysis on what's wrong with our family courts, see also "Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage and the Family," by Stephen Baskerville. See also the reports of the NH Commission on the Status of men downloadable from www.nh.gov/csm.
During the operations of the Citizen's Commission on NH State Courts, "listening sessions" were held around the state. Since this was to be a "CITIZEN'S" commission, it could be assumed that public input would affect the bulk of the commissions' recommendations. This was not to be the case, in a court dominated commission. The issues MOST complained about were almost totally ignored. Issues mentioned by only one person were often the subject of recommendations.
PUBLIC INPUT TO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTS Compiled by Commission member Paul M. Clements and included as an addendum to the final report.
This Commission was created to gauge public perceptions of the courts in NH, and to receive and formulate recommendations to address their concerns. To that end, the commission held twenty-two “Listening Sessions” in eleven locations around the state. It also distributed surveys and invited contact by email and letter from interested persons. The following represents the criticisms and concerns of the people who responded. In tabulating those responses, people testifying at more than one listening session, or submitting more than one survey, were only counted on the first instance, as far as possible.
71 persons spoke at listening sessions, not including multiple appearances. 67 surveys were returned. (Duplicates eliminated) 56 emails were received. TOTAL CONTACTS: 194
Complaints/concerns involving the Family Courts: 96 Complaints/concerns involving all other courts: 33<> Probate court: 5 <> District court: 12 <> Supreme court: 5 <> Superior court: 10 <> Part time courts: 1 <> Persons expressing a negative perception of the courts: 103
NATURE OF CONCERNS:
Expense of going to court: 79 <>Bias against fathers: 74 <> Suspicion of corruption/criminal acts: 40 <> Allegations of Denial of Rights/Denial of Due Process: 36 <> Profiteering (to benefit courts, lawyers, & others): 23 <> Problems with delays and scheduling: 23 <> Problems with false complaints of domestic violence: 21<> Ineffectiveness of the Committee on Judicial Conduct: 21 <> (NOTE: None of the above issues were addressed by the final report) Filing delays/staff shortages: 7 <> Judicial Activism (legislating from the bench): 6 <> Lack of training for GAL’s: 6 <> Lack of security: 5 <> Need for technical updates: 5 <> Need for assistance for pro-se litigants: 4 <> Bias against women: 3 <> Need for “Restorative Justice” programs: 2 <> More use of Mediation: 2 <>
One response for each of the following: Orientation for jurors; Lack of training for judges;
Bias favoring cities and towns;
Treatment programs for drug offenders;
Access/input to Grand Juries;
Concern about life tenure for judges; Treatment of mental illness programs in prison; Additional funding for indigent defense;
Sentencing of sex offenders;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); Alternatives for juvenile offenders;
Need for case managers;
MINORITY REPORT FAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEE Supreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State Courts Paul Clements (NOTE: The members of this commission were invited to submit "minority reports", and Paul M.Clements, member of the Family Law Research Sub-committee submitted the following. Upon doing so, a rule was created requiring ten co-signors for recognition of the report. Only two other members agreed to co-sign, and this report was not included in the commissions final report.) The Supreme Courts’ “Citizens Commission on NH State Courts” was created by Chief Justice John Broderick because of the escalating complaints about the NH court system. Far from being a “Citizen’s” commission, the one hundred and five member group was composed of one third judges and lawyers, and dozens more court hangers-on. There are retired judges, members of the committee on judicial conduct, the executive director of the Judicial Council, court clerks, members of the public defenders office, the Legal aid society, law school professors, the past and present Attorneys-General, law enforcement officers, and others closely connected to the courts. In sum, over 70% of the commission were closely connected to the courts. Members of the general public are in decidedly short supply. As might be expected, the 70% majority seemed more intent in growing the courts’ size, budget, and influence, than in creating real reforms in the way the courts operate, to better serve the public.
Nowhere was this judicial bias more evident than in the Family Law Research (sub) Committee. The Commission was charged with reviewing the reports of several committees which preceded it. One of those reports, issued by the Family Law Task Force, was issued at about the same time as the report of the Commission to Study Child Support and Custody Issues. However, THAT report was not on the list to be studied. Neither was the report by the Commission on the Status of Men. Is it just coincidental that both reports strongly recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody? The oversight was corrected, and both reports were eventually posted on the Citizen’s Commission web site for review, along with the report of the National Probate Judges College, which also recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody. It should be noted that the report of the Task Force on Family Law strongly reinforced the idea that shared custody was in the best interests of the children, although the task force stopped short of actually recommending such a presumption.
