DMVC Productions: DHHS / DCYF do we want answers or change?:
New Hampshire do we have a problem with DHHS/DCYF do we want answers or change?
These are just a few of the innumerable issues going on with DHHS under Commissioner Toupmas as well as DCYF under Margaret Bishop:
12/1/11 http://www.wmur.com/health/29901243/detail.html
Report Deaths of 6 Disabled People in State Care Preventable
http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/ingbretson-bishop.letter.111115.html N.H. Redress of Grievance Committee wants answers from Director Maggie Bishop on these and others: (tried to cut through the horrigan rhetoric there are some real facts behind his derogatory comments about everyone but himself):
· Under what DCYF policy does it state an Assessment worker will investigate a report of abuse and neglect without evidence of a Toxicology report?
· Under what DCYF policy does it state slandering parents and family members is allowed to place a child in foster care?
· What DCYF policy grants immunity to DCYF workers who commit perjury?
· What DCYF policy gives DCYF the right to tell a parent if they don't agree with a recommendation, the caseworker will have the judge court order it?
A new Bill in the house HB 538 requires the Supreme Court to implement standards of practice and oversight of GALs. Guardian Ad Litems for children, a group of somewhat trained volunteers with NO OVERSIGHT AGENCY other than themselves at a cost of $100 to file a complaint.
Attorney Crusco http://www.nhfamilylawblog.com/articles/fees/ disagrees and while I have the utmost respect for this Attorney, I respectfully disagree. This bill would protect the most vulnerable in our society and does not duplicate oversight and discipline provided by the GAL Board. Because the Gal Board has no oversight or discipline and less training than the other volunteer GAL’s in Child Protected matters called CASA workers http://www.casanh.org/ . When you look at the board members it consists of conflicts of interest between the two agencies and discloses nothing to the public.
I am for accountability and the truth regarding the functions and operations of DHHS/DCYF - mirroring what Albert Einstein once said: “Anyone who doesn’t take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.” How many more family’s have to be needlessly torn apart and how many people have to die to get your attention?
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
Monday, December 5, 2011
NH State Rep. Horrigan's Take on DCYF Director Maggie Bishop and the Redress Grievance Committee
Rep. Paul Ingbretson's November 15, 2011 letter to DCYF Director Maggie Bishop:
Rep. Paul Ingbretson's November 15, 2011 letter to DCYF Director Maggie Bishop
(and November 29, 2011 reply from Asst. AG Richard W. Head)
additional commentary from Timothy Horrigan; November 20 & 29 & December 2,. 2011
See Also:
PDF file of Rep. Ingbretson's letter
PDF file of Assistant AG Head's response
On November 15, 2011, House Redress Committee chair Rep. Paul Ingbretson sent the following letter to Maggie Bishop, director of the New Hampshire Division For Children, Youth and Families. The committee members received courtesy copies two or three days later, without an enclosure related to the "the questions surrounding just Petition 14."
November 15, 2011
Maggie Bishop, Director
Division For Children, Youth and Families (DCYF)
Department of Health and Human Services
129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301-3857
Dear Director Bishop:
The Redress of Grievances Committee respectfully requests that you or a thoroughly knowledgeable and authoritative representative from your Department meet with us on November 29, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 303 of the Legislative Office Building.
Following up on our Redress of Grievance duties we wish to discuss questions regarding the policies, protocols and rules of your Department that have arisen from the grievance hearings on Petitions 2 ,6, 8, and 14. We will not be inquiring into the specifics of any petition at this time, but simply wish to discuss the DCYF norms related to some of the situations alleged in these petitions. To give you an idea of what we are looking for l have enclosed a copy of the questions surrounding just Petition 14.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at (603) 989-3092 or by email: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com.
We are looking forward to meeting with you.
Respectfully,
Rep. Paul lngbretson, Chairman
See also:
PDF file of Ingbretson's letter
The November 29, 2011 session wasn't noticed as a meeting with the DCYF in the November 21 House Calendar. It was listed as just a regular work session:
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 303, LOB
10:00 a.m. Full committee work session on PETITION 2, for redress of grievance on behalf of Elena Katz, Arnold Goodman, and their Daughter, PETITION 6, redress of grievance of Candy Knightly, PETITION 8, redress of grievance of Greg and Sarah Clarkson, PETITION 14, Petition on behalf of Jeanette Dionne.
Work sessions are usually intended precisely to do what Chair Ingbretson says won't be happening on November 29: i.e., they are a time set aside for the committee members to inquire into the specifics behind bills (or in this case, petitions.)
I was baffled by the emphasis on Petition 14, which is the Jeannette Dionne petition. The DCYF was only tangentially involved in that one. It turned out that Ingbretson mixed up the Dionne petition with the Knightly petition (#6.) Candy Knightly's mother Dot Knightly brought in a list of 73 rather accusatory questions for the DCYF, which a subcommittee whittled down to a few dozen less accusatory (and less Knightly-specific) questions. Here are a few typical questions from the original list:
Under what DCYF policy does it state an Assessment worker will investigate a report of abuse and neglect without evidence of a Toxicology report?
