Mich. program working to keep families together - Westport News
DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — Michigan nonprofit social services agencies say they are making progress with a pilot program designed to keep children in their homes and out of a strained state child-welfare system.
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, June 11, 2011
Police: Teens smother foster mom
Legally Kidnapped: Police: Teens smother foster mom
Prosecutors charging both girls as adults
Warrant: NM teens tied up, smothered foster mom
Arrest documents say two 15-year-old girls accused of killing their foster mom in New Mexico put her in a chokehold, tied her hands and feet and then smothered her with a pillow.
Two teens charged with murder in foster mom's death
Prosecutors charging both girls as adults
Warrant: NM teens tied up, smothered foster mom
Arrest documents say two 15-year-old girls accused of killing their foster mom in New Mexico put her in a chokehold, tied her hands and feet and then smothered her with a pillow.
Two teens charged with murder in foster mom's death
National Reunification Day is June 19th
National Reunification Day is June 19th. Will New Hampshire DCYF schedule any event's to celebrate the Reunification of Families this year? Or will it be the same old, same old, seeing as families in New Hampshire have nothing to celebrate?
New Hampshire DCYF has NO reason to schedule event's celebrating the reunification of so many families they've reunited. Because they don't know the meaning of REUNIFICATION. They only know the meaning of FAMILY DESTRUCTION, which mean's MORE money for every stolen child and even MORE money for every child they adopt out and even MORE money for the children they turn into drugged zombies. Be it legal or illegal, they don't care. Whose going to hold them accountable? NO-ONE! Even the Judges do whatever DCYF tell's them to do. Word's of a Nashua DCYF Lawyer and a caseworker. So where does a parent turn?
Don't forget, in New Hampshire parent's are never considered innocent until proven guilty. Between New Hampshire DCYF and the Court's, a parent is considered guilty even when proven innocent. That is if they're lucky enough to get a Judge who will admit evidence proving innocence. But then there aren't too many of them in this state either. Even when criminal charges are dropped against a parent in District Court or Superior Court, after the evidence of innocence is admitted, Nashua DCYF worker's and their CASA puppets vow to make sure your children aren't returned and they never are. Once DCYF set's their sight's on your child, it's all over. No matter what you do. No matter what you say. Your child is NEVER returned.
So don't look for New Hampshire scheduling any event's this year or any other year because there is NOTHING to celebrate. Unless of course they schedule event's to celebrate how many families they've screwed over again this year!
Are children of immigrants becoming needless statistics in the child welfare system?
Are children of immigrants becoming needless statistics in the child welfare system?
From Restore Fairness blog.
Guest Blogger: Emily Butera from the Women's Refugee Commission
What if I told you you could permanently lose custody of your child because you are undocumented? Or because you do not understand English? Or you are unable to communicate with the child welfare system and family court from immigration detention? What if I told you you might have to leave your child behind if you are deported because you may not have time to get the child a passport or will not be able to coordinate the flight arrangements? You might tell me that these kinds of things do not happen in the United States. Sadly, you would be wrong.
With immigration enforcement increasing, my inbox has been flooded with stories such as Encarnación Bail Romero's. Encarnación is a Missouri mother whose son was adopted by total strangers - against her will, without her consent and despite her efforts to oppose the adoption - while she was in custody following a raid on her Missouri worksite. Encarnación was not adequately represented in family court, and was unable to read the court documents notifying her of the pending adoption and her right to appeal because they were in English, a language she does not speak. She is now fighting to regain custody of her son. However, she is scheduled for deportation to Guatemala in February and her attorneys do not know whether they will win her case - or win it in time.
Almost everyone who contacts my organization, the Women's Refugee Commission, with a story of separation asks for help finding a family law attorney for the parent or for guidance on helping detained parents communicate with the child welfare system. Unfortunately, the assistance we can offer them is limited, and there are no easy answers.
Immigration law and family law intersect in a capricious manner. Family courts and the child welfare system have a responsibility to reunite a child with his parents whenever possible. However, family courts do not always look favorably on reunification in cases where a parent is detained or likely to be deported. The situation is further complicated by the tremendous difficulty child welfare workers and family courts have in locating detained parents, and the significant challenges parents face in complying with family reunification plans and participating in family court proceedings from detention.
In some cases, like Encarnación's, judges base termination decisions on the fact that the mother does not have legal status and may be deported. In others, child welfare workers oppose family reunification because they think that a U.S. citizen child should not live in another country. Certainly, in cases where there is evidence of abandonment, abuse or neglect the child welfare system and family courts have an obligation to protect children. But in so many of these cases the parent's only fault was being in the wrong place, with the wrong nationality, at the wrong time.
