I happens rarely, but sometimes we will find a government agency or official who actually looks into wrongdoing by child welfare agencies, and even tries to hold wrongdoers accountable.
I am reminded of a case in Ohio several years ago, where the mother was the victim of a false report of child abuse during a domestic relations custody dispute. Dad turned her in in order to resolve the custody dispute in his favor. Dad evidently turned the caseworker's head, and they developed an intimate relationship. Very intimate. All the better for the caseworker to overlook dad's abuse of the children he took from mom.
Naturally, all the bad that dad did was not reported to the court by this very affectionate caseworker. She saw the dirty deeds, she participated in them. She just didn't report them. She was also in a position to make false reports to the court about mom, and since, as we saw in the last article, the court tend to believe the experts, the court ruled against mom.
Mom's attorney did not regularly practice child welfare law, and consulted with AFAC to assist him with managing this case. He ultimately won, but was so outraged by the blatant violations perpetrated against the children and the mom, decided to run for district attorney. He won that race.
He then proceeded to prosecute the caseworker and the dad and dad's family, for criminal violations. But, since he was also a witness to the crimes, he had a conflict of interest. He resolved that by appointed a special prosecutor, who issued warrants, conducted his investigation and convened a grand jury.
The grand jury indicted the caseworker and the dad on multiple counts of felony violations associated with the administration of the child welfare case. The grand jury were reported as saying that they regretted not being able to indict them on more, because the prosecutor didn't ask for more charges.
Then, suddenly, without any explanation, as so often happens, the special prosecutor exercised his discretion and declined to prosecute. Mom was left in without remedy for the government abuse and conspiracy committed against her and her children.
Mom couldn't sue. Dad had nothing, The caseworker and the agency have immunity from civil liability. These agencies and actors have immunity to insure they can exercise their discretion without worrying about being sued. The courts and the legislatures reason that if a caseworker really does anything criminal, she can still be tried and convicted. Yeah. Right.
Prosecutors virtually never bring criminal charges against caseworkers who commit wrongful acts in the course of their official duties. Not even when presented with a list of victims and violations at a press conference. Not even when the caseworkers abuse the children they adopt, and yes, Virginia, they get the pick of the litter for adoptions.
Courts will virtually never do anything about the perjury caseworkers commit on the stand in the name of the "best interests of the child." In fact, in Laramie County, Colorado, if a judge even considers finding a caseworker in contempt for proven perjury or ordering the DA to prosecute, the caseworker's supervisor is known to jump up in the gallery and call out, "Immunity, Your Honor," which has proven sufficient to get His Honor to back down from holding the caseworker accountable for violating the dignity of the Court with her lies. His Honor won't even rule against the agency, in spite of those lies being proven false in court. Perhaps he is concerned about that caseworker removing his kiddies or grandkiddies? A little quid pro quo goes a long way in these cases.
Are these professionals really that petty and vidictive? A lawsuit in Kansas is proving they are. Stay tuned for the details.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
"Child investigators were called on more than one occasion to the home."
How many times must we see this, in conjunction with repeated reports to child welfare agencies, and focusing on state-approved, state licensed parents? The creation of legal orphans and artificial families has proven to be much more dangerous than the child welfare agencies would have us believe.
Here is one from this week. This family adopted four children from foster care in Florida. One is dead, another fighting for his life in the hospital. The rest are back in foster care, in yet another home licensed and approved by the same agency the screwed this placement up. Read the article and see what torture these children endured in this state-approved, state licensed foster and adoptive home, even after repeated calls to the agency that the children were being abused. Sadistic father.
How do these repeated reports go unsubstantiated? Stay tuned to this blog, my next article will shed some insight into that phenomenon. Meanwhile, I can only wonder what was the reason for them being removed from their parents and the parental rights being terminated. Was it anything as bad as what happened to them in their "forever family?"
If you are a parent in Florida whose twins, a boy and a girl, born around 2001, were taken into custody around 2004, and your parental rights were terminated, email me.I'd like to know your side of the story.
