Abusive mothers improve parenting after in-home training, emotional support of therapists
by BJS on JULY 27, 2010
Mothers who live in poverty and who have abused their children can stop if they are taught parenting skills and given emotional support.
A new study has found that mothers in families in which there is a history of child abuse and neglect were able to reduce how much they cursed at, yelled at, slapped, spanked, hit or rejected their children after a series of home visits from therapists who taught them parenting skills.
There were large improvements in mothers’ parenting in the families that received the intensive services, compared to families that did not receive the services, according to SMU psychologists Ernest Jouriles and Renee McDonald at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
As a result of the intensive, hands-on training, the women in the study said they felt they did a better job managing their children’s behavior, said Jouriles and McDonald, two of the study’s eight authors. The mothers also were observed to use better parenting strategies, and the families were less likely to be reported again for child abuse.
“Although there are many types of services for addressing child maltreatment, there is very little scientific data about whether the services actually work,” said McDonald. “This study adds to our scientific knowledge and shows that this type of service can actually work.”
Help for violent families
The parenting training is part of a program called Project Support, developed at the Family Research Center at SMU and designed to help children in severely violent families.
The study appears in the current issue of the quarterly Journal of Family Psychology. The article is titled “Improving Parenting in Families Referred for Child Maltreatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining Effects of Project Support.” SMU psychologist David Rosenfield also authored the study. For a link to the article abstract and related information see www.smuresearch.com.
The research was funded by the federal Interagency Consortium on Violence Against Women and Violence Within the Family, along with the Texas-based Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
“Child maltreatment is such an important and costly problem in our society that it seems imperative to make sure that our efforts — and the tax dollars that pay for them — are actually solving the problem,” said Jouriles. He and McDonald are co-founders and co-directors of the SMU Family Research Center.
In 2007, U.S. child welfare agencies received more than 3 million reports of child abuse and neglect, totaling almost 6 million children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Poor and single with children
The study worked with 35 families screened through the Texas child welfare agency Child Protective Services, CPS. The parents had abused or neglected their children at least once, but CPS determined it best the family stay together and receive services to improve parenting and end the maltreatment.
In all the families, the mother was legal guardian and primary caregiver and typically had three children. On average she was 28, single and had an annual income of $10,300. Children in the study ranged from 3 to 8 years old.
Half the families in the study received Project Support parenting education and support. The other half received CPS’s conventional services.
New parenting skills + help
Mental health service providers met with the 17 Project Support families weekly in their homes for up to 6 months. During that time, mothers, and often their husbands or partners, were taught 12 specific skills, including how to pay attention and play with their children, how to listen and comfort them, how to offer praise and positive attention, how to give appropriate instructions and commands, and how to respond to misbehavior.
Also, therapists provided the mothers with emotional support and helped them access materials and resources through community agencies as needed, such as food banks and Medicaid. The therapists also helped mothers evaluate the adequacy and safety of the family’s living arrangements, the quality of their child-care arrangements and how to provide enough food with so little money.
Services provided to families receiving traditional child welfare services varied widely. The range of services included parenting classes at a church or agency, family therapy or individual counseling, videotaped parenting instruction, anger-management help, GED classes and contact by social workers in person or by phone.
Fewer recurrences of abuse
Only 5.9 percent of the families trained through Project Support were later referred to CPS for abuse, compared with almost 28 percent of the control group, the researchers found.
“The results of this study have important implications for the field of child maltreatment,” said SMU psychologist David Rosenfield, who also authored the study.
Project Support was launched in 1996 to address the mental health problems of maltreated children and children exposed to domestic violence, both of which often lead to considerable problems for children later in life, such as substance abuse, interpersonal violence and criminal activity. Previous studies have shown the program can improve children’s psychological adjustment as well as mothers’ ability to parent their children appropriately and effectively, according to the researchers.
Project Support: A promising practice
With funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Project Support has been included in a study evaluating 15 “promising practices” nationally for helping children who live in violent families.
Jouriles is professor and chairman of the SMU Department of Psychology. McDonald and Rosenfield are associate professors.
Other researchers were William Norwood, University of Houston; Laura Spiller, Midwestern State University; Nanette Stephens, University of Texas; Deborah Corbitt-Shindler, SMU; and Miriam Ehrensaft, City University of New York.
SMU is a private university in Dallas where nearly 11,000 students benefit from the national opportunities and international reach of SMU’s seven degree-granting schools.
Related posts:
Mothers with mental illness benefit from extended family support
Nurses are assessing mothers with mental health issues despite lack of guidance and formal training
Supportive co-parenting may reduce some child behavior problems
U of I study: When a violent marriage ends, is co-parenting possible?
Center-based care and insensitive parenting may have lasting effects
http://scienceblog.com/36948/abusive-mothers-improve-parenting-after-in-home-training-emotional-support-of-therapists/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+scienceblogrssfeed+(Science+Blog)
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, July 27, 2010
Fixing a flawed system
Fixing a flawed system
Child welfare cases deserve teamwork from Clark County professionals
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
Among the toughest decisions facing Clark County social workers is determining when it is appropriate to remove children from their households based on allegations of abuse or neglect. Many times, it takes nothing more than common sense to conclude that an abused child with obvious physical or emotional scars should be removed immediately from a dangerous home environment and placed in the child welfare system. On the other extreme are situations where all it takes is parental instruction on basic tasks such as housekeeping or knowing how to balance a checkbook to justify keeping children in their homes.
The fact remains that child welfare in Clark County, as it is in many other locales throughout the country, is an imperfect system that is difficult to fix.
