Prescription Drug Use in Children and Teens - WSJ.com:
Gage Martindale, who is 8 years old, has been taking a blood-pressure drug since he was a toddler. "I want to be healthy, and I don't want things in my heart to go wrong," he says.
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, September 24, 2011
The NH House Redress Committee and the Sliver of Hope
NH Attorney Jaye Rancourt an Unethical Attorney: The NH House Redress Committee and the Sliver of Hope, the Shimmer of Light, will Expose a Corrupt Family Court System or allow us to Embrace and support the hard work of the Judiciary and the other officers of the court.:
One side fights hard so you can hear the story………. Fighting Hard for the Kids that need to be heard and have been hurt by those …………
That are on the Other Side……
The side that fights hard to make sure you never hear the story ……………
There is yet another side - A side that sees the benefits of the NH Redress Committe and the benefit of oversight for both sides.
The story of the why the judiciary and officials of the courts would rather hurt the kids, than make decisions that will help them to become the happy, well adjusted, individuals, they deserve an opportunity to be and who will someday become parents themselves.
Why such extreme differences in opinion when it comes to kids?
Why do the judge’s, marital masters, lawyers, GAL’s and others who benefit from the courts want to cover-up their process, ideology and decisions?
Why don’t they want a light to shine down on them? A bright light, letting all who look in see just how much they do to advocate for what’s in the best interest of the child? So everyone can see first hand and know with certainty the goodness they promote for the sake of the children? As they profess they do and want us to believe.
Instead, there is resistance. Will something deep, dark and sinister about the system be exposed if the public is allowed to look into this world?
What if the participants, the victims and the supporters of the children are allowed to have a voice? Will they expose the unthinkable?
Will we find that the system is broken and corrupt and doesn’t work, needs an overhaul and is extremely harmful to the children it professes to be protecting? Will we find that these judges, masters and lawyers and others have really known about this all along, but, have chosen to keep this a big secret, a secret for decades so they can reap great rewards from it?
After all, what would happen if one day they all woke up and the family court system worked in such a way that judges, masters , GAL’s and lawyers weren’t allowed to antagonize or promote ill will between the parties involved in the cases before them?
Isn’t taken advantage of a bad situation by making it worse, gaining from it and then gaining from it again and again, unethical and immoral at the very least?
Aren’t these questions that are being asked worthy of answers?
Why do so many involved with the courts think or better yet, why should they expect people to take them at their word, at face value with nothing to back it up? Nothing other than what we do is as wholesome as apple pie and we should just trust in that.
What evidence exists that what they do is in the name of the children, in the best interest of the children, when day in and out we hear stories otherwise?
The cases before the Redress Committee are alarming.
How many children are estranged from a loving parent because of an emotionally unstable custodial parent and an all too acquiescing family court filled with, judges, masters, lawyers, guardians, and programs all standing by waiting to gain financially?
How does the court system, except in extreme cases of documented and proven abuse, not just hearsay nonsense spewing from the mouths of those who have a vested interest and stake in continuing the animosity, intervene and deny children their right to both parents?
Who are these people and what is this system they call justice?
An Honest Judicial System would welcome this Redress Committee and would welcome the opportunity to show the world that there is nothing to the claims of bias, money laundering of attorney’s fees and the continued animosity the Judicial system helps create, certainly fosters and certainly encourages in these contentious litigations.
The courts have a history and a pattern of rewarding and pandering to one parent’s bad behavior by excluding the other parent and even eliminating them all together from a child’s life.
How do those who play in the judicial arena justify the taking of children from a loving parent and then holding them ransom by forcing unfair, financially debilitating, court ordered conditions on that parent if they ever want contact again? Conditions, the court and it’s officers know are simply a way to guarantee a set up of failures that will only force continued litigation?
Since when did the mandate being a “Perfect Parent” slip in and become the bar that the courts use to assess the value of a parents ability to be a parent?
We all have parents, whether our parents stayed together or not. None, not one is perfect. Most, if not all, only ever wanted the best for their children.
What makes this any different?
It’s time for some accountability where there has been none. There is much to gain by system that promotes animosity and gets rewards from promoting that animosity.
The best interest of the child has been lost in the shuffle of power hungry, money hungry court officials.
They don’t care about the children. They don’t care if families go bankrupt. If they did they would not allow children to be separated from either parent.
Regardless of whether the principle is believed or accepted, the bottom line is, the reality is, when one parent is allowed to drive up the legal fees because they want to fight, fight and fight some more, rather than let the children be part of the other parent’s life, that should be unacceptable. Fight so hard, that money is not a deterrence, nor is it an object of concern. They are negligent. They are not acting like a loving parent, concerned for the welfare and best development of the child.
And that’s when the courts should step in and start acting on behalf of the children.
That’s when the courts should get involved and not pander to that parent. Instead they do. Why?
One parent’s irrational thinking that inflicting revenge or punishment on another, by taking away the child, for some real or imaginary injustice inflicted upon them, somehow makes things right if the court panders to them?
Putting the child in the middle and taking away the child’s god given right to have two loving and caring parents should not be rewarded by the courts pandering to them, it should be admonished.
This behavior the courts and it’s officers protect and pander to comes with a cost to the very children that they are using as a pawn.
For every $1.00 spent on an attorney, or court fee, or court ordered program - $1.00 is taken out of the pot of money that could have been better spent on the child and the child’s future.
Judges and masters, through the use of financial affidavits mandatorily filled out and provided to the courts before EVERY court hearing , sworn affidavits of the finances of the individuals, see exactly how much money is spent on legal fees in each and every single court hearing that comes before them. They know first hand whether it’s been $1,000 or $100,000. They also know how much is in the bank, the equity in the house, the cars the parties drive and all other assets and aspects of finances of the parties.