Here is one from this week. This family adopted four children from foster care in Florida. One is dead, another fighting for his life in the hospital. The rest are back in foster care, in yet another home licensed and approved by the same agency the screwed this placement up. Read the article and see what torture these children endured in this state-approved, state licensed foster and adoptive home, even after repeated calls to the agency that the children were being abused. Sadistic father.
How do these repeated reports go unsubstantiated? Stay tuned to this blog, my next article will shed some insight into that phenomenon. Meanwhile, I can only wonder what was the reason for them being removed from their parents and the parental rights being terminated. Was it anything as bad as what happened to them in their "forever family?"
If you are a parent in Florida whose twins, a boy and a girl, born around 2001, were taken into custody around 2004, and your parental rights were terminated, email me.I'd like to know your side of the story.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Federal Budget and Social Security
UPDATE Feb. 19, 2011
See this article on entitlement programs from Fox News. Social security and medicaid/medicare comprise 57% of the national budget.
Original post a few days ago:
You may be wondering what child welfare has to do with Social Security. I'm glad you asked.
Most people are not aware that the Federal Funding for state-run foster care and child abuse comes from the Social Security fund. This is authorized under 42 U.S.C. sec 670-679. There are even more appropriations, for various state-administered child welfare services, all coming out of the Social Security fund. Children in foster care get their medical care through medicaid, more social security funding.
All fifty states have signed on to receive this funding. All fifty state legislatures have the option to opt out of this funding and the associated requirements imposed by the Federal Government. But they won't, because they have come to rely on the billions of dollars funneled from this retirement fund to support their state budgets.
The state economies would collapse if they decided to refuse this funding, whole state agencies would lose funding and thousands of state jobs would be eliminated. Thousands of contract service providers whose sole source of income is from child welfare agencies would have compete in the open marketplace to provide their services. Many will fold.
The government is proposing to raise the retirement age to 69 because the Social Security fund will be empty in a matter of years. Yet, present and future retirees aren't protesting this use of Social Security monies, probably because they don't know where all the money is going.
Now you do. Just in case it matters.
See this article on entitlement programs from Fox News. Social security and medicaid/medicare comprise 57% of the national budget.
Original post a few days ago:
You may be wondering what child welfare has to do with Social Security. I'm glad you asked.
Most people are not aware that the Federal Funding for state-run foster care and child abuse comes from the Social Security fund. This is authorized under 42 U.S.C. sec 670-679. There are even more appropriations, for various state-administered child welfare services, all coming out of the Social Security fund. Children in foster care get their medical care through medicaid, more social security funding.
All fifty states have signed on to receive this funding. All fifty state legislatures have the option to opt out of this funding and the associated requirements imposed by the Federal Government. But they won't, because they have come to rely on the billions of dollars funneled from this retirement fund to support their state budgets.
The state economies would collapse if they decided to refuse this funding, whole state agencies would lose funding and thousands of state jobs would be eliminated. Thousands of contract service providers whose sole source of income is from child welfare agencies would have compete in the open marketplace to provide their services. Many will fold.
The government is proposing to raise the retirement age to 69 because the Social Security fund will be empty in a matter of years. Yet, present and future retirees aren't protesting this use of Social Security monies, probably because they don't know where all the money is going.
Now you do. Just in case it matters.
Monday, January 24, 2011
I just watched a video entitled The Time is Now, presented by West Virginia Court Improvement Project. These court improvement projects are funded with Social Security funds under federal grants associated with the administration of child welfare cases. The video was created to educate parents involved in child welfare cases.
It does much more than educate parents. It provides the reason why the courts aren't getting it right, as I discussed in my prior blog post. According to the Honorable Gary Johnson, Circuit Court Judge, there are three priorities which a judge must consider when arriving at decisions for a child abuse and neglect case. The "first and most important "consideration is the safety of the child. Second is "that everyone is treated fairly, including [the parents]."
This explains everything. The acceptance of hearsay upon hearsay statements as evidence. Playing fast and loose with the rights of the children and parents. The utter refusal and failure of the courts to properly use the checks and balances mandated by congress to insure that families are not interfered with unnecessarily or abusively.