That’s because determining the best interests of the child is an extremely complex, emotionally charged process that involves the delicate fabric of a troubled family, along with legal, financial and medical issues.
The latest evidence of this, as reported Sunday by the Las Vegas Sun’s Joe Schoenmann, is the fact that Clark County Manager Virginia Valentine is reviewing 82 cases in which the district attorney’s office says that the county’s Family Services Department would have returned children to dangerous homes or would not have had them removed quickly had the DA not intervened. These cases have led to finger-pointing among the district attorney’s office, Metro Police and Family Services.
Where children are concerned, it is time for these parochial battles to end once and for all.
In its place, we urge Family Services and law enforcement agencies to work together on a comprehensive strategy with a singular goal — doing what is best for the child. A county senior management analyst said related discussions have been planned, but we believe everything should be on the table, even if it takes reconstructing the child welfare system from scratch.
Start with basics such as a definition of child abuse or neglect. Take a close look at social worker training and caseloads. Don’t settle for a well-trained caseworker with an unduly heavy case-load or an ill-trained worker with an average load. Both scenarios can produce wrongheaded snap judgments that are not good for the child. Superior training and reasonable caseloads should be the reality, not some fantasy.
Work on better communication between Family Services and law enforcement to provide the team effort children deserve. Make sure children are adequately represented in court, whether that means participation from the district attorney’s office or use of pro bono private attorneys or another legal avenue that is fair to all parties involved.
To keep as many children in their homes as possible, the county should ensure that there is enough counseling and other resources available to help well-meaning but troubled parents regain the footing they need to rear their children in a safe, nurturing environment.
On behalf of children who must be removed from their homes and placed elsewhere on a long-term basis, conduct a thorough review of the foster care system. Make sure foster parents are both properly screened and adequately paid for the services they provide. Do as much as possible to keep siblings together.
Do all of these things and we may one day have a child welfare system that is rid of scandal and finger-pointing. The children who are involved in abuse and neglect cases have already had a rough go. They deserve nothing less than full cooperation and teamwork from the professionals who control their destiny.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/27/fixing-flawed-system/
Child welfare cases deserve teamwork from Clark County professionals
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
Among the toughest decisions facing Clark County social workers is determining when it is appropriate to remove children from their households based on allegations of abuse or neglect. Many times, it takes nothing more than common sense to conclude that an abused child with obvious physical or emotional scars should be removed immediately from a dangerous home environment and placed in the child welfare system. On the other extreme are situations where all it takes is parental instruction on basic tasks such as housekeeping or knowing how to balance a checkbook to justify keeping children in their homes.
The fact remains that child welfare in Clark County, as it is in many other locales throughout the country, is an imperfect system that is difficult to fix.
That’s because determining the best interests of the child is an extremely complex, emotionally charged process that involves the delicate fabric of a troubled family, along with legal, financial and medical issues.
The latest evidence of this, as reported Sunday by the Las Vegas Sun’s Joe Schoenmann, is the fact that Clark County Manager Virginia Valentine is reviewing 82 cases in which the district attorney’s office says that the county’s Family Services Department would have returned children to dangerous homes or would not have had them removed quickly had the DA not intervened. These cases have led to finger-pointing among the district attorney’s office, Metro Police and Family Services.
Where children are concerned, it is time for these parochial battles to end once and for all.
In its place, we urge Family Services and law enforcement agencies to work together on a comprehensive strategy with a singular goal — doing what is best for the child. A county senior management analyst said related discussions have been planned, but we believe everything should be on the table, even if it takes reconstructing the child welfare system from scratch.
Start with basics such as a definition of child abuse or neglect. Take a close look at social worker training and caseloads. Don’t settle for a well-trained caseworker with an unduly heavy case-load or an ill-trained worker with an average load. Both scenarios can produce wrongheaded snap judgments that are not good for the child. Superior training and reasonable caseloads should be the reality, not some fantasy.
Work on better communication between Family Services and law enforcement to provide the team effort children deserve. Make sure children are adequately represented in court, whether that means participation from the district attorney’s office or use of pro bono private attorneys or another legal avenue that is fair to all parties involved.
To keep as many children in their homes as possible, the county should ensure that there is enough counseling and other resources available to help well-meaning but troubled parents regain the footing they need to rear their children in a safe, nurturing environment.
On behalf of children who must be removed from their homes and placed elsewhere on a long-term basis, conduct a thorough review of the foster care system. Make sure foster parents are both properly screened and adequately paid for the services they provide. Do as much as possible to keep siblings together.
Do all of these things and we may one day have a child welfare system that is rid of scandal and finger-pointing. The children who are involved in abuse and neglect cases have already had a rough go. They deserve nothing less than full cooperation and teamwork from the professionals who control their destiny.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/27/fixing-flawed-system/
Foster Child Suffers Burns, Lawsuit Filed
Foster Child Suffers Burns, Lawsuit Filed
Posted: Jul 26, 2010 10:39 PM EDT
by Amanda Hara
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - An 11-year-old foster child suffered third degree burns over his entire body. Now his foster parents and the company that placed him in their care are at the center of a three million dollar lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that a stove fire caused the burns and that the foster parents kept the child suffering in agonizing pain for three hours, before eventually taking him to the hospital.
The painful burns across his body only added to a lifetime riddled with agony. It was 2007 and the then 11-year-old boy had already witnessed domestic violence at home, was then taken away from his family, only to suffer from behavioral issues and find himself in foster care.
His new guardians, Terry and Closhetta Shelton, were supposed to be his new beginning.
But when the boy was allowed to fry food on the stove unsupervised, things went wrong. The grease caught fire, and then the flames spread to his body.