Individual members of the Family Law Research Committee were charged with condensing the recommendations of each of the reports suggested for study. The judge reporting back on the Child Support and Custody Commission failed to mention their recommendation regarding shared custody. That oversight was brought to his attention, and although he promised to submit a revised report, the shared custody recommendation was omitted once again.
The Citizen’s Commission held “Listening Sessions” at several locations around the state to obtain feedback from the general public. Complaints about the family courts outnumbered complaints about all other courts COMBINED by a ratio of 5:1. Chief among those complaints was the inequity in custody decisions, which were said to favor primary maternal custody in an overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, statistics from the Department of Vital Statistics indicate that mothers are awarded primary custody in seventy five percent of all cases, while fathers are awarded custody in only 10 – 15% of cases. Complaints about the unfairness of child support orders closely followed the complaints about custody. The nature of those complaints notwithstanding, the family law research committee failed to recommend any of the suggestions from previous commissions regarding either custody or child support. Their actions beg the question, “If the objective of the commission was to make the courts more equitable, just, and user friendly, why not address the concerns most often voiced by the “consumers” of court services?” Instead of taking those complaints seriously, the commission was told that the nature and number of those complaints was due to the “superior organization” of the fathers’ groups, who “rallied the troops” to come out and testify. The obvious obverse observation, that those who are favored by the courts failed to complain because they had no reason to complain, was overlooked. Furthermore, the commission made no plan or attempt to tabulate the public input from the listening sessions and court surveys, until this writer recommended such action, and volunteered to do the work involved. Otherwise, no-one reading the commissions report would know if the commission had addressed any of the public’s concerns.
Instead of addressing “consumer” complaints, the family law research committee chose, instead to focus on recommendations which would increase the size of the court system, add multiple layers of bureaucracy, require the hiring of large numbers of new personnel, and dramatically increase the courts’ budget, without addressing the underlying reasons for re-litigation and conflict. Finding money for all the above was a prime concern. It was suggested that the courts already had a funding source available, in the form of payments from the child support collection agency, amounting to in excess of two million dollars per year. Committee members first tried to deny the existence of those payments, then, simply resorted to ignoring them. One must wonder what becomes of that two million dollars, if it’s not available to fund new court programs. When the legality of those payments, from an executive branch agency to the judicial branch, in violation of the Constitutional mandate for Separation of Powers, was questioned, the question was deferred to the legislature.
Several of the newly sought programs are well intentioned, and could prove beneficial. However, there was exhibited some reluctance to do away with the status quo. Although complaints of gender bias were foremost in the “listening sessions”, precautions against continuing the bias were dismissed out of hand. Mediation, as a method of forestalling conflict and court appearances is a good idea. But the committee balked at the idea of making it mandatory for all parties. They want, instead, to allow one party to opt out of bargaining in good faith by playing the domestic violence card. An unsupported accusation against the other party, a tactic currently in common practice, would throw the case back to the court for decision by a judge or marital master. The same criticism holds true for the parties’ cooperative development of “parenting plans”. When the court is known to be biased, to a statistically provable degree, why bargain away entitlements, monetary advantages, property, and custody? In response to a discerned need to provide for unrepresented “pro-se” litigants, the employment of “case managers” was recommended by the committee. The case manager would provide legal information and guidance to the pro-se litigant. But in each case, mediation, parenting plans, and case management, the committee is recommending that ONLY current court employees with a minimum of five years experience be employed. That’s like drawing water from a contaminated well. The courts have demonstrated gender bias at all levels; to require that new positions are filled by “old” employees would only continue the biases.
Another common complaint heard at the “listening sessions” concerned illegal and discriminatory actions by the presiding judges and marital masters, in support of an obviously gender biased agenda. Speakers told of decisions made on the basis of hearsay evidence, proven perjury being allowed, legitimate motions being denied a hearing, testimony and witnesses not being allowed, false reports submitted by lawyers and GAL’s being accepted without challenge, alteration of transcripts, and decisions which were in violation of state and federal law. It was suggested that the Committee on Judicial Conduct was not performing the function intended, discipline of members of the court. Indeed, it was suggested that the committee sees its function as protecting the judges from complaints, rather than protecting the litigants. However, suggestions for changes as to how the committee operates were ridiculed. Once again, the concerns of the “consumers” were ignored.