If the safety of the child is the "first and most important" consideration, as his Honor states, then it is perfectly legal and acceptable for the state agency to lie, cheat and steal in order to win the case. It is absolutely legal and permissible for the court to simply check the "contrary to the welfare" box and the "reasonable efforts" box without insuring there is reliable evidence in the record to support those critical findings. There are no constitutional violations when the court refuses to hear exculpatory evidence or consider evidence that has not been subject to cross examination and adversarial testing as described in this article involving Massachusetts.
These cases are not like other cases, dear reader. You don't get to present your evidence, or cross examine witnesses against you. You don't get to have the child examined for improper interview techniques used by the agency in their rush to save children, You don't get to have your own experts evaluate or examine the child and you don't get to put the child witness on the stand to find out if the caseworker tainted the interview. You don't get access to your child's medical records or school records to prove there was no history of abuse or neglect.
You are expected to admit you abuse or neglected your child and submit to the tender mercies of these professionals who, being infallible and all-knowing, know your child better than you do, even if they only spent fifteen minutes with him and you spent seven years with him. This video admits advises the parents "how working cooperatively throughout the process can achieve the best possible outcome for your children." It may not be the outcome you think is best, but you must trust the professionals who are indisputably working in the best interests of your children.
"Working cooperatively" means not demanding contested hearings, or adversarial testing of testimony or evidence. It means not demanding the state provide any evidence to support its claims. It means not attempting to disprove the allegations against you. It means not complaining that your child is suffering irreparable harm due to being removed, and don't you dare attempt to discover whether your child being abused in foster care and expose that abuse.
After the state has taken all necessary steps to insure the safety of the child, THEN, as His Honor tells us, the judge is charged with protecting the fairness of the process and the constitutional and civil rights of the children and parents.
If you do anything that is guaranteed by the Constitution, your child will be held hostage for your cooperation. No visits, no ability to contest the state's plans to put him on chemical restraints aka mind altering drugs to control his behavior in the foster home, no rights to control who and what he is exposed to that might not be consistent with your values, no say in anything. Retaliation will reign in the form of negative reports to the court, escalating allegations of abuse at your hands, allegations that your violent or mentally unstable. Ultimately, parental rights will be terminated.
At least that is case in the multitude of courts in the country where other judges like his disHonor thinks his judicial priority is the safety of the child over and above his judicial duty to enforce the rights of the parents and children. Often the rights of the kiddies are identical to the rights of the parents.
Silly me. I thought it was the other way around. I thought the judge was supposed to protect the rights of the litigants first. My bad.
It does much more than educate parents. It provides the reason why the courts aren't getting it right, as I discussed in my prior blog post. According to the Honorable Gary Johnson, Circuit Court Judge, there are three priorities which a judge must consider when arriving at decisions for a child abuse and neglect case. The "first and most important "consideration is the safety of the child. Second is "that everyone is treated fairly, including [the parents]."
This explains everything. The acceptance of hearsay upon hearsay statements as evidence. Playing fast and loose with the rights of the children and parents. The utter refusal and failure of the courts to properly use the checks and balances mandated by congress to insure that families are not interfered with unnecessarily or abusively.
If the safety of the child is the "first and most important" consideration, as his Honor states, then it is perfectly legal and acceptable for the state agency to lie, cheat and steal in order to win the case. It is absolutely legal and permissible for the court to simply check the "contrary to the welfare" box and the "reasonable efforts" box without insuring there is reliable evidence in the record to support those critical findings. There are no constitutional violations when the court refuses to hear exculpatory evidence or consider evidence that has not been subject to cross examination and adversarial testing as described in this article involving Massachusetts.
These cases are not like other cases, dear reader. You don't get to present your evidence, or cross examine witnesses against you. You don't get to have the child examined for improper interview techniques used by the agency in their rush to save children, You don't get to have your own experts evaluate or examine the child and you don't get to put the child witness on the stand to find out if the caseworker tainted the interview. You don't get access to your child's medical records or school records to prove there was no history of abuse or neglect.