A newly filed law suit claims that the boy's foster parents responded to the burns not with urgency, but neglect.
Attorney Gary Blackburn said the boy was left to suffer at home, then in the car as Mr. Shelton pumped gas, and dropped another foster child off at school. Three hours later, Blackburn said the burns were finally attended to at Vanderbilt.
Terry and Closhetta Shelton are named in the suit, including Omni Visions, the company contracted by the Department of Children's Services to place children in foster care.
In all, the suit asks for three million in damages, not just to help with the boys lifelong disability fund, but also to send a message to companies like Omni Vision, that there are consequences.
The attorney said the boy is still in foster care, but that plans are in the works to reunite him with his mother within the next few months.
NewsChannel 5 tried getting in touch with Omni Vision, but their offices had closed before the suit was made available. We were also unable to reach the foster parents, Terry and Closhetta Shelton.
Jim Henry owns Omni Visions, the company named in the suit that places children in foster care and works with developmentally disabled children.
Henry's own child suffers from a disability. In 2002, he ran for Governor on the Republican ticket and in the 1980's he served in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
Email: ahara@newschannel5.com
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12873703
Posted: Jul 26, 2010 10:39 PM EDT
by Amanda Hara
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - An 11-year-old foster child suffered third degree burns over his entire body. Now his foster parents and the company that placed him in their care are at the center of a three million dollar lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that a stove fire caused the burns and that the foster parents kept the child suffering in agonizing pain for three hours, before eventually taking him to the hospital.
The painful burns across his body only added to a lifetime riddled with agony. It was 2007 and the then 11-year-old boy had already witnessed domestic violence at home, was then taken away from his family, only to suffer from behavioral issues and find himself in foster care.
His new guardians, Terry and Closhetta Shelton, were supposed to be his new beginning.
But when the boy was allowed to fry food on the stove unsupervised, things went wrong. The grease caught fire, and then the flames spread to his body.
A newly filed law suit claims that the boy's foster parents responded to the burns not with urgency, but neglect.
Attorney Gary Blackburn said the boy was left to suffer at home, then in the car as Mr. Shelton pumped gas, and dropped another foster child off at school. Three hours later, Blackburn said the burns were finally attended to at Vanderbilt.
Terry and Closhetta Shelton are named in the suit, including Omni Visions, the company contracted by the Department of Children's Services to place children in foster care.
In all, the suit asks for three million in damages, not just to help with the boys lifelong disability fund, but also to send a message to companies like Omni Vision, that there are consequences.
The attorney said the boy is still in foster care, but that plans are in the works to reunite him with his mother within the next few months.
NewsChannel 5 tried getting in touch with Omni Vision, but their offices had closed before the suit was made available. We were also unable to reach the foster parents, Terry and Closhetta Shelton.
Jim Henry owns Omni Visions, the company named in the suit that places children in foster care and works with developmentally disabled children.
Henry's own child suffers from a disability. In 2002, he ran for Governor on the Republican ticket and in the 1980's he served in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
Email: ahara@newschannel5.com
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12873703
Our foster-care system fails kids and the city
Daniel Leddy on Law > Dan Leddy
Our foster-care system fails kids and the city
Published: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 6:10 AM
Daniel Leddy
Cover your backside! It’s standard operating procedure for Family Court judges who want to stay in the good graces of the powers that be, the institutional honchos and other bigwigs who flex their muscles at reappointment time to make or break judicial careers.
It’s also an unconscionable betrayal of the public trust, particularly for defenseless children who bear the brunt of judicial cowardice.
In last Monday’s Advance, reporter and columnist Jeff Harrell commented on the tragic case of Patrick Alford, the 8-year-old West Brighton boy who disappeared from a Brooklyn foster home on Jan. 22.
The placement followed the arrest of his mother on a shoplifting charge, and the ensuing conclusion by the Administration for Children’s Services that she had neglected the youngster. Poignant and hard-hitting, Harrell’s piece asserted that “most adults who work off the public for the so-called good of the child could screw up a glass of water.”
Cumulatively, I served more than three years as the sole judge of the Foster Care Review Term, a citywide forum charged with reviewing the status of children voluntarily placed in foster care. Calendars typically averaged over 100 cases a day. During the remainder of my judicial career, I presided over countless child abuse and neglect cases, many of which resulted in judicially ordered foster care placements.
Not being privy to the Family Court proceedings involving Patrick, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of his foster-care placement. I do, however, second Jeff Harrell’s blunt assessment of the system.
My first day in Foster Care Review brought me face to face with what accommodating judges had allowed agencies to get away with. In the very first case, the caseworker told me why she wanted the child, an 8-year-old boy, to remain in foster care.
When I asked if the youngster was in court, she replied that agencies didn’t bring children to review proceedings. Her oral report, sans the case file, was all that any other judge had ever required, she insisted.
Thus I began the arduous task of putting an end to that imbedded nonsense. An 8-year-old child was perfectly capable of telling me how things were really going in his foster home, I told her, and I wanted to hear from him. And when she returned with the child, I also wanted to see her file — all of it. I handled case after case that day the same way.
ABSENT CASEWORKERS
When there were over 40 court files left and no more caseworkers, I encountered shocking reality number two: Caseworkers only showed up in court when they felt like it. So I started keeping a diary, noting the agencies that failed to appear and the docket numbers of the kids they had left hanging.
And I warned the agencies that failure to appear without a very good excuse would henceforth be dealt with as contempt of court. Slowly, the word got out that I meant business.
A month or so later, I ran into an acquaintance who told me that her sister, an agency caseworker, had appeared in my court.