Because it is difficult to gather accurate data about the undocumented population it is impossible to know how many children have already been affected. What we do know is that hundreds of thousands of children may be impacted by their parents' apprehension and that there is no effective or enforceable policy for preventing it.
When Encarnación told her story during a briefing in the House of Representatives last week you could have heard a pin drop. A number of attendees listened with tears in their eyes. Stories like Encarnación's turn the numbers into faces for a moment, and I hope that Encarnación's visit to Washington will help her reunite with her son. But action on an individual case is not enough. We need enforceable, nationwide screening protocols, with a statutory preference for release of parents and caregivers, to increase the likelihood that women like Encarnación can care for their children throughout their immigration proceedings and can make the best decision for their family if they are ordered removed. We also need to ensure that when parents must be detained they can remain in communication with their children, can comply with reunification plans, and can participate fully in their custody case.
The U.S. government has an obligation to enforce immigration law, but it also has a responsibility to protect parents' fundamental right to custody of their children. The preservation of family unity is a legal and moral duty, but it is also smart social policy. As we go about immigration enforcement we must ensure that the children of immigrants do not become another needless statistic in the child welfare system.
From Restore Fairness blog.
Guest Blogger: Emily Butera from the Women's Refugee Commission
What if I told you you could permanently lose custody of your child because you are undocumented? Or because you do not understand English? Or you are unable to communicate with the child welfare system and family court from immigration detention? What if I told you you might have to leave your child behind if you are deported because you may not have time to get the child a passport or will not be able to coordinate the flight arrangements? You might tell me that these kinds of things do not happen in the United States. Sadly, you would be wrong.
With immigration enforcement increasing, my inbox has been flooded with stories such as Encarnación Bail Romero's. Encarnación is a Missouri mother whose son was adopted by total strangers - against her will, without her consent and despite her efforts to oppose the adoption - while she was in custody following a raid on her Missouri worksite. Encarnación was not adequately represented in family court, and was unable to read the court documents notifying her of the pending adoption and her right to appeal because they were in English, a language she does not speak. She is now fighting to regain custody of her son. However, she is scheduled for deportation to Guatemala in February and her attorneys do not know whether they will win her case - or win it in time.
Almost everyone who contacts my organization, the Women's Refugee Commission, with a story of separation asks for help finding a family law attorney for the parent or for guidance on helping detained parents communicate with the child welfare system. Unfortunately, the assistance we can offer them is limited, and there are no easy answers.
Immigration law and family law intersect in a capricious manner. Family courts and the child welfare system have a responsibility to reunite a child with his parents whenever possible. However, family courts do not always look favorably on reunification in cases where a parent is detained or likely to be deported. The situation is further complicated by the tremendous difficulty child welfare workers and family courts have in locating detained parents, and the significant challenges parents face in complying with family reunification plans and participating in family court proceedings from detention.
In some cases, like Encarnación's, judges base termination decisions on the fact that the mother does not have legal status and may be deported. In others, child welfare workers oppose family reunification because they think that a U.S. citizen child should not live in another country. Certainly, in cases where there is evidence of abandonment, abuse or neglect the child welfare system and family courts have an obligation to protect children. But in so many of these cases the parent's only fault was being in the wrong place, with the wrong nationality, at the wrong time.
Because it is difficult to gather accurate data about the undocumented population it is impossible to know how many children have already been affected. What we do know is that hundreds of thousands of children may be impacted by their parents' apprehension and that there is no effective or enforceable policy for preventing it.
When Encarnación told her story during a briefing in the House of Representatives last week you could have heard a pin drop. A number of attendees listened with tears in their eyes. Stories like Encarnación's turn the numbers into faces for a moment, and I hope that Encarnación's visit to Washington will help her reunite with her son. But action on an individual case is not enough. We need enforceable, nationwide screening protocols, with a statutory preference for release of parents and caregivers, to increase the likelihood that women like Encarnación can care for their children throughout their immigration proceedings and can make the best decision for their family if they are ordered removed. We also need to ensure that when parents must be detained they can remain in communication with their children, can comply with reunification plans, and can participate fully in their custody case.
The U.S. government has an obligation to enforce immigration law, but it also has a responsibility to protect parents' fundamental right to custody of their children. The preservation of family unity is a legal and moral duty, but it is also smart social policy. As we go about immigration enforcement we must ensure that the children of immigrants do not become another needless statistic in the child welfare system.