You are expected to admit you abuse or neglected your child and submit to the tender mercies of these professionals who, being infallible and all-knowing, know your child better than you do, even if they only spent fifteen minutes with him and you spent seven years with him. This video admits advises the parents "how working cooperatively throughout the process can achieve the best possible outcome for your children." It may not be the outcome you think is best, but you must trust the professionals who are indisputably working in the best interests of your children.
"Working cooperatively" means not demanding contested hearings, or adversarial testing of testimony or evidence. It means not demanding the state provide any evidence to support its claims. It means not attempting to disprove the allegations against you. It means not complaining that your child is suffering irreparable harm due to being removed, and don't you dare attempt to discover whether your child being abused in foster care and expose that abuse.
After the state has taken all necessary steps to insure the safety of the child, THEN, as His Honor tells us, the judge is charged with protecting the fairness of the process and the constitutional and civil rights of the children and parents.
If you do anything that is guaranteed by the Constitution, your child will be held hostage for your cooperation. No visits, no ability to contest the state's plans to put him on chemical restraints aka mind altering drugs to control his behavior in the foster home, no rights to control who and what he is exposed to that might not be consistent with your values, no say in anything. Retaliation will reign in the form of negative reports to the court, escalating allegations of abuse at your hands, allegations that your violent or mentally unstable. Ultimately, parental rights will be terminated.
At least that is case in the multitude of courts in the country where other judges like his disHonor thinks his judicial priority is the safety of the child over and above his judicial duty to enforce the rights of the parents and children. Often the rights of the kiddies are identical to the rights of the parents.
Silly me. I thought it was the other way around. I thought the judge was supposed to protect the rights of the litigants first. My bad.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
"Worst thing that ever happened"
Baby taken by child welfare agency at birth alleging mom had drugs in system at birth, and the agency refuses to return the child even after learning Mom's positive drug test result was in error. Oh, let's not forget, the baby had no drugs in her system at birth, either. How do you spell O-V-E-R-Z-E-A-L-O-U-S?
Taking a newborn baby (or any child) without conducting an investigation, without providing--or even considering--services designed to keep the child safely in the home pursuant to statutory reasonable efforts mandates, based solely on an unsupported hot-line call by a rabid child-saver collaborator is simply business as usual in our society. I call it "where there's smoke, there's fire knee-jerk syndrome." Except that often what the reporter sees isn't even smoke, it's only steam from a boiling pot of water, or dust stirred up from shaking a throw rug.
Mandated reporters have become expert at interpreting the most benign and innocuous events into life-and-death situations in order to have children seized and warehoused in stranger foster care.
Do you doubt these facts? Read the Complaint for yourself. It is a recitation of error after error committed by the agency in its rush to snatch a marketable baby to feed the voracious baby mill under the righteous guise of protecting children. Oh. . .and let's assume Mom refused to consent to drug testing. It's mandatory to consent, she refuses, they refuse to admit her for her childbirth. They then report her for medical neglect for leaving the hospital to have her baby. What a set-up.
One problem I see is that the child is not named as a plaintiff. She has the greatest claim to violations of her fundamental rights to family association. She has the right to the same protections as her parents, including a competent and ethical investigation, and the presumption that her parents are fit. She had the right to bond with her parents from birth--the most critical bonding time, which was stolen from her. She has the right to competent representation from her attorney, who won't rubber stamp agency actions at her expense. Her right were violated to a far greater degree than her parents's rights were.
The parents and attorneys are seeking some reform,
YAWN. . .This story is nothing all that outrageous, or unusual. I've seen this same scenario over and over, thousands upon thousands of times since 1991. You'd think, after nearly twenty years, the so-called experts would get it right.
Since they haven't gotten it right yet, one can only conclude they aren't intended to "get it right." Certainly, the courts aren't enforcing the law, or the rights of the children and parents. Attorneys representing parents and attorneys aren't even demanding the agency get it right. So, is it any wonder the child welfare agencies are more rabid, more overzealous, more wrong than they were twenty years ago?