“She doesn’t think very much of you” he said.
“That’s fine,” I replied. “But she’s going to do things my way.”
There are specific time frames in which children must be brought to court for foster-care proceedings. Do you know how many cases were actually brought on time? Virtually none. Do you know how many were late by several months? Most.
One Staten Island kid was in foster care for an incredible seven years and had never had his case reviewed by a judge, a truly shocking violation of law.
Ultimately, however, judges were the real culprits for having allowed the court to be reduced to the status of a rubber stamp for whatever the agencies wanted. Abdicating their judicial responsibility to children, they worried more about offending agencies, including the city’s child protective service, the umbrella agency. That, of course, is the mayor’s agency, the same mayor who makes Family Court appointments and reappointments.
Family Court judges cover their backsides other ways too. Juvenile delinquency proceedings? Convict the kid. Neglect or abuse cases? Put the child in foster care.
If he’s harmed there, the city is a convenient scapegoat. Agencies’ disregard for judicial orders? Let them slide. Children languishing in foster care pose no threat; lawyers representing these agencies, including the mayor’s own attorneys, can sabotage a judge’s reappointment.
Sure there were some phenomenally good caseworkers. The only problem was that they get so burned out by the malaise around them that they rarely lasted very long. And there were some courageous Family Court judges too, exemplary jurists who never forgot that every foster care file represented a young life in crisis. Those were the judges with bulls eyes on their backs.
So, could many, if not most adults who work off the public for the so-called good of the child really screw up a glass of water? Yeah, that’s about right. Ironically, that’s also how they keep their jobs.
[Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page.
His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.]
http://www.silive.com/opinion/danielleddy/index.ssf/2010/07/our_foster-care_system_fails_k.html
Our foster-care system fails kids and the city
Published: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 6:10 AM
Daniel Leddy
Cover your backside! It’s standard operating procedure for Family Court judges who want to stay in the good graces of the powers that be, the institutional honchos and other bigwigs who flex their muscles at reappointment time to make or break judicial careers.
It’s also an unconscionable betrayal of the public trust, particularly for defenseless children who bear the brunt of judicial cowardice.
In last Monday’s Advance, reporter and columnist Jeff Harrell commented on the tragic case of Patrick Alford, the 8-year-old West Brighton boy who disappeared from a Brooklyn foster home on Jan. 22.
The placement followed the arrest of his mother on a shoplifting charge, and the ensuing conclusion by the Administration for Children’s Services that she had neglected the youngster. Poignant and hard-hitting, Harrell’s piece asserted that “most adults who work off the public for the so-called good of the child could screw up a glass of water.”
Cumulatively, I served more than three years as the sole judge of the Foster Care Review Term, a citywide forum charged with reviewing the status of children voluntarily placed in foster care. Calendars typically averaged over 100 cases a day. During the remainder of my judicial career, I presided over countless child abuse and neglect cases, many of which resulted in judicially ordered foster care placements.
Not being privy to the Family Court proceedings involving Patrick, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of his foster-care placement. I do, however, second Jeff Harrell’s blunt assessment of the system.
My first day in Foster Care Review brought me face to face with what accommodating judges had allowed agencies to get away with. In the very first case, the caseworker told me why she wanted the child, an 8-year-old boy, to remain in foster care.
When I asked if the youngster was in court, she replied that agencies didn’t bring children to review proceedings. Her oral report, sans the case file, was all that any other judge had ever required, she insisted.
Thus I began the arduous task of putting an end to that imbedded nonsense. An 8-year-old child was perfectly capable of telling me how things were really going in his foster home, I told her, and I wanted to hear from him. And when she returned with the child, I also wanted to see her file — all of it. I handled case after case that day the same way.
ABSENT CASEWORKERS
When there were over 40 court files left and no more caseworkers, I encountered shocking reality number two: Caseworkers only showed up in court when they felt like it. So I started keeping a diary, noting the agencies that failed to appear and the docket numbers of the kids they had left hanging.
And I warned the agencies that failure to appear without a very good excuse would henceforth be dealt with as contempt of court. Slowly, the word got out that I meant business.
A month or so later, I ran into an acquaintance who told me that her sister, an agency caseworker, had appeared in my court.
“She doesn’t think very much of you” he said.
“That’s fine,” I replied. “But she’s going to do things my way.”
There are specific time frames in which children must be brought to court for foster-care proceedings. Do you know how many cases were actually brought on time? Virtually none. Do you know how many were late by several months? Most.
One Staten Island kid was in foster care for an incredible seven years and had never had his case reviewed by a judge, a truly shocking violation of law.
Ultimately, however, judges were the real culprits for having allowed the court to be reduced to the status of a rubber stamp for whatever the agencies wanted. Abdicating their judicial responsibility to children, they worried more about offending agencies, including the city’s child protective service, the umbrella agency. That, of course, is the mayor’s agency, the same mayor who makes Family Court appointments and reappointments.
Family Court judges cover their backsides other ways too. Juvenile delinquency proceedings? Convict the kid. Neglect or abuse cases? Put the child in foster care.
If he’s harmed there, the city is a convenient scapegoat. Agencies’ disregard for judicial orders? Let them slide. Children languishing in foster care pose no threat; lawyers representing these agencies, including the mayor’s own attorneys, can sabotage a judge’s reappointment.
Sure there were some phenomenally good caseworkers. The only problem was that they get so burned out by the malaise around them that they rarely lasted very long. And there were some courageous Family Court judges too, exemplary jurists who never forgot that every foster care file represented a young life in crisis. Those were the judges with bulls eyes on their backs.