In sum, we have a commission, appointed by the courts, composed largely of members and friends of the courts, reviewing the reports from previous court appointed commissions, acting to protect the image of the courts without making any substantial changes to the status quo. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of the public, they propose expansion of a corrupt and biased system. They propose window dressing and band-aid measures to re-assure the public that the court system is functioning in its best interests, while maintaining and increasing their own profitability. They ignore obvious flaws in the court system, institutionalized violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, in order to protect the political agendas of special interest groups. Had there been any REAL interest in reforming the courts to make them more responsive to the ideals of justice and service to the public, they would have focused more closely on the complaints of litigants. It was a cruel joke to call this a “Citizen’s Commission”. The suggestions below would have addressed some of the citizens’ concerns, but, unfortunately, they will not be found in the commission’s final report. The citizen’s voices were not heard, their concerns will not be addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY
1: There should be a rebuttable presumption, operative from the first appearance, that shared custody is in the best interests of the children following a divorce, and that both parents deserve equal consideration from the courts. The court should actively promote shared custody in keeping with that presumption. In any case where shared custody is NOT ordered, the decision must be defended by written findings of fact.
2: The courts should support a change in the child support guidelines, from an “income shares” method of calculation, to a “cost shares” method, including a calculation of actual parenting time spent with the children.
3: The court should renounce the “Cooperative Agreement” which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency, and promotes the abuse of support orders to enhance state and court revenues.
4: The court should support and promote a Constitutional amendment to remove the Committee on Judicial Conduct from the authority of the courts.
5: Programs providing for mediation, cooperative formulation of parenting plans, and child impact seminars should be required to provide information that is balanced and unbiased. Such programs should be made mandatory, allowing for exceptions only in cases where substantive evidence can show that an exception is warranted. Every exception must be noted in written findings of fact.
6: Training of court personnel on the issue of domestic violence should present a balanced perspective, free of gender bias, and based on verifiable facts.
(end of deleted text) --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
POV
The following text was inserted a while ago and is clearly slanted to one viewpoint and probably constitutes original research. If someone wishes to cover any controversy regarding the Family Division, they need to do so using published sources and in a balanced manner.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the deleted text:
The Family Division is viewed with considerable public scrutiny and is often considered corrupt, gender biased again litigants and deemed to act to promote family breakup and excess litigation. Doing so is not considered by many to be in the "best interests" of children and believed to be done in order to maximize the inflow of federal Title IV-D incentive monetary funds into the state.
Many efforts are underway to reform the family courts which are referred to as "family eating machines". Unfortunately, however, recent efforts such as "The Citizens Commission on the Courts" and the 2004 Report from "The Commission on Child Support and Child Custody Related Issues" (available here: www.cbelow.org/Child Support Commission Final Report 12-1-04.pdf), along with its minority report have been ignored by the state and no action has been taken. For a thorough analysis on what's wrong with our family courts, see also "Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage and the Family," by Stephen Baskerville. See also the reports of the NH Commission on the Status of men downloadable from www.nh.gov/csm.
During the operations of the Citizen's Commission on NH State Courts, "listening sessions" were held around the state. Since this was to be a "CITIZEN'S" commission, it could be assumed that public input would affect the bulk of the commissions' recommendations. This was not to be the case, in a court dominated commission. The issues MOST complained about were almost totally ignored. Issues mentioned by only one person were often the subject of recommendations.
PUBLIC INPUT TO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTS Compiled by Commission member Paul M. Clements and included as an addendum to the final report.
This Commission was created to gauge public perceptions of the courts in NH, and to receive and formulate recommendations to address their concerns. To that end, the commission held twenty-two “Listening Sessions” in eleven locations around the state. It also distributed surveys and invited contact by email and letter from interested persons. The following represents the criticisms and concerns of the people who responded. In tabulating those responses, people testifying at more than one listening session, or submitting more than one survey, were only counted on the first instance, as far as possible.