Getting it wrong has been institutionalized. Lots of luck with the lawsuit. . .the statutory immunity enjoyed by the agency, the workers and the hospital will make this an uphill battle. As for this suit being a catalyst for changes in policy or practice. . .dream on.
Taking a newborn baby (or any child) without conducting an investigation, without providing--or even considering--services designed to keep the child safely in the home pursuant to statutory reasonable efforts mandates, based solely on an unsupported hot-line call by a rabid child-saver collaborator is simply business as usual in our society. I call it "where there's smoke, there's fire knee-jerk syndrome." Except that often what the reporter sees isn't even smoke, it's only steam from a boiling pot of water, or dust stirred up from shaking a throw rug.
Mandated reporters have become expert at interpreting the most benign and innocuous events into life-and-death situations in order to have children seized and warehoused in stranger foster care.
Do you doubt these facts? Read the Complaint for yourself. It is a recitation of error after error committed by the agency in its rush to snatch a marketable baby to feed the voracious baby mill under the righteous guise of protecting children. Oh. . .and let's assume Mom refused to consent to drug testing. It's mandatory to consent, she refuses, they refuse to admit her for her childbirth. They then report her for medical neglect for leaving the hospital to have her baby. What a set-up.
One problem I see is that the child is not named as a plaintiff. She has the greatest claim to violations of her fundamental rights to family association. She has the right to the same protections as her parents, including a competent and ethical investigation, and the presumption that her parents are fit. She had the right to bond with her parents from birth--the most critical bonding time, which was stolen from her. She has the right to competent representation from her attorney, who won't rubber stamp agency actions at her expense. Her right were violated to a far greater degree than her parents's rights were.
The parents and attorneys are seeking some reform,
"I'm hoping that they'll either change their policies so it doesn't happen to another family, or they'll investigate it better before they take babies from their homes," said Ms. Mort, 21, joined by lawyers, her fiance Alex Rodriguez, 23, and 6-month-old Isabella Rodriguez at the American Civil Liberties Union's Oakland office. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10302/1098960-455.stm#ixzz150R1NEX6Changing policies won't prevent this from happening again to anyone else, or to this family in the future. Even if they win, these parents will lose. Nothing will change. Past lawsuits haven't prevented this from happening to this family.
YAWN. . .This story is nothing all that outrageous, or unusual. I've seen this same scenario over and over, thousands upon thousands of times since 1991. You'd think, after nearly twenty years, the so-called experts would get it right.
Since they haven't gotten it right yet, one can only conclude they aren't intended to "get it right." Certainly, the courts aren't enforcing the law, or the rights of the children and parents. Attorneys representing parents and attorneys aren't even demanding the agency get it right. So, is it any wonder the child welfare agencies are more rabid, more overzealous, more wrong than they were twenty years ago?
Getting it wrong has been institutionalized. Lots of luck with the lawsuit. . .the statutory immunity enjoyed by the agency, the workers and the hospital will make this an uphill battle. As for this suit being a catalyst for changes in policy or practice. . .dream on.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Exclusive: Florida DCF approved daycare raided by police
This story has not even been picked up by news organizations yet.
Reports of child abuse reported against a parent (whose identity is protected for confidentiality) reveals that the abuse suffered by the children was perpetrated by Mrs. Beasleys's Daycare in Lakeland, Florida. Their own website declares:
We are a fully licensed and accredited day care center providing a safe and nurturing environment where children thrive and flourish.False advertising:
Reports from children in that daycare indicate that they are not fed, and that they arrive at home in the evening filthy. According to one parent who move their children to another daycare, "My son's socks were white in the morning when he was delivered, and white in the evening when I picked him up.
A very young child reports having lunch set in front of him in the new daycare, and when he was encouraged to eat, he remarked, "You mean this food is for me?" In Mrs. Beasleys's daycare, he was not permitted to eat his lunch and he arrived at home in the evening starving.