So, could many, if not most adults who work off the public for the so-called good of the child really screw up a glass of water? Yeah, that’s about right. Ironically, that’s also how they keep their jobs.
[Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page.
His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.]
http://www.silive.com/opinion/danielleddy/index.ssf/2010/07/our_foster-care_system_fails_k.html
Families rally in Washington DC on Parents Day
Families rally in Washington DC on Parents Day
July 27, 4:19 AMFamily Rights ExaminerTeri Stoddard
families 4 justice at fathers 4 justice parental justice march - leisha
Related Articles
Fathers speak out on Fatherless Day 2010
International Parental Alienation Awareness Day
Parents and family preservation advocates gathered in Washington DC this Parents Day weekend to bring attention to what they say is the immediate need for family law and CPS reform. (See slide show below.) Complaints about CPS have increased by 300% in some areas the last few years.
National Parents Day (the 4th Sunday of July) isn't a widely recognized holiday. "Did anyone, anywhere see anything in the news, radio, tv, etc about Sunday being Parents Day?" asks NY parent Jack Frost, "If you are a government official or reporter why was it not mentioned?"
Frost, a noncustodial parent, protested outside his son's pediatrician's office in June of this year to have his rights respected about his son's DNR order. "Kudos to Assemblyman Tony Jordan's staff for getting back to me regarding recognizing Parents Day," said Frost, "they were the only ones that actually did."
Families 4 Justice and TKJP Music Fest each held outdoor rallies. Families 4 Justice also provided indoor workshops and Fathers 4 Justice had their annual Parental Justice March. "Children lead Sunday's Fathers 4 Justice Parental Justice March," said Leisha Tringali, with Families 4 Justice. "It was a good event," said Robert Dickerson, Fathers 4 Justice member, "there were some great speakers, and the workshops were helpful."
Subscribe to my articles.
Teri Stoddard is a nature loving, 50-something San Francisco Bay Area native, mom of four and grandma to two. After a career in foster and child day care, Teri continues her child advocacy by reporting on family rights and issues affecting San Francisco Bay Area families.
For more info:
Families 4 Justice DC Rally for Family Rights
Fathers 4 Justice
2010 Parents Day in DC
View Slideshow »
More About: cps · child custody · family rights · parents rights · events · peaceful protest · fathers 4 justice · Families 4 Justice · Washington DC · Parents Day · DC Rally for family Rights
http://www.examiner.com/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Families-rally-in-Washington-DC-on-Parents-Day
July 27, 4:19 AMFamily Rights ExaminerTeri Stoddard
families 4 justice at fathers 4 justice parental justice march - leisha
Related Articles
Fathers speak out on Fatherless Day 2010
International Parental Alienation Awareness Day
Parents and family preservation advocates gathered in Washington DC this Parents Day weekend to bring attention to what they say is the immediate need for family law and CPS reform. (See slide show below.) Complaints about CPS have increased by 300% in some areas the last few years.
National Parents Day (the 4th Sunday of July) isn't a widely recognized holiday. "Did anyone, anywhere see anything in the news, radio, tv, etc about Sunday being Parents Day?" asks NY parent Jack Frost, "If you are a government official or reporter why was it not mentioned?"
Frost, a noncustodial parent, protested outside his son's pediatrician's office in June of this year to have his rights respected about his son's DNR order. "Kudos to Assemblyman Tony Jordan's staff for getting back to me regarding recognizing Parents Day," said Frost, "they were the only ones that actually did."
Families 4 Justice and TKJP Music Fest each held outdoor rallies. Families 4 Justice also provided indoor workshops and Fathers 4 Justice had their annual Parental Justice March. "Children lead Sunday's Fathers 4 Justice Parental Justice March," said Leisha Tringali, with Families 4 Justice. "It was a good event," said Robert Dickerson, Fathers 4 Justice member, "there were some great speakers, and the workshops were helpful."
Subscribe to my articles.
Teri Stoddard is a nature loving, 50-something San Francisco Bay Area native, mom of four and grandma to two. After a career in foster and child day care, Teri continues her child advocacy by reporting on family rights and issues affecting San Francisco Bay Area families.
For more info:
Families 4 Justice DC Rally for Family Rights
Fathers 4 Justice
2010 Parents Day in DC
View Slideshow »
More About: cps · child custody · family rights · parents rights · events · peaceful protest · fathers 4 justice · Families 4 Justice · Washington DC · Parents Day · DC Rally for family Rights
http://www.examiner.com/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Families-rally-in-Washington-DC-on-Parents-Day
Monday, July 26, 2010
PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth Model Medicaid Fraud Complaint-Qui Tam Lawsuit
Please go to the web-site at the bottom of this post and file your complaint's!
PsychRights®
Law Project for
Psychiatric Rights
PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth
Model Medicaid Fraud Complaint
Summary
Analysis
Medicaid
False Claims Act
Model Qui Tam Complaint
Links
Utah Attorney General Correspondence
Current Cases
Current Cases
United States ex rel Law Project for Psychiatric Rights v. Matsutani, et al.
United States ex rel Griffin v. Martino, Family Centered Services & Safeway
Summary
The massive psychiatric drugging of America's children, particularly poor, disadvantaged children & youth through Medicaid and in foster care is an unfolding public health catastrophe of massive proportions. This catastrophe is being caused by the fraudulent promotion of these harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies sacrificing children and youth's health, futures and lives on the altar of corporate profits. In 2009, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $1.4 Billion in criminal and civil penalties for such off-label promotion of Zyprexa and Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 Billion for the illegal off-label promotion of Geodon and other drugs. In May of 2010, Astra-Zeneca agreed to pay $520 million for the illegal off-label promotion of Seroquel for use in children. However, despite these large penalties by the drug companies, the practice has not stopped. It is merely a cost of doing business to these pharmaceutical Goliaths and, in fact, caps their liability for these crimes. Most importantly, these settlements have not stopped the practice of child psychiatrists and other prescribers giving these drugs to children and youth and Medicaid continuing to pay for these fraudulent claims.
PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth is designed to address this problem by having lawsuits brought against the doctors prescribing these harmful, ineffective drugs, their employers, and the pharmacies filling these prescriptions and submitting them to Medicaid for reimbursement. Once one sues over specific offending prescriptions, all of such prescriptions can be brought in, which means that any psychiatrist on the losing end of such a lawsuit will almost certainly be bankrupted, because each offending prescription carries a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000. This is why it is expected that once this financial exposure becomes known to the prescribers they will quit the practice. Each prescriber may have a million dollars or few, at most, to lose, but the pharmacies' financial exposure can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and it is hoped this will attract attorneys to take these cases. Anyone with knowledge of specific offending prescriptions can sue on behalf of the government to recover for such Medicaid Fraud, and receive a percentage of the recovery, if any.
Of course, it can be expected that the defendants will vigorously contest everything, and there are no guarantees of success. However, PsychRights believes what is presented here is accurate. PsychRights has published a PowerPoint Presentation that goes through the requirements and identifies the major issues.
The Model Qui Tam Complaint PsychRights has put together is set up for former foster youth to sue the doctors who prescribed the drugs to them, their employers, and the pharmacy(ies) submitting the false claims, but it can be easily modified for anyone else to file such a complaint, such as parents, teachers, therapists, etc. PsychRights stands ready to to help people interested in bringing such suits and interested people can e-mail us, or call at (907) 274-7686, or write to 406 G Street, Suite 206, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Analysis
Medicaid
In 42 USC 1396R-8(k)(3), as relevant here, Congress prohibited reimbursement under Medicaid for any outpatient drugs "used for a medical indication which is not a medically accepted indication." 42 USC 1396R-8(k)(6) then defines "medically accepted indication" as follows:
The term “medically accepted indication” means any use for a covered outpatient drug which is approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.], or the use of which is supported by one or more citations included or approved for inclusion in any of the compendia described in subsection (g)(1)(B)(i) of this section.
42 USC 1396R-8(g)(1)(B)(i), in turn, designates the Compendia as:
(I) American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information;
(II) United States Pharmacopeia-Drug Information (or its successor publications); and
(III) the DRUGDEX Information System
An indication not approved by the FDA is often referred to as "off-label." Congress didn't prohibit reimbursement by Medicaid for all off-label prescriptions, but specifically limited reimbursement for off-label prescriptions to those that have sufficient scientific "support," as documented in one of the Compendia. A couple of illustrations: Geodon is not (yet) approved for any use in children and not supported by any citation in any of the Compendia. Thus, any Geodon prescriptions to children and youth submitted to Medicaid constitute fraud. Similarly, I have seen neuroleptics such as Abilify, Risperdal, Seroquel, & Zyprexa, prescribed for "Oppositional Defiant Disorder," and even for sleep. Such prescriptions are not for "medically accepted indications," and thus automatically constitute Medicaid Fraud.
There are a a lot of technical requirements that must be met, such as the lawsuit must be based on "non-public" information, which in this case is satisfied by having knowledge of offending prescriptions and the cases must initially be filed under seal (in secret).
False Claims Act
Under the False Claims Act:
It is a False Claim to knowingly (A) present, or cause to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, or (B) make, use, or cause to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the Federal Government. 31 USC §3729(a)(1)
"Knowingly" is defined as (i) actual knowledge; (ii) deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity; or (iii) reckless disregard of the truth or falsity, and no proof of intent to defraud is required. 31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(1)(a)
Every Medicaid provider is presumed to know what Medicaid's billing and coverage policies require. Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 63-64 (1984).
Claims of ignorance are an untenable bases for the doctor's failure to live up to his duty to familiarize himself with the Medicaid requirements and observe his legal duty to submit truthful claims. United States v. Nazon, 940 F.2d 255, 259 (7th Cir. 1991).
"The applicant for public funds has a duty to read the regulations or be otherwise informed of the basic requirements of eligibility." Coop. Grain, 476 F.2d 47, 55-60.
Links
Video: Robert Whitaker, Psychotropic Drugs and Children, June 15, 2010.
PowerPoint Presentation: PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth.
Medically Accepted Indications Chart
CriticalThinkRx Curriculum
Report on Mental Health Services and Foster Care, by Facing Foster Care in Alaska.
PsychRights Launches Campaign Against Medicaid Fraud With Model Lawsuit, July 27, 2009.
Model Qui Tam Complaint
Microsoft Word Version
Massive Medicaid Fraud Exposed: PsychRights Calls on Members of Congress for Assistance, May 5, 2009.
Letter to Senator Charles Grassly
Letter to Senator Herb Kohl
Letter to Congressman Henry Waxman
Letter to Congressman Bart Stupak
Letter to Congressman John Dingell
Letter to Congressman Barney Frank
Utah Attorney General's Office Correspondence
October 22, 2007, letter from Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Medicaid)
December 6, 2007, response from Medicaid to Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard
December 17, 2007, follow-up letter from Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard to Medicaid
January 30, response from Medicaid to Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard
Last modified 7/11/2010
Copyright © 2009 -- 2010 Law Project for Psychiatric Rights. All Rights Reserved
http://psychrights.org/Education/ModelQuiTam/ModelQuiTam.htm
PsychRights®
Law Project for
Psychiatric Rights
PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth
Model Medicaid Fraud Complaint
Summary
Analysis
Medicaid
False Claims Act
Model Qui Tam Complaint
Links
Utah Attorney General Correspondence
Current Cases
Current Cases
United States ex rel Law Project for Psychiatric Rights v. Matsutani, et al.