When lawyers and judges – allow ordinary middle income people to spend 10’s of thousands of dollars, they are aware they don’t have, on legal costs – money they fully know the parties can’t financially afford, because also listed on these financial affidavits are the parties income, they should be found to be incompetent of performing their duties as officers of the court.
And yet, they do allow this to happen day in and day out, because the alternative of allowing new court action would be enforcing the orders already place. Orders the judges and masters put into place to begin with.
These officer’s of the courts usually don’t attempt to enforce their own orders unless it works against the non-custodial parent. Instead, they make new orders that they know they won’t enforce.
Why parents can’t get the courts to enforce their own orders is unjust in and of itself.
Why the courts don’t find an offending parent, and yes it is usually the custodial parent, in CONTEMPT for violating court orders becomes a mystery.
Why have any court orders to begin with, if enforcement of the offenders of those orders, yes usually women, go unpunished and are given no incentive, monetarily or otherwise, to stop the offensive behavior of not abiding by court orders they themselves asked for and were awarded.
What example does this NH Court believe it sets for children caught in the middle of these COURT GAMES? That it’s OK to violate the court orders if you are the custodial parent and keep the children and VISITOR parent away from each other, so long as you believe you have a good reason, real or imagined?
Remember, before the courts and the lawyers the people involved were a family. The children were exposed to two sets of values, personalities and parents, good or bad.
How many of the court cases in NH Courts right now, had any state agency involved prior to separation or divorce that intervened on behalf that family?
How many cases in front of the NH REDRESS Committee, had state agency involvement ONLY, after the courts and lawyers got involved and ONLY after the custodial parent refused to abide by the courts orders put in place?
How many involve false accusations made after the fact, by the custodial parent and are unfounded?
How many involve a custodial parent that did not to share custody of the children right from the beginning of the separation and wanted it that way?
How many proposed a non-custodial parent should be given a “VISITATION” schedule, “VISITOR in MY CHILD’S LIFE” status, of nothing more than alternating weekends in every month?
VISITOR status and still the offending custodial parent wants even less contact and continues to do everything to undermine even that little bit of time spent with the children.
How many children have been forced into “VISITING” the other parent?
Does anyone really believe the terminology being used is “parenting schedule”?
Just make sure that CHILD SUPPORT keeps coming. That’s seems the biggest concern for all – the court’s, judges, masters, guardians and anyone else connected that has a money interest in the outcome.
Not a pretty picture, because that is the children’s reality and most of us would rather put blinders on than deal with it.
When someone violates their probation, because they didn’t know, didn’t care, misunderstood, thought it best to handle things their way__________, fill in with blank with whatever excuse you want, DOES THE COURT REWRITE THE AGREEMENT and take all the excuses into consideration whilst doing so?
NO. Then why do they do it now? Custodial parent doesn’t mean BETTER PARENT.
It becomes a vicious a cycle, with a formula guaranteed to continue to promote hostility, animosity for the parties involved and huge payouts for the judicial system.
If there was nothing to gain it makes no sense the courts and attorneys would promote animosity when there was nothing they could collect from the parties.
The lawyers and judges feed the behavior of the offending parent, create the atmosphere that they will look out for the best interest of the children, which reinforces the offending parents bad parenting to begin with.
Yes, it is bad parenting when one parent pits the other parent against the children. Good reason or not.
Children have a right to freely and without strings attached be able to love both parents.
It’s normal and it’s healthy.
It’s not normal and it’s not healthy when a parent can not, will not, refuses to separate the children from the adult relationship, and refuses to, or is incapable of fostering a good relationship and good communication between the children and the other parent.
Then justifies it by imagining and then projecting that somehow the other parent is no good, inferior and the children are somehow better off without having to deal with that other parent.
That in and of itself is a form of child abuse. It’s emotional abuse. And our courts are allowing it to happen day in and day out, they condone and they reward it.
What’s the motivation for that?
When a mother lists on her financial affidavit, income of $35,000 a year in one column, and virtually no other assets in the other and then lists an outstanding bill of $50,000 owed to her attorney, not counting the latest t court hearings, what does that say?
How many years of child support payments does that calculate out too?
Is that responsible? Is that a responsible parent? Is that responsible parenting? Should that be condoned by the court? Rewarded? Allowed to continue? Pandered too? Accepted?
According to Motions filed, she’s in court that day for two reasons, one to try to get her child support increased and the other to prevent any further contact between the father and the child, already so limited by her behavior to be almost non-existent to begin with.
Neither action justified, yet the Motion is still brought to the court by the custodial parents attorney because that’s what the custodial parent wants done.
The children become a pawn, no more than mere property to be used for a claim to more money. In this instance, hopefully, more money in the pocket of the custodial parent, certainly more money in the pocket of the attorney.
So at the expense of the child the courts have allowed the lawyer to continue the litigation, taking that $50,000 plus the $1,000’s that have already been paid, plus what hasn’t been billed yet, money that should be going to the child and that child’s future but instead ends up in the pockets of the lawyer with no reasonable or logical explanation.
Interestingly, the courts also say the law does not provide that a non-custodial parent has the right to know how child support money is spent. Wonder why that would be? Is it simply an attempt to cover-up what really goes on? Why would one parent not be accountable while the other is?
When the judge or master, as in this case, has in front of them the monthly child support payments provided by the ex equaling the monthly loan payment to the ex’s attorney, it speaks of irresponsibility to the very people these hypocrites sit from the bench and try to say they are thinking of – the children.
How is it in the best of the children to take away their future because one parent wants to fight the other parent for custody or visitation when there are no legal or valid reasons for doing so?
If the courts aren’t happy with a little scrutiny perhaps it’s time they clean their house.
Exposing what goes on behind the scenes will be a win-win situation for all concerned.
