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, April 2, 2011
Mom sees social services win as help for others
Mom sees social services win as help for others - Orange County Register
May 21, 2007|By PEGGY LOWE
The threat came first: "If you don't submit to me, you'll never see your kids again."
Then the Orange County social worker produced a document, telling her she must sign it.
Suddenly, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick was faced with the social services version of a Solomonic choice: Sign a paper that says you're a bad parent, or lose your children. Fogarty-Hardwick refused to sign it that day in 2000 and the very worst happened: Her two daughters, then ages 6 and 9, were placed in the Orangewood Children's home and then in foster care.
"That's when I thought, 'OK, this is a nightmare,'" Fogarty-Hardwick said. "This is America."
But last week, after a painful seven-year battle with the Orange County Social Services Department, the Seal Beach mother won a second major victory, coming after a record-setting $4.9 million jury verdict against the county.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Bauer handed down a permanent injunction against the agency, ruling that it must have "articulable evidence" to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected by a parent before making any allegations in court.
And in what many parental advocates say is even more significant, Bauer also ordered the social services department to stop requiring a parent to sign what's called an "agency-parent temporary agreement" unless the agency has some reasonable evidence to suggest the parents are hurting their children.
Those rulings won't help Fogarty-Hardwick, who had been wrongfully accused of telling her daughters that their father was trying to take them away from her. She already feels vindicated by the jury's ruling that her parental rights had been violated by the county. But she hopes it will do something to protect other parents she heard from during her trial.
"This is an abuse-of-power case, when someone has incredible power and they exercise it over you," Fogarty-Hardwick said. "If they become part of the problem, how can they help? And if no one is there to hold them accountable, how will anyone know there's a problem?"
The outcome of Fogarty-Hardwick's case shocked lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits, and it set the parental-rights community buzzing. Parents rarely bring cases against social services departments, because of protracted legal battles and governmental immunity laws. The cases also are hard to prove because most of the agencies' decisions are made in secret as a result of confidentiality laws.
Jan Saalfield, a Marin County lawyer who has specialized in child dependency appeals for 16 years, said she has never seen a ruling like the one Bauer made last week.
"This gives the appearance that the court is quite concerned that this is not just a singular event and says it won't be repeated in the future," Saalfield said. "The court is showing substantial concern that this could happen again."
Michael Riley, chief deputy director of the Social Services Agency, disagreed, saying the judge's ruling simply orders the department do to what it has always done, "which is follow the law."
"The whole idea of the premise made by the plaintiff that we remove children in a cavalier fashion is completely unfounded," Riley said.
Citing confidentiality laws, Riley said he couldn't comment on specifics of the case. But he denied that his social workers did anything wrong. The agency always has evidence before making an allegation, and Orange County has one of the lowest removal rates in the state, he said. Of the 34,293 child abuse reports the department received in 2006, only 1,900 children were removed from their homes, he said.
The county is appealing the jury's decision, including the additional $6,000 in punitive damages against the two social workers on Fogarty-Hardwick's case.
During the 16-day trial earlier this year, the county's lawyers told the jury that Fogarty-Hardwick was a former Miss California and called her the "Nordstrom mom" in an attempt to turn the jury against her. That didn't work, as jury members later told Fogarty-Hardwick's lawyers. The county also allowed the social worker that threatened her to testify, and the jury came to believe, as Fogarty-Hardwick's lawsuit claimed, that she and a supervisor had "intentionally misinformed" a judge who then handed down the order to take the children.
After her daughters were put in foster care in 2000, Fogarty-Hardwick decided to give her ex-husband full custody, hoping to protect her daughters. She was then allowed two monitored visits per month for two years, but finally won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Today, Fogarty-Hardwick isn't bitter, nor is she anti-social services. She says with a laugh that she knew the social worker in question was so bad because her first one had been so good.
But she admits that this "unfortunate adventure" has been devastating to her, her parents and their extended family. Her only hope now is that the appeal also goes her way - a process that will take several years - and that other parents won't have to experience what she endured.
"You just try to find good out of something horrible," she said. "We have a wonderful decision that could help a lot of people and must be preserved."
Contact the writer: 714-285-2862 or plowe@ocregister.com
May 21, 2007|By PEGGY LOWE
The threat came first: "If you don't submit to me, you'll never see your kids again."
Then the Orange County social worker produced a document, telling her she must sign it.