United States ex rel Griffin v. Martino, Family Centered Services & Safeway
Summary
The massive psychiatric drugging of America's children, particularly poor, disadvantaged children & youth through Medicaid and in foster care is an unfolding public health catastrophe of massive proportions. This catastrophe is being caused by the fraudulent promotion of these harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies sacrificing children and youth's health, futures and lives on the altar of corporate profits. In 2009, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $1.4 Billion in criminal and civil penalties for such off-label promotion of Zyprexa and Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 Billion for the illegal off-label promotion of Geodon and other drugs. In May of 2010, Astra-Zeneca agreed to pay $520 million for the illegal off-label promotion of Seroquel for use in children. However, despite these large penalties by the drug companies, the practice has not stopped. It is merely a cost of doing business to these pharmaceutical Goliaths and, in fact, caps their liability for these crimes. Most importantly, these settlements have not stopped the practice of child psychiatrists and other prescribers giving these drugs to children and youth and Medicaid continuing to pay for these fraudulent claims.
PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth is designed to address this problem by having lawsuits brought against the doctors prescribing these harmful, ineffective drugs, their employers, and the pharmacies filling these prescriptions and submitting them to Medicaid for reimbursement. Once one sues over specific offending prescriptions, all of such prescriptions can be brought in, which means that any psychiatrist on the losing end of such a lawsuit will almost certainly be bankrupted, because each offending prescription carries a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000. This is why it is expected that once this financial exposure becomes known to the prescribers they will quit the practice. Each prescriber may have a million dollars or few, at most, to lose, but the pharmacies' financial exposure can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and it is hoped this will attract attorneys to take these cases. Anyone with knowledge of specific offending prescriptions can sue on behalf of the government to recover for such Medicaid Fraud, and receive a percentage of the recovery, if any.
Of course, it can be expected that the defendants will vigorously contest everything, and there are no guarantees of success. However, PsychRights believes what is presented here is accurate. PsychRights has published a PowerPoint Presentation that goes through the requirements and identifies the major issues.
The Model Qui Tam Complaint PsychRights has put together is set up for former foster youth to sue the doctors who prescribed the drugs to them, their employers, and the pharmacy(ies) submitting the false claims, but it can be easily modified for anyone else to file such a complaint, such as parents, teachers, therapists, etc. PsychRights stands ready to to help people interested in bringing such suits and interested people can e-mail us, or call at (907) 274-7686, or write to 406 G Street, Suite 206, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Analysis
Medicaid
In 42 USC 1396R-8(k)(3), as relevant here, Congress prohibited reimbursement under Medicaid for any outpatient drugs "used for a medical indication which is not a medically accepted indication." 42 USC 1396R-8(k)(6) then defines "medically accepted indication" as follows:
The term “medically accepted indication” means any use for a covered outpatient drug which is approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.], or the use of which is supported by one or more citations included or approved for inclusion in any of the compendia described in subsection (g)(1)(B)(i) of this section.
42 USC 1396R-8(g)(1)(B)(i), in turn, designates the Compendia as:
(I) American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information;
(II) United States Pharmacopeia-Drug Information (or its successor publications); and
(III) the DRUGDEX Information System
An indication not approved by the FDA is often referred to as "off-label." Congress didn't prohibit reimbursement by Medicaid for all off-label prescriptions, but specifically limited reimbursement for off-label prescriptions to those that have sufficient scientific "support," as documented in one of the Compendia. A couple of illustrations: Geodon is not (yet) approved for any use in children and not supported by any citation in any of the Compendia. Thus, any Geodon prescriptions to children and youth submitted to Medicaid constitute fraud. Similarly, I have seen neuroleptics such as Abilify, Risperdal, Seroquel, & Zyprexa, prescribed for "Oppositional Defiant Disorder," and even for sleep. Such prescriptions are not for "medically accepted indications," and thus automatically constitute Medicaid Fraud.
There are a a lot of technical requirements that must be met, such as the lawsuit must be based on "non-public" information, which in this case is satisfied by having knowledge of offending prescriptions and the cases must initially be filed under seal (in secret).
False Claims Act
Under the False Claims Act:
It is a False Claim to knowingly (A) present, or cause to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, or (B) make, use, or cause to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the Federal Government. 31 USC §3729(a)(1)
"Knowingly" is defined as (i) actual knowledge; (ii) deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity; or (iii) reckless disregard of the truth or falsity, and no proof of intent to defraud is required. 31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(1)(a)
Every Medicaid provider is presumed to know what Medicaid's billing and coverage policies require. Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 63-64 (1984).
Claims of ignorance are an untenable bases for the doctor's failure to live up to his duty to familiarize himself with the Medicaid requirements and observe his legal duty to submit truthful claims. United States v. Nazon, 940 F.2d 255, 259 (7th Cir. 1991).
"The applicant for public funds has a duty to read the regulations or be otherwise informed of the basic requirements of eligibility." Coop. Grain, 476 F.2d 47, 55-60.
Links
Video: Robert Whitaker, Psychotropic Drugs and Children, June 15, 2010.
PowerPoint Presentation: PsychRights' Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth.
