Confessions of a Child Protective Service Headhunter - Grand Rapids Family Court | Examiner.com
August 28th, 2010 1:02 am ET
Sally Borghese
Grand Rapids Family Court Examiner
transcribed exclusive interview part 2 of 3
The following is a transcription of an audio tape from a former Child Protective Service Headhunter. Exclusive interview provided to journalist Georgie Hampton…..part 3 of 3.
(where marked (x-x), signifies the recording was unclear to transcribe)
My name is Black Michael and I granted way of Canada and Australia and the world my exclusive story as a retired headhunter who is trying to make amends for the over 25,000 children removed over a twenty-two year period.
CPS and other agencies paid me to falsify information to make these children wards of the court. As I said last week my job was to locate families on welfare, low income, low I.Q. or the least likely to be able to afford counsel that could get them their children returned to their custody. I was paid $1,800 per child I brought into care, with a $500.00 bonus if a child was in someway handicapped and a $10,000 bonus if a child was adopted out without parental consent.
I am not proud of what I did and I am now trying to see that as many children as I can will be returned to their loving families. This is why I am stepping forward to give testimony to what we headhunters do.
First, we located a family that fit the criteria. Then watched that family for a circumstance that really happened, that was not really dangerous. But, when which likely made it look likely abuse, neglect or some other endangerment was going on. We then made written, sworn statements to the agencies we worked for and a warrant would then be issued for the child or children in that family to be removed from the family home.
As headhunters, we often testified in court as to our allegations under oath and then to the false identity so that our names would not show as in a stream of cases before the court. It has come to my attention that CPS and other agencies in the last month have doubled the
2010 - 11 children can be brought into care quota. Instead of the approximately 240,000
children, the headhunter quota has risen from 80,000 souls and innocents 155 during this physical term.
It sickens me that this is happening to innocent families, and I am determined to see that those for whom I was responsible for falsifying records are returned home where possible.
I am at great risk doing this interview and would not have consented had Georgie had not agreed to keep my true identity hidden and my voice altered. If she had not agreed to these terms I would not be granting this exclusive interview.
With the economy as it is and the expected depression through by 2012, CPS and like organizations are doubling their quotas to stay in business and have no doubt for them this business is slowly monetary and has nothing to do with the safety of children in legitimate terms.
More children die in the hands of their foster parents than in the hands of their true parents for which I know I am responsible for the loss of life to these 11 of these children by falsifying records and statements.
Advertisement
I am not proud of the work I did, nor of the money I earned. All my efforts are now being put into bringing as many of these children home as possible. I have been instrumental in having 22 children now returned to their rightful families and I continue to work on bringing more home.
To (x-x) I have to step forward slowly and cautiously because should it become known that I am the one known who is contacting judges and prosecutors and recanting my testimony I would be dead within weeks, if not days.
As headhunters, we took a full week long course on how to spot vulnerable families, how to falsify allegations, how to testify to CPS benefit. This course also taught us that when children were taken into care the immediate program of separation of child from family would begin. The child would be rewarded for compliance and punished for defiance. A type of mind control would be used by foster parents even though these foster parents did not know they were being taught these skills during their training of two weeks.
Foster parents only have criminal checks. They are not interviewed by psychologists or trained personnel. They merely have to express their want to be foster parents and follow the instructions of care and reward and punishment to keep the children in their care under their control. The foster parent school is to separate the child from his or her parents as widely as possible.
The child, when the prearranged telephone call or visit has not produced, the child is told your mother and father hate you, they don't want you, that is why they never showed up. We love you, we want you, you are safe with us as long as you follow our simple rules and expectations. Very quickly most contact with birth parents and families is brought to very limited contact.
Every session and visit is monitored and if the parent probes into the well being of their child, the foster parent is taught how to reprogram the child's responses to such questions. In essence, they are taught to forget their former families and accept foster homes or adoption as their only recourse to being truly loved.
I have agreed to keep these interviews going with Georgie as I can to expose the system for the deceitful, despicable corporations that they are. While I am not beyond being called those same names, I do hope parents realize the great danger I am currently putting myself in exposing CPS and other like agencies and their reprogramming of children's lives.