Either a corrupt system will be exposed and hopefully righted or a great system will stay a great system because the transparency exists to keep it that way.
One side fights hard so you can hear the story………. Fighting Hard for the Kids that need to be heard and have been hurt by those …………
That are on the Other Side……
The side that fights hard to make sure you never hear the story ……………
There is yet another side - A side that sees the benefits of the NH Redress Committe and the benefit of oversight for both sides.
The story of the why the judiciary and officials of the courts would rather hurt the kids, than make decisions that will help them to become the happy, well adjusted, individuals, they deserve an opportunity to be and who will someday become parents themselves.
Why such extreme differences in opinion when it comes to kids?
Why do the judge’s, marital masters, lawyers, GAL’s and others who benefit from the courts want to cover-up their process, ideology and decisions?
Why don’t they want a light to shine down on them? A bright light, letting all who look in see just how much they do to advocate for what’s in the best interest of the child? So everyone can see first hand and know with certainty the goodness they promote for the sake of the children? As they profess they do and want us to believe.
Instead, there is resistance. Will something deep, dark and sinister about the system be exposed if the public is allowed to look into this world?
What if the participants, the victims and the supporters of the children are allowed to have a voice? Will they expose the unthinkable?
Will we find that the system is broken and corrupt and doesn’t work, needs an overhaul and is extremely harmful to the children it professes to be protecting? Will we find that these judges, masters and lawyers and others have really known about this all along, but, have chosen to keep this a big secret, a secret for decades so they can reap great rewards from it?
After all, what would happen if one day they all woke up and the family court system worked in such a way that judges, masters , GAL’s and lawyers weren’t allowed to antagonize or promote ill will between the parties involved in the cases before them?
Isn’t taken advantage of a bad situation by making it worse, gaining from it and then gaining from it again and again, unethical and immoral at the very least?
Aren’t these questions that are being asked worthy of answers?
Why do so many involved with the courts think or better yet, why should they expect people to take them at their word, at face value with nothing to back it up? Nothing other than what we do is as wholesome as apple pie and we should just trust in that.
What evidence exists that what they do is in the name of the children, in the best interest of the children, when day in and out we hear stories otherwise?
The cases before the Redress Committee are alarming.
How many children are estranged from a loving parent because of an emotionally unstable custodial parent and an all too acquiescing family court filled with, judges, masters, lawyers, guardians, and programs all standing by waiting to gain financially?
How does the court system, except in extreme cases of documented and proven abuse, not just hearsay nonsense spewing from the mouths of those who have a vested interest and stake in continuing the animosity, intervene and deny children their right to both parents?
Who are these people and what is this system they call justice?
An Honest Judicial System would welcome this Redress Committee and would welcome the opportunity to show the world that there is nothing to the claims of bias, money laundering of attorney’s fees and the continued animosity the Judicial system helps create, certainly fosters and certainly encourages in these contentious litigations.
The courts have a history and a pattern of rewarding and pandering to one parent’s bad behavior by excluding the other parent and even eliminating them all together from a child’s life.
How do those who play in the judicial arena justify the taking of children from a loving parent and then holding them ransom by forcing unfair, financially debilitating, court ordered conditions on that parent if they ever want contact again? Conditions, the court and it’s officers know are simply a way to guarantee a set up of failures that will only force continued litigation?
Since when did the mandate being a “Perfect Parent” slip in and become the bar that the courts use to assess the value of a parents ability to be a parent?
We all have parents, whether our parents stayed together or not. None, not one is perfect. Most, if not all, only ever wanted the best for their children.
What makes this any different?
It’s time for some accountability where there has been none. There is much to gain by system that promotes animosity and gets rewards from promoting that animosity.
The best interest of the child has been lost in the shuffle of power hungry, money hungry court officials.
They don’t care about the children. They don’t care if families go bankrupt. If they did they would not allow children to be separated from either parent.
Regardless of whether the principle is believed or accepted, the bottom line is, the reality is, when one parent is allowed to drive up the legal fees because they want to fight, fight and fight some more, rather than let the children be part of the other parent’s life, that should be unacceptable. Fight so hard, that money is not a deterrence, nor is it an object of concern. They are negligent. They are not acting like a loving parent, concerned for the welfare and best development of the child.
And that’s when the courts should step in and start acting on behalf of the children.
That’s when the courts should get involved and not pander to that parent. Instead they do. Why?
One parent’s irrational thinking that inflicting revenge or punishment on another, by taking away the child, for some real or imaginary injustice inflicted upon them, somehow makes things right if the court panders to them?
Putting the child in the middle and taking away the child’s god given right to have two loving and caring parents should not be rewarded by the courts pandering to them, it should be admonished.
This behavior the courts and it’s officers protect and pander to comes with a cost to the very children that they are using as a pawn.
For every $1.00 spent on an attorney, or court fee, or court ordered program - $1.00 is taken out of the pot of money that could have been better spent on the child and the child’s future.
Judges and masters, through the use of financial affidavits mandatorily filled out and provided to the courts before EVERY court hearing , sworn affidavits of the finances of the individuals, see exactly how much money is spent on legal fees in each and every single court hearing that comes before them. They know first hand whether it’s been $1,000 or $100,000. They also know how much is in the bank, the equity in the house, the cars the parties drive and all other assets and aspects of finances of the parties.
When lawyers and judges – allow ordinary middle income people to spend 10’s of thousands of dollars, they are aware they don’t have, on legal costs – money they fully know the parties can’t financially afford, because also listed on these financial affidavits are the parties income, they should be found to be incompetent of performing their duties as officers of the court.
And yet, they do allow this to happen day in and day out, because the alternative of allowing new court action would be enforcing the orders already place. Orders the judges and masters put into place to begin with.
These officer’s of the courts usually don’t attempt to enforce their own orders unless it works against the non-custodial parent. Instead, they make new orders that they know they won’t enforce.