Medically Accepted Indications Chart
CriticalThinkRx Curriculum
Report on Mental Health Services and Foster Care, by Facing Foster Care in Alaska.
PsychRights Launches Campaign Against Medicaid Fraud With Model Lawsuit, July 27, 2009.
Model Qui Tam Complaint
Microsoft Word Version
Massive Medicaid Fraud Exposed: PsychRights Calls on Members of Congress for Assistance, May 5, 2009.
Letter to Senator Charles Grassly
Letter to Senator Herb Kohl
Letter to Congressman Henry Waxman
Letter to Congressman Bart Stupak
Letter to Congressman John Dingell
Letter to Congressman Barney Frank
Utah Attorney General's Office Correspondence
October 22, 2007, letter from Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Medicaid)
December 6, 2007, response from Medicaid to Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard
December 17, 2007, follow-up letter from Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard to Medicaid
January 30, response from Medicaid to Utah Assistant Attorney General David Stallard
Last modified 7/11/2010
Copyright © 2009 -- 2010 Law Project for Psychiatric Rights. All Rights Reserved
http://psychrights.org/Education/ModelQuiTam/ModelQuiTam.htm
Foster carer caught on film attacking toddler-Don't you love how CPS protects our Children?
Foster carer caught on film attacking toddler
Mike Keegan
July 25, 2010
Glynis Liley was filmed attacking a toddler
A foster parent was caught on film kicking and force-feeding a toddler.
Glynis Liley was arrested after neighbours, appalled by her cruelty, set up a camcorder outside her home to catch her in the act.
They filmed her kicking the tot while it was on the floor and brutally force-feeding the child at her home in Heywood.
But despite pleading guilty to two charges of child cruelty, Liley was only handed a community sentence at Bolton Crown Court after a judge heard she was awaiting an operation and had been taking morphine and sleeping pills when she carried out the attacks.
The 48-year-old, who was working for Rochdale council at the time, was arrested after neighbours on Wilson Avenue showed police footage they had taken over two days through the house windows. Officers were so appalled at the clips that they went straight to Liley’s house to arrest her.
Gary Woodhall, prosecuting, said neighbour Damian Cosgrove decided to act after spotting Liley through the window hitting the child in the face with a mobile phone.
Mr Cosgrove said he also saw Liley make the child stand in one spot in the middle of the floor. When he returned to the street over an hour and a half later he noticed the child was still stood silently in the same spot, the court heard.
After Liley’s arrest, the child was examined by a doctor and found with bruising to its forehead, cheeks, knee and thigh and scratches on its neck – which indicated it had been ‘handled roughly’ said Mr Woodhall.
Liley repeatedly denied the offences, but changed her plea shortly before a trial was due to take place.
Katherine Pierpoint, defending, said Liley was ‘deeply ashamed’ of her behaviour.
Sentencing Liley, who had been a foster carer for 11 years, Judge Charles Bloom QC said: "This child was in desperate need of your warmth, your cherishing, your loving. You failed it. I accept that you are thoroughly ashamed of yourself and this was not sadism but impatience."
Liley will never be allowed to foster children again.
On her way out of court, Liley stopped to hurl abuse at Mr Cosgrove, 40, and his wife.
Det Con Alicia Smith, of Rochdale’s public protection unit, said: "Liley was in a position of trust, a position she clearly abused. Her rough and reckless approach to childcare was far too aggressive, and completely unacceptable"
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1305600_foster_carer_caught_on_film_attacking_toddler?rss=yes
Mike Keegan
July 25, 2010
Glynis Liley was filmed attacking a toddler
A foster parent was caught on film kicking and force-feeding a toddler.
Glynis Liley was arrested after neighbours, appalled by her cruelty, set up a camcorder outside her home to catch her in the act.
They filmed her kicking the tot while it was on the floor and brutally force-feeding the child at her home in Heywood.
But despite pleading guilty to two charges of child cruelty, Liley was only handed a community sentence at Bolton Crown Court after a judge heard she was awaiting an operation and had been taking morphine and sleeping pills when she carried out the attacks.
The 48-year-old, who was working for Rochdale council at the time, was arrested after neighbours on Wilson Avenue showed police footage they had taken over two days through the house windows. Officers were so appalled at the clips that they went straight to Liley’s house to arrest her.
Gary Woodhall, prosecuting, said neighbour Damian Cosgrove decided to act after spotting Liley through the window hitting the child in the face with a mobile phone.
Mr Cosgrove said he also saw Liley make the child stand in one spot in the middle of the floor. When he returned to the street over an hour and a half later he noticed the child was still stood silently in the same spot, the court heard.
After Liley’s arrest, the child was examined by a doctor and found with bruising to its forehead, cheeks, knee and thigh and scratches on its neck – which indicated it had been ‘handled roughly’ said Mr Woodhall.
Liley repeatedly denied the offences, but changed her plea shortly before a trial was due to take place.
Katherine Pierpoint, defending, said Liley was ‘deeply ashamed’ of her behaviour.
Sentencing Liley, who had been a foster carer for 11 years, Judge Charles Bloom QC said: "This child was in desperate need of your warmth, your cherishing, your loving. You failed it. I accept that you are thoroughly ashamed of yourself and this was not sadism but impatience."
Liley will never be allowed to foster children again.
On her way out of court, Liley stopped to hurl abuse at Mr Cosgrove, 40, and his wife.
Det Con Alicia Smith, of Rochdale’s public protection unit, said: "Liley was in a position of trust, a position she clearly abused. Her rough and reckless approach to childcare was far too aggressive, and completely unacceptable"
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1305600_foster_carer_caught_on_film_attacking_toddler?rss=yes
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)