New Hampshire Children in Out Of Home Placement's 2009-2010
http://www.childrennh.org/web/Kids%20Count/Safety/outofhomeplacements.pdf
New Hampshire Children in Out Of Home Placement's 2009-2010
DEFINITION
This indicator reports the rate of New Hampshire children under 18 in out-of-home
placements. Out-of-home placements include foster care and other residential
situations such as group homes.
CONTEXT
Sometimes the New Hampshire Division for Children,Youth and Families (DCYF)
investigates a report of child abuse or neglect and believes a child’s safety is at
risk. DCYF staff will request that the court system order the removal of the
endangered child or children from their home (NH DHHS 2010a). If children
cannot be placed with relatives they are placed in foster care settings, which is
most often the case in New Hampshire. However, in this state most children are
reunited with their families in time.When reunification is impossible, children may
be adopted by relatives, their foster family or other New Hampshire families who
wish to welcome a child or children into their home (NH DHHS 2010b).
New Hampshire children in out of home placement are at higher risk for disease
and more likely to be disabled, become injured and have health and mental problems
than other children. An estimated 80 to 90 percent of children in out-of-home
placements in New Hampshire have a mental health disorder. Research has linked
higher risk for health problems in children in foster care to both maltreatment in
the home and removal from the home (NH DHHS 2009).
The State becomes the responsible party for providing health care to children in
out-of-home placements. New Hampshire children in foster care or other residential
placements receive medical care through the state’s Foster Care Health Program
and through Medicaid. Children in foster or residential placements are more likely
to receive medical and dental care and are more likely to use prescription drugs
and psychotropic drugs in particular. In 2007, average monthly Medicaid payments
for New Hampshire children in out-of-home placements were three to six times
higher than average Medicaid payment for low-income children who were not in
foster care or other residential placements (NH DHHS 2009).
New Hampshire KIDS COUNT Data Book 2010/2011 Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire www.ChildrenNH.org
Children in Out-of-Home Placements
By County, 2009-2010
SAFETY ANDWELLBEING:
Children in Out-of-Home Placements
1
4.61
3.21
3.29
5.59
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2.56
3.30
6.50
2.91
2.30
1.75
0.76
RATE PER 1,000 CHILDREN UNDER 18
Sullivan
Strafford
Rockingham
Merrimack
Hillsborough
Grafton
Coos
Cheshire
Carroll
Belknap
STATE
TOTALNEW HAMPSHIRE FINDINGS
In 2007, New Hampshire had the second lowest rate of children in out-of-home
placement in the country at 5.6 children per 1,000. Nationally, only Utah had a
lower rate.The average rate for the Northeast Region in 2007 was 10.4 per 1,000
(Mattingly et. al.).
Recent research shows higher out-of-home placement rates in remote rural areas
compared to metropolitan counties or counties that border metropolitan areas both
in New Hampshire and across the country. In 2007, New Hampshire had 4.9 children
in out-of-home placement per 1,000 children in metropolitan areas of the state,
including Hillsborough, Rockingham and Stafford counties, and 9.2 percent in
remote rural areas of the state (Mattingly et.al. 2010).
From 2009 to 2010, New Hampshire’s out-of-home placements dropped from 5.6 per 1,000
children in 2007 to 2.6 per 1,000 New Hampshire children. Coos County in the North
Country had the highest rate of out-of-home placements with a rate of 6.5 per 1,000.
Less than one child per 1,000 was in out-of-home placement in Rockingham County.
The three counties with out-of-home placement rates below the state average were
Rockingham, Merrimack and Hillsborough counties, the state’s most populous counties
(DCYF 2010).
New Hampshire Children in Out Of Home Placement's 2009-2010
DEFINITION
This indicator reports the rate of New Hampshire children under 18 in out-of-home
placements. Out-of-home placements include foster care and other residential
situations such as group homes.
CONTEXT
Sometimes the New Hampshire Division for Children,Youth and Families (DCYF)
investigates a report of child abuse or neglect and believes a child’s safety is at
risk. DCYF staff will request that the court system order the removal of the
endangered child or children from their home (NH DHHS 2010a). If children
cannot be placed with relatives they are placed in foster care settings, which is
most often the case in New Hampshire. However, in this state most children are
reunited with their families in time.When reunification is impossible, children may
be adopted by relatives, their foster family or other New Hampshire families who
wish to welcome a child or children into their home (NH DHHS 2010b).
New Hampshire children in out of home placement are at higher risk for disease
and more likely to be disabled, become injured and have health and mental problems
than other children. An estimated 80 to 90 percent of children in out-of-home
placements in New Hampshire have a mental health disorder. Research has linked
higher risk for health problems in children in foster care to both maltreatment in
the home and removal from the home (NH DHHS 2009).