71 persons spoke at listening sessions, not including multiple appearances. 67 surveys were returned. (Duplicates eliminated) 56 emails were received. TOTAL CONTACTS: 194
Complaints/concerns involving the Family Courts: 96 Complaints/concerns involving all other courts: 33<> Probate court: 5 <> District court: 12 <> Supreme court: 5 <> Superior court: 10 <> Part time courts: 1 <> Persons expressing a negative perception of the courts: 103
NATURE OF CONCERNS:
Expense of going to court: 79 <>Bias against fathers: 74 <> Suspicion of corruption/criminal acts: 40 <> Allegations of Denial of Rights/Denial of Due Process: 36 <> Profiteering (to benefit courts, lawyers, & others): 23 <> Problems with delays and scheduling: 23 <> Problems with false complaints of domestic violence: 21<> Ineffectiveness of the Committee on Judicial Conduct: 21 <> (NOTE: None of the above issues were addressed by the final report) Filing delays/staff shortages: 7 <> Judicial Activism (legislating from the bench): 6 <> Lack of training for GAL’s: 6 <> Lack of security: 5 <> Need for technical updates: 5 <> Need for assistance for pro-se litigants: 4 <> Bias against women: 3 <> Need for “Restorative Justice” programs: 2 <> More use of Mediation: 2 <>
One response for each of the following: Orientation for jurors; Lack of training for judges;
Bias favoring cities and towns;
Treatment programs for drug offenders;
Access/input to Grand Juries;
Concern about life tenure for judges; Treatment of mental illness programs in prison; Additional funding for indigent defense;
Sentencing of sex offenders;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); Alternatives for juvenile offenders;
Need for case managers;
MINORITY REPORT FAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEE Supreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State Courts Paul Clements (NOTE: The members of this commission were invited to submit "minority reports", and Paul M.Clements, member of the Family Law Research Sub-committee submitted the following. Upon doing so, a rule was created requiring ten co-signors for recognition of the report. Only two other members agreed to co-sign, and this report was not included in the commissions final report.) The Supreme Courts’ “Citizens Commission on NH State Courts” was created by Chief Justice John Broderick because of the escalating complaints about the NH court system. Far from being a “Citizen’s” commission, the one hundred and five member group was composed of one third judges and lawyers, and dozens more court hangers-on. There are retired judges, members of the committee on judicial conduct, the executive director of the Judicial Council, court clerks, members of the public defenders office, the Legal aid society, law school professors, the past and present Attorneys-General, law enforcement officers, and others closely connected to the courts. In sum, over 70% of the commission were closely connected to the courts. Members of the general public are in decidedly short supply. As might be expected, the 70% majority seemed more intent in growing the courts’ size, budget, and influence, than in creating real reforms in the way the courts operate, to better serve the public.
Nowhere was this judicial bias more evident than in the Family Law Research (sub) Committee. The Commission was charged with reviewing the reports of several committees which preceded it. One of those reports, issued by the Family Law Task Force, was issued at about the same time as the report of the Commission to Study Child Support and Custody Issues. However, THAT report was not on the list to be studied. Neither was the report by the Commission on the Status of Men. Is it just coincidental that both reports strongly recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody? The oversight was corrected, and both reports were eventually posted on the Citizen’s Commission web site for review, along with the report of the National Probate Judges College, which also recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody. It should be noted that the report of the Task Force on Family Law strongly reinforced the idea that shared custody was in the best interests of the children, although the task force stopped short of actually recommending such a presumption.
Individual members of the Family Law Research Committee were charged with condensing the recommendations of each of the reports suggested for study. The judge reporting back on the Child Support and Custody Commission failed to mention their recommendation regarding shared custody. That oversight was brought to his attention, and although he promised to submit a revised report, the shared custody recommendation was omitted once again.
The Citizen’s Commission held “Listening Sessions” at several locations around the state to obtain feedback from the general public. Complaints about the family courts outnumbered complaints about all other courts COMBINED by a ratio of 5:1. Chief among those complaints was the inequity in custody decisions, which were said to favor primary maternal custody in an overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, statistics from the Department of Vital Statistics indicate that mothers are awarded primary custody in seventy five percent of all cases, while fathers are awarded custody in only 10 – 15% of cases. Complaints about the unfairness of child support orders closely followed the complaints about custody. The nature of those complaints notwithstanding, the family law research committee failed to recommend any of the suggestions from previous commissions regarding either custody or child support. Their actions beg the question, “If the objective of the commission was to make the courts more equitable, just, and user friendly, why not address the concerns most often voiced by the “consumers” of court services?” Instead of taking those complaints seriously, the commission was told that the nature and number of those complaints was due to the “superior organization” of the fathers’ groups, who “rallied the troops” to come out and testify. The obvious obverse observation, that those who are favored by the courts failed to complain because they had no reason to complain, was overlooked. Furthermore, the commission made no plan or attempt to tabulate the public input from the listening sessions and court surveys, until this writer recommended such action, and volunteered to do the work involved. Otherwise, no-one reading the commissions report would know if the commission had addressed any of the public’s concerns.
