Violently killed toddler's mother is pregnant - reports | NATIONAL News:
The mother of a toddler killed last week is pregnant and Child, Youth and Family will assess whether the baby should be removed from her care at birth.
Read More:
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
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Autopsy of dead toddler found in Wall Township stream reveals act of 'homicidal violence'
Autopsy of dead toddler found in Wall Township stream reveals act of 'homicidal violence' | NJ.com:
WALL- A 2-year-old girl whose body was found strapped into her car seat and submerged in a stream at a Wall Township park Tuesday was alive when she was tossed into the water, Monmouth County officials said today.
Read More:
WALL- A 2-year-old girl whose body was found strapped into her car seat and submerged in a stream at a Wall Township park Tuesday was alive when she was tossed into the water, Monmouth County officials said today.
Read More:
Pelosi Bashes Catholics: "They Have This Conscience Thing"- And She Has No Conscience!
Pelosi Bashes Catholics: "They Have This Conscience Thing" | LifeNews.com:
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.
GAO Study on the Adoption Tax Credit-Blood Money For our Stolen Children
GAO Study on the Adoption Tax Credit | The Children's Monitor:
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Suzanne CWLA
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just released a study on the federal adoption tax credit. From analysis of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data and documents, observations of IRS examiners, and interviews of IRS officials and other stakeholders, the GAO explored IRS’ communications, processing, and auditing strategy regarding the credit. CWLA and member agencies on our adoption advisory committee were among the stakeholders consulted for this report.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representatives Charles Boustany (R-LA) and John Lewis (D-GA) requested the study citing the recent expansion of the credit and to identify possible improvements in advance of the 2012 tax year. The adoption tax credit was first established in 1996. The Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) increased its maximum value from $10,000 to $13,170 and made it refundable for 2010 and 2011. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312) made changes to the law by extending the credit through 2012, but as non-refundable and with a reduced maximum to $10,000. In 2013 and following, it will be limited to special needs adoptions and only available for qualified expenses up to a $6,000 value. Since 1996, $4.28 billion in adoption tax credits have been claimed, with $1.2 billion claimed in 2010.
The GAO determined that in 2011 there was diverse communications approaches to tax preparers and adoption advocates, but identified room for improvement in explaining certification requirements. In addition, they found that over two-thirds of almost 100,000 taxpayers claiming the credit were audited by mail, and that four-fifths of those audited had filed the credit accurately and none were fraudulent. These audits caused the IRS to expend unnecessary resources and delayed refunds for families. The study concludes with an outline of approaches to avoid both confusion and ineffective process that led to unnecessary expenditures in low yield tax oversight in 2011.
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Suzanne CWLA
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just released a study on the federal adoption tax credit. From analysis of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data and documents, observations of IRS examiners, and interviews of IRS officials and other stakeholders, the GAO explored IRS’ communications, processing, and auditing strategy regarding the credit. CWLA and member agencies on our adoption advisory committee were among the stakeholders consulted for this report.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representatives Charles Boustany (R-LA) and John Lewis (D-GA) requested the study citing the recent expansion of the credit and to identify possible improvements in advance of the 2012 tax year. The adoption tax credit was first established in 1996. The Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) increased its maximum value from $10,000 to $13,170 and made it refundable for 2010 and 2011. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312) made changes to the law by extending the credit through 2012, but as non-refundable and with a reduced maximum to $10,000. In 2013 and following, it will be limited to special needs adoptions and only available for qualified expenses up to a $6,000 value. Since 1996, $4.28 billion in adoption tax credits have been claimed, with $1.2 billion claimed in 2010.
The GAO determined that in 2011 there was diverse communications approaches to tax preparers and adoption advocates, but identified room for improvement in explaining certification requirements. In addition, they found that over two-thirds of almost 100,000 taxpayers claiming the credit were audited by mail, and that four-fifths of those audited had filed the credit accurately and none were fraudulent. These audits caused the IRS to expend unnecessary resources and delayed refunds for families. The study concludes with an outline of approaches to avoid both confusion and ineffective process that led to unnecessary expenditures in low yield tax oversight in 2011.
Thanksgiving Message
Wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and praying for ALL our stolen children and grandchildren and their victimized families. Hoping our children and grandchildren know how much we ALL love and miss them and wish we could be together on this special day. Hoping next Thanksgiving our children will be back in their REAL homes where they belong. Hopefully this nightmare will be over and the needless traumatization of our children will come to an end.
Special wishes to Austin and Isabella. Please don't forget us and know that our fight for you both lives on and will continue until you are finally returned to your REAL family. We love you both. You are always in our heart's and prayer's.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
Special wishes to Austin and Isabella. Please don't forget us and know that our fight for you both lives on and will continue until you are finally returned to your REAL family. We love you both. You are always in our heart's and prayer's.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES - Argued: September 15, 2011.
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES - Argued: September 15, 2011.:
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN & a.
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES.
No. 2010-548.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Argued: September 15, 2011.
Opinion Issued: November 22, 2011.
Orr & Reno, P.A., of Concord (Lisa Snow Wade and Rachel Aslin Goldwasser on the brief, and Ms. Wade orally), for the plaintiffs.
Michael A. Delaney, attorney general (Nancy J. Smith, senior assistant attorney general, and Rebecca L. Woodard, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Ms. Smith orally), for the State.
DUGGAN, J.
The defendant, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), appeals the order of the Superior Court (Fauver, J.) to pay $3,553,479.55 to the plaintiffs, Chase Home for Children, Child & Family Services, Hannah House, NFI North, Odyssey House, Orion House and Pine Haven Boys Center. We affirm.