The State becomes the responsible party for providing health care to children in
out-of-home placements. New Hampshire children in foster care or other residential
placements receive medical care through the state’s Foster Care Health Program
and through Medicaid. Children in foster or residential placements are more likely
to receive medical and dental care and are more likely to use prescription drugs
and psychotropic drugs in particular. In 2007, average monthly Medicaid payments
for New Hampshire children in out-of-home placements were three to six times
higher than average Medicaid payment for low-income children who were not in
foster care or other residential placements (NH DHHS 2009).
New Hampshire KIDS COUNT Data Book 2010/2011 Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire www.ChildrenNH.org
Children in Out-of-Home Placements
By County, 2009-2010
SAFETY ANDWELLBEING:
Children in Out-of-Home Placements
1
4.61
3.21
3.29
5.59
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2.56
3.30
6.50
2.91
2.30
1.75
0.76
RATE PER 1,000 CHILDREN UNDER 18
Sullivan
Strafford
Rockingham
Merrimack
Hillsborough
Grafton
Coos
Cheshire
Carroll
Belknap
STATE
TOTALNEW HAMPSHIRE FINDINGS
In 2007, New Hampshire had the second lowest rate of children in out-of-home
placement in the country at 5.6 children per 1,000. Nationally, only Utah had a
lower rate.The average rate for the Northeast Region in 2007 was 10.4 per 1,000
(Mattingly et. al.).
Recent research shows higher out-of-home placement rates in remote rural areas
compared to metropolitan counties or counties that border metropolitan areas both
in New Hampshire and across the country. In 2007, New Hampshire had 4.9 children
in out-of-home placement per 1,000 children in metropolitan areas of the state,
including Hillsborough, Rockingham and Stafford counties, and 9.2 percent in
remote rural areas of the state (Mattingly et.al. 2010).
From 2009 to 2010, New Hampshire’s out-of-home placements dropped from 5.6 per 1,000
children in 2007 to 2.6 per 1,000 New Hampshire children. Coos County in the North
Country had the highest rate of out-of-home placements with a rate of 6.5 per 1,000.
Less than one child per 1,000 was in out-of-home placement in Rockingham County.
The three counties with out-of-home placement rates below the state average were
Rockingham, Merrimack and Hillsborough counties, the state’s most populous counties
(DCYF 2010).
State Supreme Court Judges & State Bar Officials Target Of Corruption Lawsuit
State Supreme Court Judges & State Bar Officials Target Of Corruption Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA Former U.S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D describes the latest court battle against corruption and his campaign to regain his license to practice law. Fine names names of the most powerful judicial and State Bar officials who he alleges have conspired to undermine the justice system with corrupt practices by taking illegal payments from L A County government, who almost NEVER loses cases in the courts. Fine was jailed for 18 months in solitary "Coercive Confinement" without being charged or convicted of a crime following his attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe who unexpectedly released him and then resigned from office before his term ended.
Los Angeles, CA Former U.S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D describes the latest court battle against corruption and his campaign to regain his license to practice law. Fine names names of the most powerful judicial and State Bar officials who he alleges have conspired to undermine the justice system with corrupt practices by taking illegal payments from L A County government, who almost NEVER loses cases in the courts. Fine was jailed for 18 months in solitary "Coercive Confinement" without being charged or convicted of a crime following his attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe who unexpectedly released him and then resigned from office before his term ended.
World-News: THE CHILD PROTECTION RACKET
World-News: THE CHILD PROTECTION RACKET
Critics compare CPS to Frankenstein's monster, out of control, destroying children and parents alike. Child handed pills A PROTECTIVE SYSTEM GONE AWRY The Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act of 1974 was aimed at protecting children; instead, it enabled psychiatry to pervert the system for its own enrichment. As psychiatrist Bertram Brown (above), then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, proclaimed in 1977, "the tough role — that of change agentry vis a vis the family — has devolved upon the mental health system." In the decades since, psychiatry's role in the "child abuse" arena has mushroomed — with catastrophic effects for families and children.
Critics compare CPS to Frankenstein's monster, out of control, destroying children and parents alike. Child handed pills A PROTECTIVE SYSTEM GONE AWRY The Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act of 1974 was aimed at protecting children; instead, it enabled psychiatry to pervert the system for its own enrichment. As psychiatrist Bertram Brown (above), then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, proclaimed in 1977, "the tough role — that of change agentry vis a vis the family — has devolved upon the mental health system." In the decades since, psychiatry's role in the "child abuse" arena has mushroomed — with catastrophic effects for families and children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)