As headhunters, we were aware that approximately 50% of children in foster homes are abused, sexually assaulted and mind controlled. We worked for pay and put those statistics to the back of our minds, shoved that knowledge away, knowing we were not the perpetrators of these atrocities. But the truth is, we put those children in harms way and are just as guilty as the foster parents who abuse these children on an ongoing and daily basis.
While child protection agencies are aware of these atrocities, they also ignore them for the greater part as conditioning of children and separation (x-x) from real families plays a real part of reprogramming of these innocent minds.
I will continue this interview at later date. Again my most humble apologies for the pain I have caused both parents and children for whom I was responsible in separating.
May God have mercy on my soul……..Black Michael
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
San Jose ordered to pay $3.2M in child seizure suit
San Jose ordered to pay $3.2M in child seizure suit - San Jose Mercury News
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/01/2011 08:17:56 PM PDT
Updated: 04/01/2011 10:39:25 PM PDT
In the largest recent judgment against San Jose police, a federal jury on Friday awarded a family $3.25 million after siding with the parents, who accused officers of stealing their young children and placing them in protective custody.
The award came two days after a U.S. District Court jury in San Jose ruled that detective William Hoyt and Sgt. Craig Blank violated the constitutional rights of Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker and their children after the officers entered their home without a warrant in 2005 and seized the children, who were kept from their parents for more than a year.
"It's the most horrific thing (that) no parent should ever have to go through, no child should ever have to go through," Watson, 49, a marketer who now lives in Napa, said Friday. The "police charging into your house, stealing your kids."
At the time, police had become alarmed by the strange sexual behavior exhibited by the family's 8-year-old daughter, and the father's lack of cooperation during their abuse investigation. But the family argued the girl had never told investigators she had been molested, and there was no evidence of abuse.
City Attorney Rick Doyle said it was the largest settlement against the police department in his 15 years defending the city. He argued the settlement was excessive and is considering appealing.
Doyle said the 8-year-old daughter had masturbated in her Evergreen School District classroom and talked strangely,
Advertisement
mentioning she was taking baths with her father, who refused to cooperate with authorities. Although Doyle acknowledged officers "probably" should have obtained a warrant before entering the home, he said police have the right to retrieve the children if they are in immediate danger.
"If you don't do anything and something happens, then you're second guessed for being negligent," Doyle said, citing the horrific Jaycee Lee Dugard case where a young girl had been kidnapped and abused for years in Antioch before officers discovered her. "It sort of puts the police in 'you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.' "
On June 29, 2005, Hoyt, Blank, five other police officers and county social workers came to the family's home on Braden Court and entered without a search warrant. The 3-year-old autistic son and an infant boy were home with their grandmother, and Doyle said officials could not reach the mother -- who was in the hospital for surgery -- and thought Watson was with the girl.
So they placed the boys into the custody of county child protective services, and then did the same with the girl the next day.
But Watson believes he was targeted because he had hired an attorney after a feud with the school district. He denies the girl had been doing anything sexual.
Even so, a San Jose municipal court judge ruled the officers acted correctly in taking the kids. It wasn't until the family moved to Napa County in 2006 -- nearly 1½ years after the initial seizure -- that social workers there reviewed the case and quickly returned the children to the family, said their attorney, Peter Johnson of Walnut Creek.
In 2007, the family sued the city, police, the county, the school district and several officials. The family settled with the county and school officials for an undisclosed amount.
The case against the city, however, went to trial last month, with jurors unanimously deciding that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify taking the kids and entering the home without a search warrant.
The jury found that the officers had violated the family's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and their 14th Amendment rights against government prohibiting "life, liberty or property" without taking proper measures. Jurors awarded financial penalties plus $2 million in punitive damages, which are designed to punish defendants for intentional wrongdoing.
They also found the city did not properly train its officers, but not in a "deliberately indifferent" way.
Watson said although he feels vindicated by the ruling, it's been a struggle to get his family back together since being reunited.
