DCF to give out report cards to service providers | The Connecticut Mirror:
Does a juvenile delinquency prevention program lead to lower recidivism rates?
Does a parent improvement program lead to more children being able to stay at home because of improved living environments?
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
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
CPS reform ineffective? Part 1 of 4
Foster Parents; CPS reform ineffective? Part 1 of 4 - National Foster Families | Examiner.com:
An article came to our attention, on Az Central, the article was called a time for a new approach to protecting children written by Laurie Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Link.
A few weeks ago we wrote an article on the news story for Examiner called Az CPS needs fixed. Here is the link. Now this article was written on the same subject. This writer said.
Continue reading on Examiner.com
An article came to our attention, on Az Central, the article was called a time for a new approach to protecting children written by Laurie Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Link.
A few weeks ago we wrote an article on the news story for Examiner called Az CPS needs fixed. Here is the link. Now this article was written on the same subject. This writer said.
Continue reading on Examiner.com
Why Are So Many Foster Care Children Taking Antipsychotics?
Why Are So Many Foster Care Children Taking Antipsychotics? – TIME Healthland:
More than 8% of children in foster care have received antipsychotic medication, and just over one quarter of those in foster care who also receive disability benefits take these drugs, according to a recent study in the journal Pediatrics.
Read more:
More than 8% of children in foster care have received antipsychotic medication, and just over one quarter of those in foster care who also receive disability benefits take these drugs, according to a recent study in the journal Pediatrics.
Read more:
Alabama parents rights groups allege state profits off of broken families
Alabama parents rights groups allege state profits off of broken families - Huntsville divorce support | Examiner.com:
Alabama parents rights groups are crying foul over federal incentive payments to the States under a Social Security program that pays two dollars for every dollar collected by the State for State-imposed child support orders. [42 U.S.C. §658a] The groups allege these laws promote aggressive practices which result in constitutional rights violations and unnecessary government intrusion into the parent-child relationship.
As early as 1998, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee admitted, 'Most States make a profit on their child support program.' The committee also noted, 'States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fits.' Parents rights advocates maintain that the resulting State policies and procedures represent a grave conflict of interest which ultimately hurts Alabama's children. [Committee Report, page 596]
A 1975 federal law enacted the Title IV-D program and created the Office of Child Support Enforcement. The program was intended to help reduce the federal government's welfare costs by shifting the burden onto the parents through more efficient enforcement of support orders for children receiving welfare benefits.
Two decades saw sweeping changes for the program originally designed to help single moms on welfare and save the federal government money. Congress passed laws increasing the States' administrative powers, automated wage withholding for support, and extended the program to all child support cases. It grew to include cases unrelated to, or not receiving, welfare benefits and also as a result of normal divorce proceedings. Parents rights groups across the nation claim that this was when the States began to utilize their child support programs as a method of revenue generation, paid for by non-custodial parents and the American taxpayers.
Though conceived as a method to reduce government spending, federal child support enforcement efforts have produced ballooning deficits. In 2002, the same House committee reported that, 'The overall financial impact of the child support enforcement program on taxpayers is negative.' [Committee Report, page 8-69] The American taxpayers lost $2.7 billion on the program in 2002 alone.
Author Stephen Baskerville, an associate professor of government at Patrick Henry college, notes in his 2007 book 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family,' the federal government also subsidizes the majority of the administrative costs to the State associated with child support enforcement. He quotes a Michigan attorney who revealed, 'There is a $200 million per year profit motive driving this system,' in his State alone. 'It dances at the string of federal money.' [page 119]
Parents rights groups agree that including non-welfare cases promotes unconstitutional practices by State child support enforcement authorities, actions which the State directly profits from. Advocates say that is the reason that visitation ordered in Alabama family courts is often only 60-90 days out of a year, if there is a visitation schedule ordered at all. They point out that the less visitation provided for the 'non-custodial parent,' the larger the child support obligation which the State can enforce against the parent.