Instead of addressing “consumer” complaints, the family law research committee chose, instead to focus on recommendations which would increase the size of the court system, add multiple layers of bureaucracy, require the hiring of large numbers of new personnel, and dramatically increase the courts’ budget, without addressing the underlying reasons for re-litigation and conflict. Finding money for all the above was a prime concern. It was suggested that the courts already had a funding source available, in the form of payments from the child support collection agency, amounting to in excess of two million dollars per year. Committee members first tried to deny the existence of those payments, then, simply resorted to ignoring them. One must wonder what becomes of that two million dollars, if it’s not available to fund new court programs. When the legality of those payments, from an executive branch agency to the judicial branch, in violation of the Constitutional mandate for Separation of Powers, was questioned, the question was deferred to the legislature.
Several of the newly sought programs are well intentioned, and could prove beneficial. However, there was exhibited some reluctance to do away with the status quo. Although complaints of gender bias were foremost in the “listening sessions”, precautions against continuing the bias were dismissed out of hand. Mediation, as a method of forestalling conflict and court appearances is a good idea. But the committee balked at the idea of making it mandatory for all parties. They want, instead, to allow one party to opt out of bargaining in good faith by playing the domestic violence card. An unsupported accusation against the other party, a tactic currently in common practice, would throw the case back to the court for decision by a judge or marital master. The same criticism holds true for the parties’ cooperative development of “parenting plans”. When the court is known to be biased, to a statistically provable degree, why bargain away entitlements, monetary advantages, property, and custody? In response to a discerned need to provide for unrepresented “pro-se” litigants, the employment of “case managers” was recommended by the committee. The case manager would provide legal information and guidance to the pro-se litigant. But in each case, mediation, parenting plans, and case management, the committee is recommending that ONLY current court employees with a minimum of five years experience be employed. That’s like drawing water from a contaminated well. The courts have demonstrated gender bias at all levels; to require that new positions are filled by “old” employees would only continue the biases.
Another common complaint heard at the “listening sessions” concerned illegal and discriminatory actions by the presiding judges and marital masters, in support of an obviously gender biased agenda. Speakers told of decisions made on the basis of hearsay evidence, proven perjury being allowed, legitimate motions being denied a hearing, testimony and witnesses not being allowed, false reports submitted by lawyers and GAL’s being accepted without challenge, alteration of transcripts, and decisions which were in violation of state and federal law. It was suggested that the Committee on Judicial Conduct was not performing the function intended, discipline of members of the court. Indeed, it was suggested that the committee sees its function as protecting the judges from complaints, rather than protecting the litigants. However, suggestions for changes as to how the committee operates were ridiculed. Once again, the concerns of the “consumers” were ignored.
In sum, we have a commission, appointed by the courts, composed largely of members and friends of the courts, reviewing the reports from previous court appointed commissions, acting to protect the image of the courts without making any substantial changes to the status quo. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of the public, they propose expansion of a corrupt and biased system. They propose window dressing and band-aid measures to re-assure the public that the court system is functioning in its best interests, while maintaining and increasing their own profitability. They ignore obvious flaws in the court system, institutionalized violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, in order to protect the political agendas of special interest groups. Had there been any REAL interest in reforming the courts to make them more responsive to the ideals of justice and service to the public, they would have focused more closely on the complaints of litigants. It was a cruel joke to call this a “Citizen’s Commission”. The suggestions below would have addressed some of the citizens’ concerns, but, unfortunately, they will not be found in the commission’s final report. The citizen’s voices were not heard, their concerns will not be addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY
1: There should be a rebuttable presumption, operative from the first appearance, that shared custody is in the best interests of the children following a divorce, and that both parents deserve equal consideration from the courts. The court should actively promote shared custody in keeping with that presumption. In any case where shared custody is NOT ordered, the decision must be defended by written findings of fact.