Under what DCYF policy does it state slandering parents and family members is allowed to place a child in foster care?
What DCYF policy grants immunity to DCYF workers who commit perjury?
What DCYF policy gives DCYF the right to tell a parent if they don't agree with a recommendation, the caseworker will have the judge court order it?
(The only reason I am not quoting from the revised list is because I have not been given a copy.)
The November 29 hearing came and went without a visit from Maggie Bishop, or from any other thoroughly knowledgeable and authoritative representative from her Department.
Jeanette Dionne did show up and accused me (or some other state representative) of being a cyber-bully, but that was just a minor ruckus at the end of the meeting. Actually, for whatever reason, she did not single me (or whoever it was) out by name, but I have posted some materials from the public record on my web site and I have expressed some of my opinions about the case. I make no apologies for doing so— even though I am not a person who is afraid to apologize when I do something wrong, and even though I did revise some of my 2011 Petition web pages not long after the hearing.
Be that as it may, we did get the following letter from the Attorney General's Office, basically telling us that no representative from DCYF would ever show up, at least not to discuss any specifics:
November 28, 2011
Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Chairman
House Committee on Redress of Grievances
State of New Hampshire House of Representatives
33 N. State St., LOB Room 104
Concord, NH 03301
Re: Request for Information re Policies, Protocols and Rules
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter requesting that Director Bishop appear before the Committee on Redress of Grievances to provide information regarding the policies, protocols and rules of the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to some of the situations alleged in Petitions 2 ,6, 8, and 14, which are pending before the Committee.
The allegations contained in each of the petitions apparently relate to specific abuse and neglect cases. The facts and circumstances of each abuse and neglect proceeding are unique to those cases. It is evident that the questions for DCYF enclosed with your letter require responses that specifically relate to the facts and circumstances of specific cases. State law prohibits DCYF from disclosing any information contained in any records related to abuse and neglect investigations and court proceedings. See RSA 169-C:25 and 170-G:8-a. Because of the prohibition, neither Director Bishop nor any other employee of the Department may provide answers to the types of questions that will be posed by Committee members. Consequently, a representative of DCYF will not be meeting with the Committee on November 29, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Earlier this year, the Committee was provided with an overview of the Child Protection Act process. Please let me know if there are other generally applicable printed materials that I may provide to the Committee.
Richard W. Head
Associate Attorney General
603-271-1221
Rep. Paul Ingbretson's November 15, 2011 letter to DCYF Director Maggie Bishop
(and November 29, 2011 reply from Asst. AG Richard W. Head)
additional commentary from Timothy Horrigan; November 20 & 29 & December 2,. 2011
See Also:
PDF file of Rep. Ingbretson's letter
PDF file of Assistant AG Head's response
On November 15, 2011, House Redress Committee chair Rep. Paul Ingbretson sent the following letter to Maggie Bishop, director of the New Hampshire Division For Children, Youth and Families. The committee members received courtesy copies two or three days later, without an enclosure related to the "the questions surrounding just Petition 14."
November 15, 2011
Maggie Bishop, Director
Division For Children, Youth and Families (DCYF)
Department of Health and Human Services
129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301-3857
Dear Director Bishop:
The Redress of Grievances Committee respectfully requests that you or a thoroughly knowledgeable and authoritative representative from your Department meet with us on November 29, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 303 of the Legislative Office Building.
Following up on our Redress of Grievance duties we wish to discuss questions regarding the policies, protocols and rules of your Department that have arisen from the grievance hearings on Petitions 2 ,6, 8, and 14. We will not be inquiring into the specifics of any petition at this time, but simply wish to discuss the DCYF norms related to some of the situations alleged in these petitions. To give you an idea of what we are looking for l have enclosed a copy of the questions surrounding just Petition 14.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at (603) 989-3092 or by email: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com.
We are looking forward to meeting with you.
Respectfully,
Rep. Paul lngbretson, Chairman
See also:
PDF file of Ingbretson's letter
The November 29, 2011 session wasn't noticed as a meeting with the DCYF in the November 21 House Calendar. It was listed as just a regular work session:
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 303, LOB
10:00 a.m. Full committee work session on PETITION 2, for redress of grievance on behalf of Elena Katz, Arnold Goodman, and their Daughter, PETITION 6, redress of grievance of Candy Knightly, PETITION 8, redress of grievance of Greg and Sarah Clarkson, PETITION 14, Petition on behalf of Jeanette Dionne.
Work sessions are usually intended precisely to do what Chair Ingbretson says won't be happening on November 29: i.e., they are a time set aside for the committee members to inquire into the specifics behind bills (or in this case, petitions.)
