Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies

Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies
Guest editorial by by Barbara C. Johnson
June 11, 2011

Do away with ALL the child-protection agencies

The entire so-called child protection system MUST be stopped. The original purpose of these agencies has long been gone.

The multi billionsssssssss of dollars that the federal government gives toward the alleged upkeep of these agencies are misspent. Children should be kept with their biological parents. If their bio parents are unfit, there should be a TRIAL to prove it with CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. If the bio parents are NOT unfit, but need to learn more parenting skills or need to address their problems, then the bio parents should be required to attend certain classes or seminars or programs to teach them

BUT BUT BUT at all times the children are to remain with them. There are many children who grew up in troubled homes, and many of them survived and became constructive citizens. The goal should be FIX THE BIO HOME, NOT DESTROY BOTH THE HOME AND THE CHILDREN'S LIVES BY REMOVING THEM. Children must stay with their BIO parents, NOT foster parents.

Let’s look at what the existing law is and then ask ourselves whether the benefits the children allegedly receive from Title IV outweigh the risk to the children’s welfare. We must also look at the explicit statutory obstacles folks are facing.

States tend to describe Title IV-E programs as being Gardens of Roses Without Thorns. For example, the State of Maryland describes the purpose of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the foster care and subsidized adoption program, as follows—in an excerpt further abridged:

The purpose of the Title IV-E foster care program is to prevent the unnecessary placement of children from low-income families by offering states fiscal incentives for providing preventive services. The purpose of the Title IV-E subsidized adoption program is to ensure that "special needs" children who are difficult to place in adoptive homes do not remain in foster care solely for financial reasons.

The US government pays 50% of costs of the two programs and 75% of the training costs for caseworkers and administrators involved with administering the Title IV-E program.

Removal of Children from Bio Families

We see that to remove children from their bio home and transfer them to a foster home, a court must declare that staying in their bio home would be contrary to the children’s welfare and that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the children’s removal. But the experiences of millions of bio parents have taught us that the courts, with few exceptions, do not follow constitutionally correct procedures—procedures that constitute due process and equally protect the targets (both children and parents)—before removing the children. And the program as described confirms the general belief that “low-income families” are the States’ primary targets . . . that is, people who cannot afford to fight the Goliath State governments. Classic selective discrimination based, at the very least, on economic status.

Unfortunately, people of low-economic status are not in a “protected class,” a class of folks who legally may not be—but, also unfortunately, can or might be—discriminated against based on their race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex, familial status (housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing), sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others), gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others), disability status, veteran status, genetic information. For more explanation, see http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/title7/protclas.htm

Of specific interest to folks concerned with child-protection agencies and/or States receiving federal funds should be Title VI of the Federal Civil Right Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 “Title VI [p]revents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.”

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009 ). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Again unfortunately, the classes protected by Title VI are only race, color, and national origin. What the folks need are (1) statistics showing how the targeted low-income folks fall into the categories of race, color, or national origin and/or (2) legislative action to add “low-income stature” as a protected class under Title VI

Adoption of Children Removed from Bio Families

To be eligible for being adopted under Title IV-E . . . and for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) (formerly AFDC) to kick in . . .

A monthly financial benefit for disabled and/or functionally delayed children. Children are considered disabled if they are unable to function at an age-appropriate level. As the custodial parent of foster children, the State receives the foster child’s SSI benefit, amounting to many millions of dollars yearly, in order to offset the state’s cost of foster placement.

.... a child must be declared to be a child having “special needs.” What constitutes a “special need” might differ from State to State. A decade ago in Maryland, for instance, a child had to be of a certain age, of a minority race, of a sibling group, physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, or at a high risk of physical or mental disease.

What about children who are in a majority race in a given area? What about children who, when they are removed from their bio families, are not physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, or at a high risk of physical or mental disease?

Again from anecdotal evidence, we have learned that when the children are removed from their homes, the children might act out, whereupon the agencies put them on some drug. Those drugs, such as Ritalin, are mind-altering drugs. The moment a child is put on drugs, he or she is deemed a “special needs” child . . . and the State will receive a premium payment from the feds for that child. The child’s welfare is clearly sacrificed so that the State’s financial benefit will be enhanced.

The Hypocrisy

The purpose of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program [42 U.S.C. §629(b)] is:

. . . to enable States to develop and establish, or expand, and to operate coordinated programs of community-based family support services, family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services to accomplish the following objectives:

(1) To prevent child maltreatment among families at risk through the provision of supportive family services.
(2) To assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been maltreated, when the family’s problems can be addressed effectively.
(3) To address the problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care so that reunification may occur in a safe and stable manner in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
(4) To support adoptive families by providing support services as necessary so that they can make a lifetime commitment to their children.

Because I do not hear from folks who have gotten their kids back from foster care as often as I hear from those who cannot get them back, I hesitate to write much here. I feel more comfortable asking only questions:

What coordinated programs of community-based family support services have been developed, established, or expanded, and operated?
What family preservation services have been developed, established, or expanded, and operated?
What is the time limit put on family reunification services?
Is the time limit on family reunification services reasonable?
What supportive family services have been provided to prevent child maltreatment among families at risk?
What supportive family services have been provided to assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been maltreated, when the family’s problems can be addressed effectively?
Which of the family problems are those which can be addressed effectively?
What supportive family services have been provided to address the problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care so that reunification may occur in a safe and stable manner in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997?
What supportive family services have been provided to adoptive families so that they can make a lifetime commitment to their children?
Someone must address the above questions. I see no articles written about the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, 42 U.S.C. §629. Curious will be the comparison of the support services provided to achieve family reunification and services provided to adoptive families. Congress itself has written in §629(a)(4):

The rapid increases in the annual number of adoptions since the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 have created a growing need for postadoption services and for service providers with the particular knowledge and skills required to address the unique issues adoptive families and children may face.

When ASFA amended Title IV-E in 1997, the fundamental change in child welfare thinking was remarkable. The emphasis towards children's health and safety concerns shifted away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents to a policy in favor of non-reunification and adoption.

One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Rhode Island Republican Senator John H. Chafee, now deceased, said, “We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. . . . It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.”

The needs of children and their families began to be sacrificed on the Altar of Failed Justice.

Thus visible from Chafee’s position is the States’ preferential incentive to make easy money by adopting out the children. Supporting the human needs of children and families became passé. The deck being stacked against parents and their children, we must do away with ALL the childprotection agencies. We have no choice. The risk to the children being removed from their bio families is far greater than letting them be raised by their bio families, whether perfect or imperfect.

Our friend Barbara C. Johnson is a retired attorney from Massachusetts. She is now living in Puerto Rico.

Mich. program working to keep families together - Westport News

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.

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

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.

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).

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.