2: The courts should support a change in the child support guidelines, from an “income shares” method of calculation, to a “cost shares” method, including a calculation of actual parenting time spent with the children.
3: The court should renounce the “Cooperative Agreement” which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency, and promotes the abuse of support orders to enhance state and court revenues.
4: The court should support and promote a Constitutional amendment to remove the Committee on Judicial Conduct from the authority of the courts.
5: Programs providing for mediation, cooperative formulation of parenting plans, and child impact seminars should be required to provide information that is balanced and unbiased. Such programs should be made mandatory, allowing for exceptions only in cases where substantive evidence can show that an exception is warranted. Every exception must be noted in written findings of fact.
6: Training of court personnel on the issue of domestic violence should present a balanced perspective, free of gender bias, and based on verifiable facts.
(end of deleted text) --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
National Statistics on Child Abuse and Neglect | First Star
National Statistics on Child Abuse and Neglect | First Star
Library
Report Cards
Child Welfare System Overview
Child Maltreatment Defined
PCAA Economic Impact Study
Childhood Denied
Legal Research
National Reports
Child Welfare Resources
Suggested Reading
National Statistics
Expert Commentary
Child Abuse and Neglect Stats
How does the United States fare in its treatment of children?
· Global ranking of the U.S. based on gross domestic product:[i] #1
· Ranking of the U.S. among developed nations based on overall child well-being:[ii] 20th out of 21
· Ranking of the U.S. among developed nations based on rate of child deaths from abuse and neglect:[iii] 25th out of 27
How many children are abused and neglected in the U.S.?
In 2009, an estimated:
· 6.0 million children were referred to Child Protective Services (CPS).[iv]
· 3.3 million children were investigated for maltreatment by CPS.[v]
· 825,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect.[vi
What type of maltreatment did these children suffer?*
· 78.3% were victims of neglect.[vii]
· 17.8 % were victims of physical abuse.[viii]
· 9.5% were victims of sexual abuse. [ix]
· 7.6% were victims of psychological abuse.[x]
*Children that suffer from multiple forms of abuse were counted for each.
Who suffered from maltreatment?
· Children under the age of one were 50% more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect.[xi]
· More than 8% of victims had a reported disability.[xii]
· More than half of the victims were girls.[xiii]
How many children in the U.S. died from abuse and neglect?
In 2009:
· There were an estimated 1,770 child fatality victims due to maltreatment in the U.S.,[xiv] or an average of 34 children a week.
· More than 80% of children killed were 0-4 years old.[xv] Of these, 46.2% were less than a year old.[xvi]
How much does child abuse and neglect cost the U.S.?
· Annual estimated direct cost of medical care for child abuse and neglect in the U.S.:[xvii] $33,101,302,133
· Annual estimated direct AND indirect cost of child abuse and neglect in the U.S.:[xviii] $103,754,017,492
What kind of legal assistance is provided for these children?
· 37% of states do not mandate legal representation for children in abuse and neglect proceedings.[xix]
· Abused and neglected children in 49% of states do not receive the same traditional legal representation received by adults.[xx]
What happens to former foster children?
In 2009:
· Approximately 463,000 children were in the foster care system.[xxi]
· 29,471 children aged out.[xxii]
· Percentage of the general population that have a bachelor’s degree: [xxiii] 24%
· Percentage of former foster children that have a bachelor’s degree.[xxiv] < 2%
· Percentage of the general population in jail or prison in 2008: [xxv] 1%
· Percentage of former foster children incarcerated after aging out: [xxvi] Males: 44.6%, Females: 16.4%
· Percentage of the general population who experience homelessness over the course of a year:[xxvii] <1%
· Percentage of former foster children who experience homelessness after aging out of the system[xxviii] 25%
· Percentage of former foster children who reported being unemployed 1 year after aging out:[xxix] 53%
· Percentage of former foster children who reported living on food stamps 2-3 years after aging out:[xxx] 45%
Library
Report Cards
Child Welfare System Overview
Child Maltreatment Defined
PCAA Economic Impact Study
Childhood Denied
Legal Research
National Reports
Child Welfare Resources
Suggested Reading
National Statistics
Expert Commentary
Child Abuse and Neglect Stats
How does the United States fare in its treatment of children?