Why parents can’t get the courts to enforce their own orders is unjust in and of itself.
Why the courts don’t find an offending parent, and yes it is usually the custodial parent, in CONTEMPT for violating court orders becomes a mystery.
Why have any court orders to begin with, if enforcement of the offenders of those orders, yes usually women, go unpunished and are given no incentive, monetarily or otherwise, to stop the offensive behavior of not abiding by court orders they themselves asked for and were awarded.
What example does this NH Court believe it sets for children caught in the middle of these COURT GAMES? That it’s OK to violate the court orders if you are the custodial parent and keep the children and VISITOR parent away from each other, so long as you believe you have a good reason, real or imagined?
Remember, before the courts and the lawyers the people involved were a family. The children were exposed to two sets of values, personalities and parents, good or bad.
How many of the court cases in NH Courts right now, had any state agency involved prior to separation or divorce that intervened on behalf that family?
How many cases in front of the NH REDRESS Committee, had state agency involvement ONLY, after the courts and lawyers got involved and ONLY after the custodial parent refused to abide by the courts orders put in place?
How many involve false accusations made after the fact, by the custodial parent and are unfounded?
How many involve a custodial parent that did not to share custody of the children right from the beginning of the separation and wanted it that way?
How many proposed a non-custodial parent should be given a “VISITATION” schedule, “VISITOR in MY CHILD’S LIFE” status, of nothing more than alternating weekends in every month?
VISITOR status and still the offending custodial parent wants even less contact and continues to do everything to undermine even that little bit of time spent with the children.
How many children have been forced into “VISITING” the other parent?
Does anyone really believe the terminology being used is “parenting schedule”?
Just make sure that CHILD SUPPORT keeps coming. That’s seems the biggest concern for all – the court’s, judges, masters, guardians and anyone else connected that has a money interest in the outcome.
Not a pretty picture, because that is the children’s reality and most of us would rather put blinders on than deal with it.
When someone violates their probation, because they didn’t know, didn’t care, misunderstood, thought it best to handle things their way__________, fill in with blank with whatever excuse you want, DOES THE COURT REWRITE THE AGREEMENT and take all the excuses into consideration whilst doing so?
NO. Then why do they do it now? Custodial parent doesn’t mean BETTER PARENT.
It becomes a vicious a cycle, with a formula guaranteed to continue to promote hostility, animosity for the parties involved and huge payouts for the judicial system.
If there was nothing to gain it makes no sense the courts and attorneys would promote animosity when there was nothing they could collect from the parties.
The lawyers and judges feed the behavior of the offending parent, create the atmosphere that they will look out for the best interest of the children, which reinforces the offending parents bad parenting to begin with.
Yes, it is bad parenting when one parent pits the other parent against the children. Good reason or not.
Children have a right to freely and without strings attached be able to love both parents.
It’s normal and it’s healthy.
It’s not normal and it’s not healthy when a parent can not, will not, refuses to separate the children from the adult relationship, and refuses to, or is incapable of fostering a good relationship and good communication between the children and the other parent.
Then justifies it by imagining and then projecting that somehow the other parent is no good, inferior and the children are somehow better off without having to deal with that other parent.
That in and of itself is a form of child abuse. It’s emotional abuse. And our courts are allowing it to happen day in and day out, they condone and they reward it.
What’s the motivation for that?
When a mother lists on her financial affidavit, income of $35,000 a year in one column, and virtually no other assets in the other and then lists an outstanding bill of $50,000 owed to her attorney, not counting the latest t court hearings, what does that say?
How many years of child support payments does that calculate out too?
Is that responsible? Is that a responsible parent? Is that responsible parenting? Should that be condoned by the court? Rewarded? Allowed to continue? Pandered too? Accepted?
According to Motions filed, she’s in court that day for two reasons, one to try to get her child support increased and the other to prevent any further contact between the father and the child, already so limited by her behavior to be almost non-existent to begin with.
Neither action justified, yet the Motion is still brought to the court by the custodial parents attorney because that’s what the custodial parent wants done.
The children become a pawn, no more than mere property to be used for a claim to more money. In this instance, hopefully, more money in the pocket of the custodial parent, certainly more money in the pocket of the attorney.
So at the expense of the child the courts have allowed the lawyer to continue the litigation, taking that $50,000 plus the $1,000’s that have already been paid, plus what hasn’t been billed yet, money that should be going to the child and that child’s future but instead ends up in the pockets of the lawyer with no reasonable or logical explanation.
Interestingly, the courts also say the law does not provide that a non-custodial parent has the right to know how child support money is spent. Wonder why that would be? Is it simply an attempt to cover-up what really goes on? Why would one parent not be accountable while the other is?
When the judge or master, as in this case, has in front of them the monthly child support payments provided by the ex equaling the monthly loan payment to the ex’s attorney, it speaks of irresponsibility to the very people these hypocrites sit from the bench and try to say they are thinking of – the children.
How is it in the best of the children to take away their future because one parent wants to fight the other parent for custody or visitation when there are no legal or valid reasons for doing so?
If the courts aren’t happy with a little scrutiny perhaps it’s time they clean their house.
Exposing what goes on behind the scenes will be a win-win situation for all concerned.
Either a corrupt system will be exposed and hopefully righted or a great system will stay a great system because the transparency exists to keep it that way.
Tell your Senators NO! on S. 1542
Tell your Senators NO! on S. 1542:
House Passes Family Support Legislation
SuzanneCWLA | September 22, 2011 at 11:25 AM | Categories: General, House legislation, Prevention
Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (H.R. 2883) by a vote of 395-25*. This bill is the same as S. 1542 which passed the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday. It reauthorizes IV-B of the Social Security Act, making moderate changes to that section of the law and altering funding levels slightly. It also reinstates the authority for states to apply for waivers of IV-E regulations. Now that the committees of oversight in both houses have supported the bill and it has passed the House, the full Senate is expected to take up the legislation some time next week.