I was baffled by the emphasis on Petition 14, which is the Jeannette Dionne petition. The DCYF was only tangentially involved in that one. It turned out that Ingbretson mixed up the Dionne petition with the Knightly petition (#6.) Candy Knightly's mother Dot Knightly brought in a list of 73 rather accusatory questions for the DCYF, which a subcommittee whittled down to a few dozen less accusatory (and less Knightly-specific) questions. Here are a few typical questions from the original list:
Under what DCYF policy does it state an Assessment worker will investigate a report of abuse and neglect without evidence of a Toxicology report?
Under what DCYF policy does it state slandering parents and family members is allowed to place a child in foster care?
What DCYF policy grants immunity to DCYF workers who commit perjury?
What DCYF policy gives DCYF the right to tell a parent if they don't agree with a recommendation, the caseworker will have the judge court order it?
(The only reason I am not quoting from the revised list is because I have not been given a copy.)
The November 29 hearing came and went without a visit from Maggie Bishop, or from any other thoroughly knowledgeable and authoritative representative from her Department.
Jeanette Dionne did show up and accused me (or some other state representative) of being a cyber-bully, but that was just a minor ruckus at the end of the meeting. Actually, for whatever reason, she did not single me (or whoever it was) out by name, but I have posted some materials from the public record on my web site and I have expressed some of my opinions about the case. I make no apologies for doing so— even though I am not a person who is afraid to apologize when I do something wrong, and even though I did revise some of my 2011 Petition web pages not long after the hearing.
Be that as it may, we did get the following letter from the Attorney General's Office, basically telling us that no representative from DCYF would ever show up, at least not to discuss any specifics:
November 28, 2011
Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Chairman
House Committee on Redress of Grievances
State of New Hampshire House of Representatives
33 N. State St., LOB Room 104
Concord, NH 03301
Re: Request for Information re Policies, Protocols and Rules
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter requesting that Director Bishop appear before the Committee on Redress of Grievances to provide information regarding the policies, protocols and rules of the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to some of the situations alleged in Petitions 2 ,6, 8, and 14, which are pending before the Committee.
The allegations contained in each of the petitions apparently relate to specific abuse and neglect cases. The facts and circumstances of each abuse and neglect proceeding are unique to those cases. It is evident that the questions for DCYF enclosed with your letter require responses that specifically relate to the facts and circumstances of specific cases. State law prohibits DCYF from disclosing any information contained in any records related to abuse and neglect investigations and court proceedings. See RSA 169-C:25 and 170-G:8-a. Because of the prohibition, neither Director Bishop nor any other employee of the Department may provide answers to the types of questions that will be posed by Committee members. Consequently, a representative of DCYF will not be meeting with the Committee on November 29, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Earlier this year, the Committee was provided with an overview of the Child Protection Act process. Please let me know if there are other generally applicable printed materials that I may provide to the Committee.
Richard W. Head
Associate Attorney General
603-271-1221
Child abuse charge against New Durham woman dismissed
Child abuse charge against New Durham woman dismissed | New Hampshire NEWS03:
DOVER — A judge has dismissed the most serious charge against a New Durham woman accused in a severe case of child abuse allegedly perpetrated by her and her mother, in which authorities claim a young boy was starved and forced into frosty winter waters.
DOVER — A judge has dismissed the most serious charge against a New Durham woman accused in a severe case of child abuse allegedly perpetrated by her and her mother, in which authorities claim a young boy was starved and forced into frosty winter waters.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Blind spots: Scandals at Texas agency facilities brought reforms, but state hospitals didn't follow lead
Blind spots: Scandals at Texas agency facilities brought reforms, but state hospitals didn't follow lead:
In 2007, stunned by revelations of ongoing sexual abuse of young state wards by the adults charged with caring for them, legislators passed a series of laws that reformed how the Texas Youth Commission kept its teenage offenders safe. The changes included simple adjustments considered best practices in lockups for years: increased use of security cameras to capture and record incidents, independent monitors to field complaints and a separate investigative team to pursue allegations of abuse.
In 2007, stunned by revelations of ongoing sexual abuse of young state wards by the adults charged with caring for them, legislators passed a series of laws that reformed how the Texas Youth Commission kept its teenage offenders safe. The changes included simple adjustments considered best practices in lockups for years: increased use of security cameras to capture and record incidents, independent monitors to field complaints and a separate investigative team to pursue allegations of abuse.
Georgia Keeps Kids Languishing in Foster Care Because Their Parents Are Undocumented
Georgia Keeps Kids Languishing in Foster Care Because Their Parents Are Undocumented | Immigration | AlterNet:
A custody fight in Georgia illustrates the biases of a foster care system that subverts the parental rights of undocumented and non-English speaking parents.
A custody fight in Georgia illustrates the biases of a foster care system that subverts the parental rights of undocumented and non-English speaking parents.
Kids For Cash Judge Gets 28 Year Prison Sentence
Good! Now let's throw a few more corrupt Judges in jail!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)