· Global ranking of the U.S. based on gross domestic product:[i] #1
· Ranking of the U.S. among developed nations based on overall child well-being:[ii] 20th out of 21
· Ranking of the U.S. among developed nations based on rate of child deaths from abuse and neglect:[iii] 25th out of 27
How many children are abused and neglected in the U.S.?
In 2009, an estimated:
· 6.0 million children were referred to Child Protective Services (CPS).[iv]
· 3.3 million children were investigated for maltreatment by CPS.[v]
· 825,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect.[vi
What type of maltreatment did these children suffer?*
· 78.3% were victims of neglect.[vii]
· 17.8 % were victims of physical abuse.[viii]
· 9.5% were victims of sexual abuse. [ix]
· 7.6% were victims of psychological abuse.[x]
*Children that suffer from multiple forms of abuse were counted for each.
Who suffered from maltreatment?
· Children under the age of one were 50% more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect.[xi]
· More than 8% of victims had a reported disability.[xii]
· More than half of the victims were girls.[xiii]
How many children in the U.S. died from abuse and neglect?
In 2009:
· There were an estimated 1,770 child fatality victims due to maltreatment in the U.S.,[xiv] or an average of 34 children a week.
· More than 80% of children killed were 0-4 years old.[xv] Of these, 46.2% were less than a year old.[xvi]
How much does child abuse and neglect cost the U.S.?
· Annual estimated direct cost of medical care for child abuse and neglect in the U.S.:[xvii] $33,101,302,133
· Annual estimated direct AND indirect cost of child abuse and neglect in the U.S.:[xviii] $103,754,017,492
What kind of legal assistance is provided for these children?
· 37% of states do not mandate legal representation for children in abuse and neglect proceedings.[xix]
· Abused and neglected children in 49% of states do not receive the same traditional legal representation received by adults.[xx]
What happens to former foster children?
In 2009:
· Approximately 463,000 children were in the foster care system.[xxi]
· 29,471 children aged out.[xxii]
· Percentage of the general population that have a bachelor’s degree: [xxiii] 24%
· Percentage of former foster children that have a bachelor’s degree.[xxiv] < 2%
· Percentage of the general population in jail or prison in 2008: [xxv] 1%
· Percentage of former foster children incarcerated after aging out: [xxvi] Males: 44.6%, Females: 16.4%
· Percentage of the general population who experience homelessness over the course of a year:[xxvii] <1%
· Percentage of former foster children who experience homelessness after aging out of the system[xxviii] 25%
· Percentage of former foster children who reported being unemployed 1 year after aging out:[xxix] 53%
· Percentage of former foster children who reported living on food stamps 2-3 years after aging out:[xxx] 45%
HEARSAY, The 6th Amendment, Crawford v. Washington-Hearsay Evidence is NOT admissable
HEARSAY, The 6th Amendment, Crawford v. Washington
Then why is Hearsay admissable in New Hampshire Court's?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO ALL SUPERIOR AND JUVENILE JUDGES
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON
SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0
ON MARCH 8, 2004, SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THEIR ACCUSER UNDER THE 6TH AMENDMENT. DCF, THE AAG AND THE STATES ATTORNEY MUST NOW COMPLY WITH THE 6TH AMENDMENT IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES.
Ruling on hearsay evidence guts cases
Prosecuting abuse and domestic violence will be harder after the Supreme Court's affirmation of the right to face an accuser03/11/04
ROBIN FRANZEN
Then why is Hearsay admissable in New Hampshire Court's?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO ALL SUPERIOR AND JUVENILE JUDGES
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON
SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0
ON MARCH 8, 2004, SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THEIR ACCUSER UNDER THE 6TH AMENDMENT. DCF, THE AAG AND THE STATES ATTORNEY MUST NOW COMPLY WITH THE 6TH AMENDMENT IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES.
Ruling on hearsay evidence guts cases
Prosecuting abuse and domestic violence will be harder after the Supreme Court's affirmation of the right to face an accuser03/11/04
ROBIN FRANZEN
Judge arranges forced adoption for local politician’s daughter, citing poverty issues alone : Federal Jack
Judge arranges forced adoption for local politician’s daughter, citing poverty issues alone : Federal Jack
March 11, 2011 by C. Patience Summers
Filed under Establishing The Police State, Featured Stories, Human rights, Police Brutality & Abuse Of Power
9 Comments
By C. Patience Summers
patiencepoet@ymail.com
http://thecorruptionreport.blogspot.com/
Bad Judge of the day (03-11-11): DISHONORABLE K. Mark Lloyd of Johnson County, In. He has an undisclosed conflict of interest because he sits on the board of directors to the Regional Services Council Committee (RSCC), an agency that decides what DCS contracted agencies will be used in his area. BAD JUDGE!