Tell your
Senators VOTE NO!!!
on S.1542
The House also passed legislation extending the authorization for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program yesterday. The Short-Term TANF Extension Act (H.R. 2943) authorizes TANF state block grants, which were set to expire next week, through December 31, 2011. It does not, however, extend the authorization for TANF supplemental grants, which expired back in June. The Senate is expected to take up this measure soon, as well.
House Passes Family Support Legislation
SuzanneCWLA | September 22, 2011 at 11:25 AM | Categories: General, House legislation, Prevention
Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (H.R. 2883) by a vote of 395-25*. This bill is the same as S. 1542 which passed the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday. It reauthorizes IV-B of the Social Security Act, making moderate changes to that section of the law and altering funding levels slightly. It also reinstates the authority for states to apply for waivers of IV-E regulations. Now that the committees of oversight in both houses have supported the bill and it has passed the House, the full Senate is expected to take up the legislation some time next week.
Tell your
Senators VOTE NO!!!
on S.1542
The House also passed legislation extending the authorization for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program yesterday. The Short-Term TANF Extension Act (H.R. 2943) authorizes TANF state block grants, which were set to expire next week, through December 31, 2011. It does not, however, extend the authorization for TANF supplemental grants, which expired back in June. The Senate is expected to take up this measure soon, as well.
Tell Your Senator's NO on S.1542
Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act
Another bill (H.R. 2883/S. 1542), reauthorizing Title IV-B of the Social Security Act,
was introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate on Monday, September
12. It passed the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, September 14, the
Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, September 20, and the full House Wednesday,
September 21. Similar to H.R. 2790—recently introduced and passed in the House—this
bill reauthorizes and makes some changes to IV-B Part 1, Child Welfare Services (CWS)
and Part II, Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) through 2016. Additionally, it
includes a second title which reinstates Social Security Act, Title IV-E waiver authority.
CWS is a discretionary program providing flexible formula funding for a broad range of
services designed to support, preserve, and/or reunite children and their families. H.R.
2883/S. 1542 maintains its authorization level at $325 million. CWS requires each state
to create a child welfare services plan—which encompasses case reviews and
permanency planning, program development, agency administration, and systems
collaboration activities. S. 1542/H.R. 2883 adds the following additional requirements:
• Adds to the state plan provision for ongoing oversight and coordination of health
care services the explicit requirement to outline how emotional trauma needs
associated with a child’s maltreatment and removal identified through initial and
follow-up health screenings will be monitored and treated.
• Also, adds to the state plan provision for ongoing oversight and coordination of
health care services the explicit requirement to include protocols for the
appropriate use and monitoring of psychotropic medications in the oversight of
prescription medicines.
• Adds a new state plan provision requiring the inclusion of a description of state
activities aimed at reducing the length of time children under age 5 are without a
permanent family and state activities addressing the developmental needs of
children under age 5 who are served by both IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security
Act. • Adds a new state plan provision requiring the inclusion of a description of the
sources of child maltreatment death information. This provision specifically refers
to a list of possible sources and includes a requirement for states to incorporate an
explanation if they do not have information from those sources. [NEW: This
provision on child death sources was not included in H.R. 2790]
The bill also revises the caseworker visit requirement in CWS. It was previously a goal to
have 90% of children in care visited by their caseworker monthly—with a majority of
those visits occurring in the child’s residence— by October 1, 2008. H.R. 2883/S. 1542
maintains the 90% goal, as well as a tiered federal financial participation reduction for
failure to comply, but it requires only that the total visits in a year to equal the amount of
visits if a child were visited monthly. In addition, the tiered reduction for failure to
comply is added for a new goal of 50% of caseworker visits occurring in the child’s
residence. A corresponding amendment is made in Title IV-E to update data collection on
this modified visit requirement. [NEW: The IV-E update was not included in H.R. 2790]
PSSF targets formula funding to four categories of services; family support, family
preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. In
addition, it includes reserved funding and additional authorizations for courts; substance
abuse grants; caseworker visits; tribes; mentoring; and research, evaluation, and technical
assistance. PSSF funding is both mandatory and discretionary. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 reduces
the mandatory funding from $365 million to $345 million and maintains the authorization
of $200 million in discretionary funding. [NEW: Unlike H.R. 2790, the reduction in this
bill is not taken from the reservation of funds for the Court Improvement Program.]
PSSF includes a section listing requirements for state plans to fulfill PSSF provisions.
The PSSF state plan encompasses goal setting for services, a review process,
coordination of services, and child safety assurances. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 adds a
requirement for states to identify populations most at risk of maltreatment and describe
how services are targeted to those populations. [NEW: This provision was not included in
H.R. 2790]
Within the section of PSSF defining various terms used within the legislation, the
definition of “family support services” —one of the four categories of services— is
amended by clarifying that enhancing child development, one of the listed aims of family
support, can be accomplished through mentoring. Also, under the definition for “timelimited family reunification services” — another of the four categories of service— new
examples of services and activities are added, including peer-to-peer mentoring, support
groups for caregivers and services and activities designed to facilitate parent and sibling
visitation with children in care. Finally, the definitions for “Indian Tribe” and “Tribal
Organization” are updated to be consistent with the way they are defined in the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). [NEW: None of
these amended definitions were included in H.R. 2790] H.R. 2883/S. 1542 also amends the PSSF annual report—comprised of each state’s
service expenditures and required of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to send to Congress (i.e., House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate
Committee on Finance)—to include actual spending in addition to planned spending by
service category for the program. Furthermore, the bill requires that this report be posted
publically on HHS’s website. Additionally, the bill requires the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report within a year of the bill’s enactment that
identifies alternative federal funding sources for IV-B activities and services and assesses
the needs of families eligible for these services, caseworkers’ resources to safely manage
caseloads, the number of families and length of time they wait for substance abuse and
other preventive services, and the effect of the delay of those services on reunification.