Parents allege that this is the nature of the conflict of interest which exists, because it accordingly increases the incentive payment Alabama receives under the Title IV-D program by denying the non-custodial parent visitation and disregarding direct support that is provided. Under State law, direct support provided often does not count towards court-ordered child support. Advocates also claim that because child support orders are designed to profit the State, Alabama non-custodial parents are frequently forced into poverty.
Previous legislative attempts to safeguard the constitutional rights of Alabama parents for equal parenting time have been unsuccessful [Alabama SB196]. Parents rights advocates say they will continue those efforts. They have also vowed to challenge existing State law in federal courts, possibly beginning as early as this week. They say it will be the first of many formal complaints over alleged violations of the constitutional rights of Alabama parents which, if proven, would violate federal civil rights laws.
This is the first in a series of investigative reports into allegations of official misconduct in the Alabama family law system. Stay tuned for more information as this story develops.
Continue reading on Examiner.com
Alabama parents rights groups are crying foul over federal incentive payments to the States under a Social Security program that pays two dollars for every dollar collected by the State for State-imposed child support orders. [42 U.S.C. §658a] The groups allege these laws promote aggressive practices which result in constitutional rights violations and unnecessary government intrusion into the parent-child relationship.
As early as 1998, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee admitted, 'Most States make a profit on their child support program.' The committee also noted, 'States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fits.' Parents rights advocates maintain that the resulting State policies and procedures represent a grave conflict of interest which ultimately hurts Alabama's children. [Committee Report, page 596]
A 1975 federal law enacted the Title IV-D program and created the Office of Child Support Enforcement. The program was intended to help reduce the federal government's welfare costs by shifting the burden onto the parents through more efficient enforcement of support orders for children receiving welfare benefits.
Two decades saw sweeping changes for the program originally designed to help single moms on welfare and save the federal government money. Congress passed laws increasing the States' administrative powers, automated wage withholding for support, and extended the program to all child support cases. It grew to include cases unrelated to, or not receiving, welfare benefits and also as a result of normal divorce proceedings. Parents rights groups across the nation claim that this was when the States began to utilize their child support programs as a method of revenue generation, paid for by non-custodial parents and the American taxpayers.
Though conceived as a method to reduce government spending, federal child support enforcement efforts have produced ballooning deficits. In 2002, the same House committee reported that, 'The overall financial impact of the child support enforcement program on taxpayers is negative.' [Committee Report, page 8-69] The American taxpayers lost $2.7 billion on the program in 2002 alone.
Author Stephen Baskerville, an associate professor of government at Patrick Henry college, notes in his 2007 book 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family,' the federal government also subsidizes the majority of the administrative costs to the State associated with child support enforcement. He quotes a Michigan attorney who revealed, 'There is a $200 million per year profit motive driving this system,' in his State alone. 'It dances at the string of federal money.' [page 119]
Parents rights groups agree that including non-welfare cases promotes unconstitutional practices by State child support enforcement authorities, actions which the State directly profits from. Advocates say that is the reason that visitation ordered in Alabama family courts is often only 60-90 days out of a year, if there is a visitation schedule ordered at all. They point out that the less visitation provided for the 'non-custodial parent,' the larger the child support obligation which the State can enforce against the parent.
Parents allege that this is the nature of the conflict of interest which exists, because it accordingly increases the incentive payment Alabama receives under the Title IV-D program by denying the non-custodial parent visitation and disregarding direct support that is provided. Under State law, direct support provided often does not count towards court-ordered child support. Advocates also claim that because child support orders are designed to profit the State, Alabama non-custodial parents are frequently forced into poverty.
Previous legislative attempts to safeguard the constitutional rights of Alabama parents for equal parenting time have been unsuccessful [Alabama SB196]. Parents rights advocates say they will continue those efforts. They have also vowed to challenge existing State law in federal courts, possibly beginning as early as this week. They say it will be the first of many formal complaints over alleged violations of the constitutional rights of Alabama parents which, if proven, would violate federal civil rights laws.
This is the first in a series of investigative reports into allegations of official misconduct in the Alabama family law system. Stay tuned for more information as this story develops.
Continue reading on Examiner.com
Does your child belong to state?