Suddenly, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick was faced with the social services version of a Solomonic choice: Sign a paper that says you're a bad parent, or lose your children. Fogarty-Hardwick refused to sign it that day in 2000 and the very worst happened: Her two daughters, then ages 6 and 9, were placed in the Orangewood Children's home and then in foster care.
"That's when I thought, 'OK, this is a nightmare,'" Fogarty-Hardwick said. "This is America."
But last week, after a painful seven-year battle with the Orange County Social Services Department, the Seal Beach mother won a second major victory, coming after a record-setting $4.9 million jury verdict against the county.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Bauer handed down a permanent injunction against the agency, ruling that it must have "articulable evidence" to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected by a parent before making any allegations in court.
And in what many parental advocates say is even more significant, Bauer also ordered the social services department to stop requiring a parent to sign what's called an "agency-parent temporary agreement" unless the agency has some reasonable evidence to suggest the parents are hurting their children.
Those rulings won't help Fogarty-Hardwick, who had been wrongfully accused of telling her daughters that their father was trying to take them away from her. She already feels vindicated by the jury's ruling that her parental rights had been violated by the county. But she hopes it will do something to protect other parents she heard from during her trial.
"This is an abuse-of-power case, when someone has incredible power and they exercise it over you," Fogarty-Hardwick said. "If they become part of the problem, how can they help? And if no one is there to hold them accountable, how will anyone know there's a problem?"
The outcome of Fogarty-Hardwick's case shocked lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits, and it set the parental-rights community buzzing. Parents rarely bring cases against social services departments, because of protracted legal battles and governmental immunity laws. The cases also are hard to prove because most of the agencies' decisions are made in secret as a result of confidentiality laws.
Jan Saalfield, a Marin County lawyer who has specialized in child dependency appeals for 16 years, said she has never seen a ruling like the one Bauer made last week.
"This gives the appearance that the court is quite concerned that this is not just a singular event and says it won't be repeated in the future," Saalfield said. "The court is showing substantial concern that this could happen again."
Michael Riley, chief deputy director of the Social Services Agency, disagreed, saying the judge's ruling simply orders the department do to what it has always done, "which is follow the law."
"The whole idea of the premise made by the plaintiff that we remove children in a cavalier fashion is completely unfounded," Riley said.
Citing confidentiality laws, Riley said he couldn't comment on specifics of the case. But he denied that his social workers did anything wrong. The agency always has evidence before making an allegation, and Orange County has one of the lowest removal rates in the state, he said. Of the 34,293 child abuse reports the department received in 2006, only 1,900 children were removed from their homes, he said.
The county is appealing the jury's decision, including the additional $6,000 in punitive damages against the two social workers on Fogarty-Hardwick's case.
During the 16-day trial earlier this year, the county's lawyers told the jury that Fogarty-Hardwick was a former Miss California and called her the "Nordstrom mom" in an attempt to turn the jury against her. That didn't work, as jury members later told Fogarty-Hardwick's lawyers. The county also allowed the social worker that threatened her to testify, and the jury came to believe, as Fogarty-Hardwick's lawsuit claimed, that she and a supervisor had "intentionally misinformed" a judge who then handed down the order to take the children.
After her daughters were put in foster care in 2000, Fogarty-Hardwick decided to give her ex-husband full custody, hoping to protect her daughters. She was then allowed two monitored visits per month for two years, but finally won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Today, Fogarty-Hardwick isn't bitter, nor is she anti-social services. She says with a laugh that she knew the social worker in question was so bad because her first one had been so good.
But she admits that this "unfortunate adventure" has been devastating to her, her parents and their extended family. Her only hope now is that the appeal also goes her way - a process that will take several years - and that other parents won't have to experience what she endured.
"You just try to find good out of something horrible," she said. "We have a wonderful decision that could help a lot of people and must be preserved."
Contact the writer: 714-285-2862 or plowe@ocregister.com
Federal Jury in San Jose California Awards Family $3.2 Million for Wrongful Removal of Children From their Home
Federal Jury in San Jose California Awards Family $3.2 Million for Wrongful Removal
of Children From their Home
San Diego, CA April 1, 2011 --
...RE: Watson, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Facility
Case No. C06-04029 RMW (Judge Ronald M. Whyte, Presiding)
On April 1, 2011, a San Jose Jury awarded Plaintiffs Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker and their minor children $3.2 million. The unanimous verdict included a punitive damage award of $2 million.
The case was brought by the family against the County of Santa Clara and several of its CPS workers, The City of San Jose and several of its police officers, among others to recover damages the family sustained when San Jose Police Detectives Sgt. Craig Blank and Officer William Hoyt improperly removed three children from their family home, without a warrant or just cause.