The following link is a pdf of the minutes of one of these meetings, if anyone is interested in seeing this judge on the roster for one of these: http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/Regional_Service_Council_14_MinutesApril2208.pdf
Occasionally, this reporter will hear about a judge who may not appear to be getting financial incentives for swaying their decisions, but their decisions still appear to be swayed for other reasons, even if it’s just a proverbial pat on the back from their peers or to feel in control of something.
One mother, Sherri Lynne Dungan, claims he allowed her parental rights to be terminated without just cause because the reporting individual who called Child Protective Services, Jodi Checkeye, is the daughter of the influential Warren Beville. Beville was a city councilman for the City of Greenwood, Indiana during the 60′s and 70′s.
Reportedly, Checkeye has custody of Dungan’s son as the result of poverty issues and no actual abuse allegations have been charged against Dungan.
“It’s a nightmare. It’s like she just ordered my son like you order an item from a restaurant,” Dungan cried.
In a brief, telephonic interview, Lloyd said that the RSCC is a statutory committee that decides what contracts the county will use for the foster care system and there are many officials involved besides himself.
He said that there is a process in In. for a judge to go through if they want to sit on the board of directors to a DCS directly contracted agency so that it can be certain to all that there is no conflict of interest involved, but he does not believe this process is needed for his involvement with any of the agencies he is a participant of.
Lloyd also claimed to be on another committee that provided monies to the foster care system.
He also claimed that he was attending college and high school while Beville was in office and did not know him.
Lloyd would not comment on Dungan’s case or why her child was removed without any substantiated allegations of actual abuse in his courtroom.
As of this date, Dungan’s parental rights to her son have been terminated and she hopes to overturn her case.
March 11, 2011 by C. Patience Summers
Filed under Establishing The Police State, Featured Stories, Human rights, Police Brutality & Abuse Of Power
9 Comments
By C. Patience Summers
patiencepoet@ymail.com
http://thecorruptionreport.blogspot.com/
Bad Judge of the day (03-11-11): DISHONORABLE K. Mark Lloyd of Johnson County, In. He has an undisclosed conflict of interest because he sits on the board of directors to the Regional Services Council Committee (RSCC), an agency that decides what DCS contracted agencies will be used in his area. BAD JUDGE!
The following link is a pdf of the minutes of one of these meetings, if anyone is interested in seeing this judge on the roster for one of these: http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/Regional_Service_Council_14_MinutesApril2208.pdf
Occasionally, this reporter will hear about a judge who may not appear to be getting financial incentives for swaying their decisions, but their decisions still appear to be swayed for other reasons, even if it’s just a proverbial pat on the back from their peers or to feel in control of something.
One mother, Sherri Lynne Dungan, claims he allowed her parental rights to be terminated without just cause because the reporting individual who called Child Protective Services, Jodi Checkeye, is the daughter of the influential Warren Beville. Beville was a city councilman for the City of Greenwood, Indiana during the 60′s and 70′s.
Reportedly, Checkeye has custody of Dungan’s son as the result of poverty issues and no actual abuse allegations have been charged against Dungan.
“It’s a nightmare. It’s like she just ordered my son like you order an item from a restaurant,” Dungan cried.
In a brief, telephonic interview, Lloyd said that the RSCC is a statutory committee that decides what contracts the county will use for the foster care system and there are many officials involved besides himself.
He said that there is a process in In. for a judge to go through if they want to sit on the board of directors to a DCS directly contracted agency so that it can be certain to all that there is no conflict of interest involved, but he does not believe this process is needed for his involvement with any of the agencies he is a participant of.
Lloyd also claimed to be on another committee that provided monies to the foster care system.
He also claimed that he was attending college and high school while Beville was in office and did not know him.
Lloyd would not comment on Dungan’s case or why her child was removed without any substantiated allegations of actual abuse in his courtroom.
As of this date, Dungan’s parental rights to her son have been terminated and she hopes to overturn her case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)