'They told me I was too dumb to be a mum.. but I proved them wrong' - mirror.co.uk
By Alison Smith-Squire 3/04/2011
On Mother's Day.. the heart warming story of a girl who had to fight for the right to bring up her own child
Strolling along the beach, her young son in her arms, Kerry McDougall prepares for the perfect Mother's Day - one that last year she could only dream of.
For 12 months ago tiny Ben was in care and Kerry's life was in tatters - after social workers deemed her both too stupid to look after her son AND not even bright enough to wed her fiancé Mark.
Ben was just three days old when social workers marched into the maternity ward where Kerry was breastfeeding and took him away.
It was the start of a long, heartbreaking battle to become a proper family.
Today all that is finally behind them. For, as well as having Ben back and getting married, Kerry and Mark are celebrating the news they are expecting another baby.
Cradling Ben on her lap, Kerry, 18, who has mild learning difficulties, says: "It's just the perfect gift for Mother's Day. I only found out a few days ago, but the baby is due in November. Mark and I are just so happy.
"We can't wait to find out if Ben is going to have a little brother or sister."
Mark adds: "This Mother's Day is so poignant and special to us. This time last year we had been to hell and back.
"It was very hard for us. Ben was in care and we feared we'd never get him back. I gave Kerry a card but it just made us feel more upset."
Mark, 27, who this weekend gave Kerry a ring with the word "mum" engraved on it, says: "We went through the darkest days possible.
"So we simply couldn't imagine that a year later we'd all be reunited and living next to a beach. And to actually be married and looking forward to the birth of our second child just seems amazing."
The couple's rollercoaster journey began in September 2009 when, in an unprecedented legal step, Fife Social Services dramatically halted their church wedding.
Kerry's upbringing had been overseen by the social services after her parents handed her over to her grandmother when she was just nine months old.
Because of her mild learning difficulties, just before the wedding two social workers knocked on the door of the home she shared with Mark in Dunfermline and told them Kerry did not possess the mental capacity to make the decision to get married.
Mark, an artist, says: "It was devastating as we'd already booked the church, the reception, bought the dresses, rings and flowers. Kerry didn't stop crying for days.
"Although we pleaded with the registrar to allow us to go ahead, we discovered social services had sent them a legal letter forbidding us to marry.
"Kerry does have some mild learning difficulties but mostly this is because as a child she had a cleft palate and missed a lot of school. People never realise Kerry has any problems when they meet her - I certainly didn't."
Then social services dropped another bombshell. Concerned that Kerry's learning difficulties could cause her baby "emotional harm", they told the couple he would be taken into care at birth.
Mark says: "Ironically, as we weren't married, I had no legal rights over the child. Arguing that Kerry's learning problems did not mean she couldn't be a good mum and that I would also be there to care for the baby made no difference."
So the couple made the difficult decision to flee to Ireland before the baby was born, believing Irish social workers would be more sympathetic.
And so, shortly before Christmas 2009, with just £200, a suitcase of clothes and a bag of sandwiches, they bade tearful goodbyes to friends and family and left.
Kerry says: "I couldn't stop crying. I was also terrified because I was heavily pregnant and we didn't have anywhere to go to. But I was desperate to keep Ben and knew we had no choice."
Friends put them up and a benefactor who read about their plight paid their rent on a house in Waterford. On January 15 last year Kerry, with Mark at her side, gave birth to Ben.
Kerry says: "As soon as I held Ben, I fell in love with him." For the next three days - with only close friends and family knowing where they were - the couple revelled in being new parents.
But through her medical records, the Irish authorities discovered that social services in the UK had concerns over Kerry. They were legally bound to follow them up. On the third day, as the couple prepared to leave hospital with their new baby, two Irish social workers confronted them.
Mark says: "I felt so helpless. I begged them not to take him. But they said they had to. Kerry had just finished breastfeeding Ben and we only had time to give him a quick kiss. We both just collapsed, sobbing."
Kerry says: "I felt sick coming home without Ben. My whole body ached for him - I produced so much milk that I used to hand it over to social workers so they could bottle-feed him with it."
Over the next fortnight, the grief-stricken pair were allowed just a few two-hour visits with Ben before Kerry was reunited with her baby at a mother and baby home.
But it was only a temporary measure - after two months Kerry was forced to go back home and Ben was put into foster care.
Over the next few months the couple were both forced to undergo assessments to ensure they would be good parents.
Mark says: "It seemed so unfair to even deny Kerry the chance to be a mum and get married because she has a few learning difficulties."
Over the next few months the couple were allowed to see Ben more. Kerry says: "First of all we had visits with a social worker. Then we could take Ben out for a short time by ourselves. Gradually the visits got longer and more often.
"Finally, when he was 10 months old, we were allowed to bring him home."
Shortly before, the couple discovered the ruling banning their wedding didn't cover Ireland - so they finally got married. Mark says: "It was a great day, which went off without a hitch."
Ben is now 14 months old and a lively toddler. Kerry says: "They tore him away from me... but now I've proved them wrong. And, despite everything, he's turned out to be such a happy child."
The couple have decided to stay in Ireland, where they have made many new friends.