In papers filed with the court Plaintiffs alleged that on June 29, 2005, the officers illegally entered their home and improperly seized R. and S. ages 1 and 2, without a warrant or legal right (the names of the minors are withheld to protect their privacy). Plaintiffs also alleged that on June 30, 2005, the officers improperly seized another child, O. after an interview at the police interview center. Defendants City of San Jose and officers Blank and Hoyt contended that the entry into the house on June 29, 2005 and seizures of the children on June 29, and June 30, 2005, were proper. In obvious disagreement with the Defendants’ contention a unanimous jury today awarded the family an unprecedented $3.2 million. The County of Santa Clara settled with the Plaintiffs before trial. Other defendants appear to have been dismissed from the case.
Attorney PETER JOHNSON of the LAW OFFICE OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON at 319 Railroad Ave., Ste. 201; Pittsburg, California 94565 was lead trial counsel. He may be contacted at T: (925) 432-7447 F: (925) 473.0512; jjlaw2@earthlink.net
Attorney ROBERT R. POWELL of the LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL at 925 West Hedding Street; San Jose, California 95126, was co-counsel at trial. He may be contacted at T: 408-553-0200 F: 408-553-0203; E: rpowell@rrpassociates.com
By: David Carlin
of Children From their Home
San Diego, CA April 1, 2011 --
...RE: Watson, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Facility
Case No. C06-04029 RMW (Judge Ronald M. Whyte, Presiding)
On April 1, 2011, a San Jose Jury awarded Plaintiffs Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker and their minor children $3.2 million. The unanimous verdict included a punitive damage award of $2 million.
The case was brought by the family against the County of Santa Clara and several of its CPS workers, The City of San Jose and several of its police officers, among others to recover damages the family sustained when San Jose Police Detectives Sgt. Craig Blank and Officer William Hoyt improperly removed three children from their family home, without a warrant or just cause.
In papers filed with the court Plaintiffs alleged that on June 29, 2005, the officers illegally entered their home and improperly seized R. and S. ages 1 and 2, without a warrant or legal right (the names of the minors are withheld to protect their privacy). Plaintiffs also alleged that on June 30, 2005, the officers improperly seized another child, O. after an interview at the police interview center. Defendants City of San Jose and officers Blank and Hoyt contended that the entry into the house on June 29, 2005 and seizures of the children on June 29, and June 30, 2005, were proper. In obvious disagreement with the Defendants’ contention a unanimous jury today awarded the family an unprecedented $3.2 million. The County of Santa Clara settled with the Plaintiffs before trial. Other defendants appear to have been dismissed from the case.
Attorney PETER JOHNSON of the LAW OFFICE OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON at 319 Railroad Ave., Ste. 201; Pittsburg, California 94565 was lead trial counsel. He may be contacted at T: (925) 432-7447 F: (925) 473.0512; jjlaw2@earthlink.net
Attorney ROBERT R. POWELL of the LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL at 925 West Hedding Street; San Jose, California 95126, was co-counsel at trial. He may be contacted at T: 408-553-0200 F: 408-553-0203; E: rpowell@rrpassociates.com
By: David Carlin
Tax Credits Gets Family $54,000 Refund from Adoption's. Will You?
Tax Credits Gets Family $54,000 Refund | Strollerderby
I wonder why our Country is broke!
David and Thelma Ward could hardly believe it when their HR Block tax preparer called to say they’d be getting a $54,000 tax refund this year.
Yes, that many zeros. And math was checked countless times.
The one-time windfall for the family is attributed to a change in the tax law this year. Since 1997, families who adopt have been eligible for a one-time, $13,170 tax credit per child. Over the past three years through foster care, the Wards added five more kids to their family, which already included seven other children.
What makes this year different, though, is a change in the way the tax credit is defined: it’s now a refundable tax credit. Before, you could only fully benefit from a tax credit if you owed more than the credit. The credits simply offset what you owed in taxes. Staring this year, the adoption tax credit is refundable, meaning it not only offsets the amount you owe but you get the difference in cash.
Since, like the majority of families who adopt in the U.S., the Wards earned a low-to-modest income. They lived off of $39,000 per year, plus monthly stipends for foster care parents, so the credits never paid off. Instead, they rolled over from one year to the next. This year, with the changed law, they get to collect on all the adoptions of the last five years. The credits have a five-year shelf-life and are intended for expenses incurred through international and private adoption. Foster care adoptions don’t typically accrue expenses, but children deemed special needs make their families eligible for the entire credit.