Does your child belong to state?:
Cases reveal how government undermining rights of parents
Read more:
Cases reveal how government undermining rights of parents
Read more:
You Have The Right to N.H. Court Records: Here is a Do-It-Yourself form to make your request
STOP Judicial Child Abuse:
Did you know that you have the right to inspect and copy all public records kept by various agencies of the State of New Hampshire, including the Court?
New Hampshire RSA 91-a is our state's "Right to Know" act and ensures that the government remain transparent to the citizens by making most documents publicly available.
With so much deep-rooted corruption in the N.H. Judiciary, STOP! Judicial Child Abuse has put together a "do-it-yourself" Right to Know request packet - NO LAWYER NECESSARY!
Lets say, hypothetically, you wanted to know all of the cases that your opponent's lawyer worked on in the past 5 years. Lets say that you want to find out if your Guardian ad Litem performs as poorly on other cases as they do on yours? Lets say you want copies of all appearances and withdrawals of a certain attorney or Guardian ad Litem.
You would simply put together a Right to Know request under RSA 91-a and submit it to every Court in the State of New Hampshire. They required by statute to respond to your request within ten days!
This puts a huge burden on the court, but is a built-in mechanism designed by the Legislature to keep the agencies, like the Courts, honest and transparent.
At first blush, assembling such a request seems daunting, but thanks to the non-lawyer researchers at STOP! Judicial Child Abuse, it is as easy as filling in a couple of simple fields, stuffing your request into 80 or so envelopes and voila!
Remember, the Court has 10 days to reply to your request and to produce all documents requested. If fail to do so, you may sue for injunctive relief in the Superior Court, which under state law, must be addressed on a "high priority" basis.
IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO UNCOVER AND PROVE THE CORRUPTION OF THE N.H COURTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGE, AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, SIMPLY DOWNLOAD THE FOLLOWING FORM, FILL IT OUT AND SEND IT TO EVERY COURT LISTED. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE
[THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE]
Did you know that you have the right to inspect and copy all public records kept by various agencies of the State of New Hampshire, including the Court?
New Hampshire RSA 91-a is our state's "Right to Know" act and ensures that the government remain transparent to the citizens by making most documents publicly available.
With so much deep-rooted corruption in the N.H. Judiciary, STOP! Judicial Child Abuse has put together a "do-it-yourself" Right to Know request packet - NO LAWYER NECESSARY!
Lets say, hypothetically, you wanted to know all of the cases that your opponent's lawyer worked on in the past 5 years. Lets say that you want to find out if your Guardian ad Litem performs as poorly on other cases as they do on yours? Lets say you want copies of all appearances and withdrawals of a certain attorney or Guardian ad Litem.
You would simply put together a Right to Know request under RSA 91-a and submit it to every Court in the State of New Hampshire. They required by statute to respond to your request within ten days!
This puts a huge burden on the court, but is a built-in mechanism designed by the Legislature to keep the agencies, like the Courts, honest and transparent.
At first blush, assembling such a request seems daunting, but thanks to the non-lawyer researchers at STOP! Judicial Child Abuse, it is as easy as filling in a couple of simple fields, stuffing your request into 80 or so envelopes and voila!
Remember, the Court has 10 days to reply to your request and to produce all documents requested. If fail to do so, you may sue for injunctive relief in the Superior Court, which under state law, must be addressed on a "high priority" basis.
IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO UNCOVER AND PROVE THE CORRUPTION OF THE N.H COURTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGE, AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, SIMPLY DOWNLOAD THE FOLLOWING FORM, FILL IT OUT AND SEND IT TO EVERY COURT LISTED. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE
[THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE]
Antipsychotic Drug Use an Indicator of National Decline
theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God:
Ready for a shock? Twenty-five percent of American women take medication for a mental disorder. Think about that. Let me repeat: One in four—a quarter of the women in America—take at least one antipsychotic drug. Some take several drugs.
Ready for a shock? Twenty-five percent of American women take medication for a mental disorder. Think about that. Let me repeat: One in four—a quarter of the women in America—take at least one antipsychotic drug. Some take several drugs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)