"What's normal after that?" he said. "You try, but you're always a little edgy around cops after that. You just are. Your whole sense of safety as a family has just been violated."
Contact Mike Rosenberg at 408-920-5705.
BEFORE THE VERDICT
June 29, 2005: Detectives, police officers and social workers entered the home without a warrant and removed two of their children.
2007: The family sued the city, police, the county and school district and several officials. The family settled with county and school officials for an undisclosed amount.
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/01/2011 08:17:56 PM PDT
Updated: 04/01/2011 10:39:25 PM PDT
In the largest recent judgment against San Jose police, a federal jury on Friday awarded a family $3.25 million after siding with the parents, who accused officers of stealing their young children and placing them in protective custody.
The award came two days after a U.S. District Court jury in San Jose ruled that detective William Hoyt and Sgt. Craig Blank violated the constitutional rights of Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker and their children after the officers entered their home without a warrant in 2005 and seized the children, who were kept from their parents for more than a year.
"It's the most horrific thing (that) no parent should ever have to go through, no child should ever have to go through," Watson, 49, a marketer who now lives in Napa, said Friday. The "police charging into your house, stealing your kids."
At the time, police had become alarmed by the strange sexual behavior exhibited by the family's 8-year-old daughter, and the father's lack of cooperation during their abuse investigation. But the family argued the girl had never told investigators she had been molested, and there was no evidence of abuse.
City Attorney Rick Doyle said it was the largest settlement against the police department in his 15 years defending the city. He argued the settlement was excessive and is considering appealing.
Doyle said the 8-year-old daughter had masturbated in her Evergreen School District classroom and talked strangely,
Advertisement
mentioning she was taking baths with her father, who refused to cooperate with authorities. Although Doyle acknowledged officers "probably" should have obtained a warrant before entering the home, he said police have the right to retrieve the children if they are in immediate danger.
"If you don't do anything and something happens, then you're second guessed for being negligent," Doyle said, citing the horrific Jaycee Lee Dugard case where a young girl had been kidnapped and abused for years in Antioch before officers discovered her. "It sort of puts the police in 'you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.' "
On June 29, 2005, Hoyt, Blank, five other police officers and county social workers came to the family's home on Braden Court and entered without a search warrant. The 3-year-old autistic son and an infant boy were home with their grandmother, and Doyle said officials could not reach the mother -- who was in the hospital for surgery -- and thought Watson was with the girl.
So they placed the boys into the custody of county child protective services, and then did the same with the girl the next day.
But Watson believes he was targeted because he had hired an attorney after a feud with the school district. He denies the girl had been doing anything sexual.
Even so, a San Jose municipal court judge ruled the officers acted correctly in taking the kids. It wasn't until the family moved to Napa County in 2006 -- nearly 1½ years after the initial seizure -- that social workers there reviewed the case and quickly returned the children to the family, said their attorney, Peter Johnson of Walnut Creek.
In 2007, the family sued the city, police, the county, the school district and several officials. The family settled with the county and school officials for an undisclosed amount.
The case against the city, however, went to trial last month, with jurors unanimously deciding that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify taking the kids and entering the home without a search warrant.
The jury found that the officers had violated the family's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and their 14th Amendment rights against government prohibiting "life, liberty or property" without taking proper measures. Jurors awarded financial penalties plus $2 million in punitive damages, which are designed to punish defendants for intentional wrongdoing.
They also found the city did not properly train its officers, but not in a "deliberately indifferent" way.
Watson said although he feels vindicated by the ruling, it's been a struggle to get his family back together since being reunited.
"What's normal after that?" he said. "You try, but you're always a little edgy around cops after that. You just are. Your whole sense of safety as a family has just been violated."
Contact Mike Rosenberg at 408-920-5705.
BEFORE THE VERDICT
June 29, 2005: Detectives, police officers and social workers entered the home without a warrant and removed two of their children.
2007: The family sued the city, police, the county and school district and several officials. The family settled with county and school officials for an undisclosed amount.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)