[NEW: The GAO report was not included in H.R. 2790]
Two additional PSSF grants for targeted purposes—to support monthly caseworker visits
and regional partnership grants to address permanency affected by parental substance
abuse—are both maintained at $20 million allotments each. The purpose of the monthly
caseworker visit allotment is amended to specify that improving caseworker decisionmaking is in regards to decisions made about the safety, permanence and well-being of
children in care. [NEW: This amended purpose was not in H.R. 2790] Within the
discretionary grants targeting substance abuse, the bill removes the language giving
greater weight to applicants addressing methamphetamine abuse specifically. The bill
also adds that extensions of substance abuse grants are limited to two years, but that
multiple grants are allowed, and the varying limit of the federal share of the cost of
services under the grant is updated through seven fiscal years. It also adds a 5 % limit on
HHS administrative expenses for this grant program [NEW: The details of grant
extensions, federal shares, and administrative limits were not in H.R. 2790] Finally, the
bill also requires an HHS evaluation of the programs and activities provided under the
substance abuse grants from FY2007 through 2011 and again from FY2012 through
2016. HHS reports on these evaluations are due December 31, 2012 and 2017,
respectively. [NEW: This evaluation was not included in H.R. 2790]
PSSF sets aside mandatory and discretionary funding for grants for highest state courts
that carry out child welfare activities. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 adds a clarification that court
grant improvement plans should include requirements related to concurrent planning.
Furthermore, the bill adds a requirement that these plans, as well as legal personnel
training, should seek to improve family engagement in all stages of permanence in court
processes. The bill also streamlines the number of necessary applications to one,
regardless of the number of purposes the highest state court applying for funds plans to
address. Finally, the bill divides the court improvement grants into funding categories by
purpose of the grant and assigns each category a monetary reservation— $9 million for
assessing court systems and implementing improvements, $10 million for improving
permanence and timeliness of placements, $10 million for training court and legal
personnel, and $1 million for tribal courts. The bill also specifies that any discretionary
funding allocations for court improvement should go to the first funding category of
assessing court systems and implementing improvements. [NEW: The family engagement provision, streamlined application requirements, and funding categories were
not included in H.R. 2790]
H.R. 2883/S. 1542 makes a few additional changes to child welfare legislation. It adds a
part III to title IV-B, titled, “Common Provisions.” This subpart is comprised of a section
on “Data Standardization for Improved Data Matching.” This calls on HHS to work with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to designate standard data elements for
any category of information required to be reported in IV-B. Additionally, under IV-E of
the Social Security Act, the bill clarifies that the requirement for educational stability for
children in care refers to “each” placement, removing confusion about the requirements
applicability beyond the first placement. Also in IV-E, the bill requires states to
document savings from the de-link of adoption assistance payments from the old Aid to
Families with Dependent Children eligibility that is part of the 2008 Fostering
Connections legislation. Also in IV-E, under the definitions section, “case review
system” is amended with an additional responsibility of the state to obtain a copy of a
consumer report yearly for all children in care over the age of 16. Furthermore, the bill
requires that the youth receives assistance in interpreting and resolving inaccuracies,
where possible, by a court-appointed advocate. [NEW: The consumer report provision
was not included in H.R. 2790]
H.R. 2883/S. 1542 fails to reauthorize the discretionary Mentoring Children of Prisoners
grants. This program was zeroed out in the FY 2011 appropriations. [NEW: H.R. 2790
reauthorized this program at $25 million each year through 2016.] Also, the bill does not
require HHS to study the state of recruiting and supporting foster parents, adoptive
parents, and kin caregivers. [NEW: This study was included in H.R. 2790]
Finally, H.R. 2883/S. 1542 reinstates waiver authority for Title IV-E demonstration
projects. [NEW: Waivers were not included in H.R. 2790] Waivers are legislatively
authorized and administratively approved interruptions of federal regulation to allow
states more flexible use of a particular funding stream. This bill aims to bridge the
differences between the two chambers’ approaches at IV-E waiver reauthorization. It
cedes to the House on some points including the duration of the demonstration projects
the bill authorizes, while yielding to the Senate by including language requiring states to
undertake specific efforts to improve permanency and outcomes and prevent abuse and
neglect in order to be eligible for a waiver.
The bill allows HHS to issue up to 10 waivers each year from 2012 through 2014.
Waivers cannot exceed five years or end after 2019. To qualify, a state must increase
permanence by reducing time in foster care, increase positive outcomes for children and
families, or prevent maltreatment and re-entry into care. In addition the state must have or
plan to implement at least two of the following policies: establishing a bill of rights for
children in care, implementing a health and mental health plan for children in care,
covering kinship/subsidized guardianship with IV-E funding, extending IV-E foster care
to 21, implementing a plan to reduce congregate care, increasing the placement of
siblings together, implementing a plan to improve the recruitment and retention of quality foster families, establishing procedures to assist youth in transitioning out of care, state
plan inclusion of older youth guidance in their own transition plan, and the establishment
of one or more programs to prevent placement in care and provide permanency.
Furthermore, the bill includes reporting requirements that must start two years prior to the
waiver application, account for all child welfare spending during the time of the waiver,
provide periodic reports, and obtain an independent evaluation. Finally, tribes are eligible
to apply for waivers if they are running a IV-E plan.