How great for this family! Of course, they’re not in it for the money. They had no idea they’d be getting such a windfall. The refundable credit, which is part of healthcare reform, will likely help other families, too.
I wonder why our Country is broke!
David and Thelma Ward could hardly believe it when their HR Block tax preparer called to say they’d be getting a $54,000 tax refund this year.
Yes, that many zeros. And math was checked countless times.
The one-time windfall for the family is attributed to a change in the tax law this year. Since 1997, families who adopt have been eligible for a one-time, $13,170 tax credit per child. Over the past three years through foster care, the Wards added five more kids to their family, which already included seven other children.
What makes this year different, though, is a change in the way the tax credit is defined: it’s now a refundable tax credit. Before, you could only fully benefit from a tax credit if you owed more than the credit. The credits simply offset what you owed in taxes. Staring this year, the adoption tax credit is refundable, meaning it not only offsets the amount you owe but you get the difference in cash.
Since, like the majority of families who adopt in the U.S., the Wards earned a low-to-modest income. They lived off of $39,000 per year, plus monthly stipends for foster care parents, so the credits never paid off. Instead, they rolled over from one year to the next. This year, with the changed law, they get to collect on all the adoptions of the last five years. The credits have a five-year shelf-life and are intended for expenses incurred through international and private adoption. Foster care adoptions don’t typically accrue expenses, but children deemed special needs make their families eligible for the entire credit.
How great for this family! Of course, they’re not in it for the money. They had no idea they’d be getting such a windfall. The refundable credit, which is part of healthcare reform, will likely help other families, too.
Friday, April 1, 2011
GraniteGrok: Chattel of Parents? Or chattel of the State?
GraniteGrok: Chattel of Parents? Or chattel of the State?
'Grok friend, NH State Representative George Lambert, started an FB thread based on this wee bit of wisdom (more emphasis on "wee" than on "wisdom") from the Concord Monitor as their editorial discussed their version of the ramifications of the NH House passing two bill:
HB 429 - AN ACT permitting a child 16 years of age or older to withdraw from school with parental permission
HB 542 - AN ACT prohibiting a school district from requiring that a parent send his or her child to any school or program to which the parent may be conscientiously opposed
'Grok friend, NH State Representative George Lambert, started an FB thread based on this wee bit of wisdom (more emphasis on "wee" than on "wisdom") from the Concord Monitor as their editorial discussed their version of the ramifications of the NH House passing two bill:
HB 429 - AN ACT permitting a child 16 years of age or older to withdraw from school with parental permission
HB 542 - AN ACT prohibiting a school district from requiring that a parent send his or her child to any school or program to which the parent may be conscientiously opposed
Black Pin Wheels Againt CPS Child Abuse Awareness Month
Black Pin Wheels Againt CPS Child Abuse Awareness Month
Public Event
Today, April 1
National Autism Awareness Day Apri...
Tomorrow, April 2
Time
Friday, April 1 · 11:00am - 1:00pm
Location
Every state,county, city
Created By
National Coalition for Child Welfare Fraud Exposure, Wtp Fpr
More Info
Help us create the awareness that CPS Awareness Month is incorrect as they do not put pin wheels out for every child harmed in their care while siting the public children harmed. We need your help to place black pin wheels out against their pin wheels so media can see there is a dark secret CPS is hiding from them in numbers and they can cover both sides of the issue CPS and Families. Thank you.
Public Event
Today, April 1
National Autism Awareness Day Apri...
Tomorrow, April 2
Time
Friday, April 1 · 11:00am - 1:00pm
Location
Every state,county, city
Created By
National Coalition for Child Welfare Fraud Exposure, Wtp Fpr
More Info
Help us create the awareness that CPS Awareness Month is incorrect as they do not put pin wheels out for every child harmed in their care while siting the public children harmed. We need your help to place black pin wheels out against their pin wheels so media can see there is a dark secret CPS is hiding from them in numbers and they can cover both sides of the issue CPS and Families. Thank you.
Peers to turn to are Phoebe Prince’s legacy
Peers to turn to are Phoebe Prince’s legacy - BostonHerald.com
Of all the questions that lingered after Phoebe Prince’s suicide last year, one of the most haunting was this: What if the 15-year-old bullying victim had known where to turn in her days of torment?
Of all the questions that lingered after Phoebe Prince’s suicide last year, one of the most haunting was this: What if the 15-year-old bullying victim had known where to turn in her days of torment?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)