"We could never go back to the UK," says Mark."This is the perfect place to bring up our children. We believe fate brought us here and we just want to get on with the rest of our lives as a family."
Do you have an amazing story to tell about your life?
If so please email features@mirror.co.uk with a short summary. Make sure you include your daytime telephone numbers.
We will pay for stories published.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, April 4, 2011
Foster Parents Receive More Support Than Kinship Caregivers, Study Finds
Foster Parents Receive More Support Than Kinship Caregivers, Study Finds | Health Medicine Daily News
The findings by researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center, which appear in the February issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, also show that relatives -- also known as kinship caregivers -- receive fewer support services than foster parents.
The findings by researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center, which appear in the February issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, also show that relatives -- also known as kinship caregivers -- receive fewer support services than foster parents.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Children Need Grandparents NOT Foster Care: KS Asst Dir CFS Sue McKenna Misleads Public
Children Need Grandparents NOT Foster Care: KS Asst Dir CFS Sue McKenna Misleads Public
Kansas Assistant Director of Children and Family Services, Roberta Sue McKenna, participated in a panel discussion which included Kansas Attorney/Guardian Ad Litems, and Judges. This was titled "KTWU's Abused, Neglected, Protected: When Children Go to Court" which was produced by nonprofit Washburn University.
The discussion aired on KPTS Channel 8 on Tuesday Feb 22, 2011
Roberta Sue McKenna works directly under Tanya Keys who is the Director of Children and Family Services.
Why is McKenna misleading the public on time spent in care and making foster care look like a walk in the park?
McKenna said, "64% go home within 12 months.. another substantial percentage go home in less than two years. So most of the children who are removed from their parents custody return to their parents custody.....
(Regarding time spent in care)...less than 12 months.. Just think, if we could all remember how long it took to get to Christmas. How much time there was between birthdays..."
FACTS: The number of Kansas children served in Out of Home Placement in FY2010 was 8,275
The number of Kansas children reunified in FY2010 was 1,720
The total percentage of children reunified in FY2010 was 20%...NOT 64% as McKenna said.
FACTS: Kansas children average length of time in care FY2010 was 19.4 months
Sedgwick County children average length of time in care FY2010 was 30.7 months
Kansas Assistant Director of Children and Family Services, Roberta Sue McKenna, participated in a panel discussion which included Kansas Attorney/Guardian Ad Litems, and Judges. This was titled "KTWU's Abused, Neglected, Protected: When Children Go to Court" which was produced by nonprofit Washburn University.
The discussion aired on KPTS Channel 8 on Tuesday Feb 22, 2011
Roberta Sue McKenna works directly under Tanya Keys who is the Director of Children and Family Services.
Why is McKenna misleading the public on time spent in care and making foster care look like a walk in the park?
McKenna said, "64% go home within 12 months.. another substantial percentage go home in less than two years. So most of the children who are removed from their parents custody return to their parents custody.....
(Regarding time spent in care)...less than 12 months.. Just think, if we could all remember how long it took to get to Christmas. How much time there was between birthdays..."
FACTS: The number of Kansas children served in Out of Home Placement in FY2010 was 8,275
The number of Kansas children reunified in FY2010 was 1,720
The total percentage of children reunified in FY2010 was 20%...NOT 64% as McKenna said.
FACTS: Kansas children average length of time in care FY2010 was 19.4 months
Sedgwick County children average length of time in care FY2010 was 30.7 months
Call for change in foster care system
BBC NEWS | UK | Call for change in foster care system
The UK's foster care system is struggling to cope and needs urgent changes to stop children suffering, according to the charity Fostering Network.
The UK's foster care system is struggling to cope and needs urgent changes to stop children suffering, according to the charity Fostering Network.
CPS is Awarded Grants to take your Children « How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
CPS is Awarded Grants to take your Children « How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 42USC5106]
[Page 926-929]
CHAPTER 67–CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT AND ADOPTION REFORM
SUBCHAPTER I–GENERAL PROGRAM
Sec. 5106. Grants to States and public or private agencies and
organizations
(a) Grants for programs and projects
Read more, click on the above link.
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 42USC5106]
[Page 926-929]
CHAPTER 67–CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT AND ADOPTION REFORM
SUBCHAPTER I–GENERAL PROGRAM
Sec. 5106. Grants to States and public or private agencies and
organizations
(a) Grants for programs and projects
Read more, click on the above link.
FBI — Color of Law Abuses
FBI — Color of Law
Color of Law Abuses
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:
Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
All identifying information for the victim(s);
As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
Date and time of incident;
Location of incident;
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
A complete chronology of events; and
Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Civil Applications
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
Report Civil Rights Violations
File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line
Visit Our Victim Assistance Site
Resources
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute
Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)
Addressing Police Misconduct Brochure
Law Enforcement Misconduct FAQs
Color of Law Abuses
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:
Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
All identifying information for the victim(s);
As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
Date and time of incident;
Location of incident;
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
A complete chronology of events; and
Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Civil Applications
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
Report Civil Rights Violations
File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line
Visit Our Victim Assistance Site
Resources
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute
Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)
Addressing Police Misconduct Brochure
Law Enforcement Misconduct FAQs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)