Another bill (H.R. 2883/S. 1542), reauthorizing Title IV-B of the Social Security Act,
was introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate on Monday, September
12. It passed the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, September 14, the
Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, September 20, and the full House Wednesday,
September 21. Similar to H.R. 2790—recently introduced and passed in the House—this
bill reauthorizes and makes some changes to IV-B Part 1, Child Welfare Services (CWS)
and Part II, Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) through 2016. Additionally, it
includes a second title which reinstates Social Security Act, Title IV-E waiver authority.
CWS is a discretionary program providing flexible formula funding for a broad range of
services designed to support, preserve, and/or reunite children and their families. H.R.
2883/S. 1542 maintains its authorization level at $325 million. CWS requires each state
to create a child welfare services plan—which encompasses case reviews and
permanency planning, program development, agency administration, and systems
collaboration activities. S. 1542/H.R. 2883 adds the following additional requirements:
• Adds to the state plan provision for ongoing oversight and coordination of health
care services the explicit requirement to outline how emotional trauma needs
associated with a child’s maltreatment and removal identified through initial and
follow-up health screenings will be monitored and treated.
• Also, adds to the state plan provision for ongoing oversight and coordination of
health care services the explicit requirement to include protocols for the
appropriate use and monitoring of psychotropic medications in the oversight of
prescription medicines.
• Adds a new state plan provision requiring the inclusion of a description of state
activities aimed at reducing the length of time children under age 5 are without a
permanent family and state activities addressing the developmental needs of
children under age 5 who are served by both IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security
Act. • Adds a new state plan provision requiring the inclusion of a description of the
sources of child maltreatment death information. This provision specifically refers
to a list of possible sources and includes a requirement for states to incorporate an
explanation if they do not have information from those sources. [NEW: This
provision on child death sources was not included in H.R. 2790]
The bill also revises the caseworker visit requirement in CWS. It was previously a goal to
have 90% of children in care visited by their caseworker monthly—with a majority of
those visits occurring in the child’s residence— by October 1, 2008. H.R. 2883/S. 1542
maintains the 90% goal, as well as a tiered federal financial participation reduction for
failure to comply, but it requires only that the total visits in a year to equal the amount of
visits if a child were visited monthly. In addition, the tiered reduction for failure to
comply is added for a new goal of 50% of caseworker visits occurring in the child’s
residence. A corresponding amendment is made in Title IV-E to update data collection on
this modified visit requirement. [NEW: The IV-E update was not included in H.R. 2790]
PSSF targets formula funding to four categories of services; family support, family
preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. In
addition, it includes reserved funding and additional authorizations for courts; substance
abuse grants; caseworker visits; tribes; mentoring; and research, evaluation, and technical
assistance. PSSF funding is both mandatory and discretionary. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 reduces
the mandatory funding from $365 million to $345 million and maintains the authorization
of $200 million in discretionary funding. [NEW: Unlike H.R. 2790, the reduction in this
bill is not taken from the reservation of funds for the Court Improvement Program.]
PSSF includes a section listing requirements for state plans to fulfill PSSF provisions.
The PSSF state plan encompasses goal setting for services, a review process,
coordination of services, and child safety assurances. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 adds a
requirement for states to identify populations most at risk of maltreatment and describe
how services are targeted to those populations. [NEW: This provision was not included in
H.R. 2790]
Within the section of PSSF defining various terms used within the legislation, the
definition of “family support services” —one of the four categories of services— is
amended by clarifying that enhancing child development, one of the listed aims of family
support, can be accomplished through mentoring. Also, under the definition for “timelimited family reunification services” — another of the four categories of service— new
examples of services and activities are added, including peer-to-peer mentoring, support
groups for caregivers and services and activities designed to facilitate parent and sibling
visitation with children in care. Finally, the definitions for “Indian Tribe” and “Tribal
Organization” are updated to be consistent with the way they are defined in the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). [NEW: None of
these amended definitions were included in H.R. 2790] H.R. 2883/S. 1542 also amends the PSSF annual report—comprised of each state’s
service expenditures and required of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to send to Congress (i.e., House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate
Committee on Finance)—to include actual spending in addition to planned spending by
service category for the program. Furthermore, the bill requires that this report be posted
publically on HHS’s website. Additionally, the bill requires the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report within a year of the bill’s enactment that
identifies alternative federal funding sources for IV-B activities and services and assesses
the needs of families eligible for these services, caseworkers’ resources to safely manage
caseloads, the number of families and length of time they wait for substance abuse and
other preventive services, and the effect of the delay of those services on reunification.
[NEW: The GAO report was not included in H.R. 2790]
Two additional PSSF grants for targeted purposes—to support monthly caseworker visits
and regional partnership grants to address permanency affected by parental substance
abuse—are both maintained at $20 million allotments each. The purpose of the monthly
caseworker visit allotment is amended to specify that improving caseworker decisionmaking is in regards to decisions made about the safety, permanence and well-being of
children in care. [NEW: This amended purpose was not in H.R. 2790] Within the
discretionary grants targeting substance abuse, the bill removes the language giving
greater weight to applicants addressing methamphetamine abuse specifically. The bill
also adds that extensions of substance abuse grants are limited to two years, but that
multiple grants are allowed, and the varying limit of the federal share of the cost of
services under the grant is updated through seven fiscal years. It also adds a 5 % limit on
HHS administrative expenses for this grant program [NEW: The details of grant
extensions, federal shares, and administrative limits were not in H.R. 2790] Finally, the
bill also requires an HHS evaluation of the programs and activities provided under the
substance abuse grants from FY2007 through 2011 and again from FY2012 through
2016. HHS reports on these evaluations are due December 31, 2012 and 2017,
respectively. [NEW: This evaluation was not included in H.R. 2790]
PSSF sets aside mandatory and discretionary funding for grants for highest state courts
that carry out child welfare activities. H.R. 2883/S. 1542 adds a clarification that court
grant improvement plans should include requirements related to concurrent planning.