Read More:
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
CHASE HOME FOR CHILDREN & a.
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES.
No. 2010-548.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Argued: September 15, 2011.
Opinion Issued: November 22, 2011.
Orr & Reno, P.A., of Concord (Lisa Snow Wade and Rachel Aslin Goldwasser on the brief, and Ms. Wade orally), for the plaintiffs.
Michael A. Delaney, attorney general (Nancy J. Smith, senior assistant attorney general, and Rebecca L. Woodard, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Ms. Smith orally), for the State.
DUGGAN, J.
The defendant, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), appeals the order of the Superior Court (Fauver, J.) to pay $3,553,479.55 to the plaintiffs, Chase Home for Children, Child & Family Services, Hannah House, NFI North, Odyssey House, Orion House and Pine Haven Boys Center. We affirm.
Read More:
Does NH DCYF Now leave Baby's with Their Mother's in Methadone Treatment?
Does NH DCYF Now leave Baby's with Their Mother's in Methadone Treatment?
Is this something new thank's to all my ranting and raving? It's now okay to leave children in the care of their parent's in Methadone treatment, but it wasn't okay when my granddaughter was born? Is DCYF finally being held accountable after ordering my daughter OUT of Methadone Treatment? An ILLEGAL and DISCRIMINATORY practice? Are they finally aware Mother's in Methadone treatment CAN safely parent their child? That forcing a parent out of treatment only start's the addiction cycle all over again? That forcing a parent out of treatment at a fast pace will most surely cause the parent to relapse?
A parent in treatment can care for her child, yet DCYF in the past has chosen to remove many children from their recovering parent's, yet let women of drug addicted baby's off the hook. Baby's addicted to crack and heroin and baby's addicted to the mother's overindulgence of their pain medication.
In NH, DCYF does NOT take addicted baby's from their parent's. Their harder to place and Not worth as much money to DCYF. They only take the baby's from falsely accused parent's. Parent's whose baby's show NO sign of addiction. Parent's given morphine in labor. Parent's NOT afforded a REAL investigation, in which the DCYF worker testify's in court she didn't know the mother was given morphine in labor. Parent's who speak their mind's, who are now labeled to have an attitude problem when Counselor's and Hospital staff don't like when the parent speaks up after being treated like the scum of the earth.
Baby's are taken from new mother's because NH DCYF and CASA don't want grandparent's helping the parent with their grandchildren. They feel they can tell a parent that they can't live with their parent's with the baby, when they can't afford to move out on their own. Why, so the mother can be another NH welfare case? A mother who want's nothing to do with welfare, yet the DCYF worker sign's an application for Title IV-B funding when the mother refuses because she does NOT want TANF/welfare.
Even when the parent is sickly, CASA ask's,"Do you really think your daughter will be able to take care of the baby when she's so sick?" The grandparent responds with, "We'll be there to help." Then CASA comes back with,"Oh no. We don't want you helping her. She has to do it all on her own." Grandparent's response, "Didn't your mother ever help you with your children when you were sick? Isn't that what grandparent's do? Help their children when they need them?" No answer from CASA of course.
So why is NH DCYF now leaving children with parent's in Methadone treatment? Will they ever admit they were wrong stealing children from recovering parent's? I doubt that will ever happen!
Is this something new thank's to all my ranting and raving? It's now okay to leave children in the care of their parent's in Methadone treatment, but it wasn't okay when my granddaughter was born? Is DCYF finally being held accountable after ordering my daughter OUT of Methadone Treatment? An ILLEGAL and DISCRIMINATORY practice? Are they finally aware Mother's in Methadone treatment CAN safely parent their child? That forcing a parent out of treatment only start's the addiction cycle all over again? That forcing a parent out of treatment at a fast pace will most surely cause the parent to relapse?
A parent in treatment can care for her child, yet DCYF in the past has chosen to remove many children from their recovering parent's, yet let women of drug addicted baby's off the hook. Baby's addicted to crack and heroin and baby's addicted to the mother's overindulgence of their pain medication.
In NH, DCYF does NOT take addicted baby's from their parent's. Their harder to place and Not worth as much money to DCYF. They only take the baby's from falsely accused parent's. Parent's whose baby's show NO sign of addiction. Parent's given morphine in labor. Parent's NOT afforded a REAL investigation, in which the DCYF worker testify's in court she didn't know the mother was given morphine in labor. Parent's who speak their mind's, who are now labeled to have an attitude problem when Counselor's and Hospital staff don't like when the parent speaks up after being treated like the scum of the earth.
Baby's are taken from new mother's because NH DCYF and CASA don't want grandparent's helping the parent with their grandchildren. They feel they can tell a parent that they can't live with their parent's with the baby, when they can't afford to move out on their own. Why, so the mother can be another NH welfare case? A mother who want's nothing to do with welfare, yet the DCYF worker sign's an application for Title IV-B funding when the mother refuses because she does NOT want TANF/welfare.
Even when the parent is sickly, CASA ask's,"Do you really think your daughter will be able to take care of the baby when she's so sick?" The grandparent responds with, "We'll be there to help." Then CASA comes back with,"Oh no. We don't want you helping her. She has to do it all on her own." Grandparent's response, "Didn't your mother ever help you with your children when you were sick? Isn't that what grandparent's do? Help their children when they need them?" No answer from CASA of course.
So why is NH DCYF now leaving children with parent's in Methadone treatment? Will they ever admit they were wrong stealing children from recovering parent's? I doubt that will ever happen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)