Furthermore, the bill adds a requirement that these plans, as well as legal personnel
training, should seek to improve family engagement in all stages of permanence in court
processes. The bill also streamlines the number of necessary applications to one,
regardless of the number of purposes the highest state court applying for funds plans to
address. Finally, the bill divides the court improvement grants into funding categories by
purpose of the grant and assigns each category a monetary reservation— $9 million for
assessing court systems and implementing improvements, $10 million for improving
permanence and timeliness of placements, $10 million for training court and legal
personnel, and $1 million for tribal courts. The bill also specifies that any discretionary
funding allocations for court improvement should go to the first funding category of
assessing court systems and implementing improvements. [NEW: The family engagement provision, streamlined application requirements, and funding categories were
not included in H.R. 2790]
H.R. 2883/S. 1542 makes a few additional changes to child welfare legislation. It adds a
part III to title IV-B, titled, “Common Provisions.” This subpart is comprised of a section
on “Data Standardization for Improved Data Matching.” This calls on HHS to work with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to designate standard data elements for
any category of information required to be reported in IV-B. Additionally, under IV-E of
the Social Security Act, the bill clarifies that the requirement for educational stability for
children in care refers to “each” placement, removing confusion about the requirements
applicability beyond the first placement. Also in IV-E, the bill requires states to
document savings from the de-link of adoption assistance payments from the old Aid to
Families with Dependent Children eligibility that is part of the 2008 Fostering
Connections legislation. Also in IV-E, under the definitions section, “case review
system” is amended with an additional responsibility of the state to obtain a copy of a
consumer report yearly for all children in care over the age of 16. Furthermore, the bill
requires that the youth receives assistance in interpreting and resolving inaccuracies,
where possible, by a court-appointed advocate. [NEW: The consumer report provision
was not included in H.R. 2790]
H.R. 2883/S. 1542 fails to reauthorize the discretionary Mentoring Children of Prisoners
grants. This program was zeroed out in the FY 2011 appropriations. [NEW: H.R. 2790
reauthorized this program at $25 million each year through 2016.] Also, the bill does not
require HHS to study the state of recruiting and supporting foster parents, adoptive
parents, and kin caregivers. [NEW: This study was included in H.R. 2790]
Finally, H.R. 2883/S. 1542 reinstates waiver authority for Title IV-E demonstration
projects. [NEW: Waivers were not included in H.R. 2790] Waivers are legislatively
authorized and administratively approved interruptions of federal regulation to allow
states more flexible use of a particular funding stream. This bill aims to bridge the
differences between the two chambers’ approaches at IV-E waiver reauthorization. It
cedes to the House on some points including the duration of the demonstration projects
the bill authorizes, while yielding to the Senate by including language requiring states to
undertake specific efforts to improve permanency and outcomes and prevent abuse and
neglect in order to be eligible for a waiver.
The bill allows HHS to issue up to 10 waivers each year from 2012 through 2014.
Waivers cannot exceed five years or end after 2019. To qualify, a state must increase
permanence by reducing time in foster care, increase positive outcomes for children and
families, or prevent maltreatment and re-entry into care. In addition the state must have or
plan to implement at least two of the following policies: establishing a bill of rights for
children in care, implementing a health and mental health plan for children in care,
covering kinship/subsidized guardianship with IV-E funding, extending IV-E foster care
to 21, implementing a plan to reduce congregate care, increasing the placement of
siblings together, implementing a plan to improve the recruitment and retention of quality foster families, establishing procedures to assist youth in transitioning out of care, state
plan inclusion of older youth guidance in their own transition plan, and the establishment
of one or more programs to prevent placement in care and provide permanency.
Furthermore, the bill includes reporting requirements that must start two years prior to the
waiver application, account for all child welfare spending during the time of the waiver,
provide periodic reports, and obtain an independent evaluation. Finally, tribes are eligible
to apply for waivers if they are running a IV-E plan.
Friday, September 23, 2011
70 child-welfare workers lied about efforts to protect children
70 child-welfare workers lied about efforts to protect children - OrlandoSentinel.com:
And that's just in Florida! Just imagine how many more lying caseworker's there are in the rest of the country that STILL haven't been caught. I'm sure the number's are staggering. In fact, I'm positive the number's are staggering!
During the past two years, more than 70 Florida child-welfare workers have been caught falsifying records -- lying about their on-the-job efforts to protect children, according to state and county records reviewed by the Orlando Sentinel.
And that's just in Florida! Just imagine how many more lying caseworker's there are in the rest of the country that STILL haven't been caught. I'm sure the number's are staggering. In fact, I'm positive the number's are staggering!
During the past two years, more than 70 Florida child-welfare workers have been caught falsifying records -- lying about their on-the-job efforts to protect children, according to state and county records reviewed by the Orlando Sentinel.
Oklahoma Department of Human Services worker testifies in trial concerning foster child's death
Oklahoma Department of Human Services worker testifies in trial concerning foster child's death | NewsOK.com:
Edmond foster parent has been charged in the death of a child she was caring for in 2009.
BY TIFFANY GIBSON tgibson@opubco.com
Published: September 23, 2011
GUTHRIE — Attorneys cross-examined a state child welfare worker Thursday in the child abuse trial of Amy Holder. Holder is accused of abusing Naomi Whitecrow, 2, who died after four months in foster care with Holder, of Edmond.
Read more:
Edmond foster parent has been charged in the death of a child she was caring for in 2009.
BY TIFFANY GIBSON tgibson@opubco.com
Published: September 23, 2011
GUTHRIE — Attorneys cross-examined a state child welfare worker Thursday in the child abuse trial of Amy Holder. Holder is accused of abusing Naomi Whitecrow, 2, who died after four months in foster care with Holder, of Edmond.
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)