This is notable because Mr. Beasleys daycare was licensed by Florida DCF as an approved daycare. Many parents placing their children in this daycare did so as a part of their case plans under DCF child welfare cases. DCF vouched for this daycare.
On Friday, law enforcement and DCF workers was observed raiding Mrs. Beasley's and shut it down. Reports include allegations of unsafe driving causing injury to children in the Mrs. Beasley's vehicle and reported sexual assault of children by other children.
Here we go again. . .DCF demonstrates the inability to judge who is qualified to care for children. . .and permits children to be place with inappropriate and abusive caregivers upon pain of termination of parental rights.
Way to go, Lakeland, Florida.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Couple charged with beating, starving 30-pound 6-year-old
"JEFFERSON COUNTY (Colorado) - A couple accused of beating and starving a 6-year-old adoptive son was formally charged on Thursday morning." See article.
This child was adopted through Jefferson County Social Services when he was two. At that time, the article describes he was of above average height and weight. Four years later, he had lost weight, suffered bruising all over his body and his brain was bloody and swelling.
superior parents. They approved of them. They preferred them over the child's real mommy and daddy. It seems their judgement was somewhat impaired.
Nobody will be held accountable for this dreadful outcome. No caseworker will be investigated or sanctioned for her deplorable misuse of her discretion. The agency will not come under any scrutiny. As one caseworker stated the typical attitude with a shrug of her shoulders, "These things happen." Gee, it's a real shame some of us can't be so blase' about this kind of outcome.
The child's biological parents will never know what happened to the child that Jefferson County found or manufactured some reason not to reunify with his parents. Perhaps their case plan wasn't really designed to correct the issues that brought this family under their scrutiny. Perhaps they didn't provide the proper services, or timely services. Perhaps the parents never had a chance. Who knows? It's all water under the bridge. But what if we could know? What if Jefferson County was just too eager to remove this marketable child rather than provide appropriate, compassionate in-home services to keep him with his mommy and daddy? Wouldn't that make this tragedy more deplorable?
We'll never know what happened to cause this child to be declared a legal orphan and redistributed to better parents by the infallible state. All we do know is that this child abuse statistic will be reported as physical abuse by a parent. Not adoptive parent. Parent. The state will not distinguish abuse committed by biological parents as opposed to artificial parents-for-pay. It's all one and the same to the government. If the child dies, his biological parents will never be told where his grave is.
We'll never know if adoptive homes are safer for children than imperfect biological homes as long as the reports do not distinguish between biological parents and adoptive parents. The only indication we have are these news articles that keep popping up in every community, showing that too many children are abused or killed by these state-approved parents.
This child was adopted through Jefferson County Social Services when he was two. At that time, the article describes he was of above average height and weight. Four years later, he had lost weight, suffered bruising all over his body and his brain was bloody and swelling.
Arnolds took custody of the boy on a foster-to-adopt program when he was two and a half years old. That adoption was completed in 2006, . . .I have seen Jefferson County Social Services in action. In my experience, their decisions are not based on the best interests of the child. They are petty, abusive and incompetent. They take children from imperfect homes and give them to dangerous homes. Nice work, JeffCo. They trained, supervised and licensed these
Nobody will be held accountable for this dreadful outcome. No caseworker will be investigated or sanctioned for her deplorable misuse of her discretion. The agency will not come under any scrutiny. As one caseworker stated the typical attitude with a shrug of her shoulders, "These things happen." Gee, it's a real shame some of us can't be so blase' about this kind of outcome.
The child's biological parents will never know what happened to the child that Jefferson County found or manufactured some reason not to reunify with his parents. Perhaps their case plan wasn't really designed to correct the issues that brought this family under their scrutiny. Perhaps they didn't provide the proper services, or timely services. Perhaps the parents never had a chance. Who knows? It's all water under the bridge. But what if we could know? What if Jefferson County was just too eager to remove this marketable child rather than provide appropriate, compassionate in-home services to keep him with his mommy and daddy? Wouldn't that make this tragedy more deplorable?
We'll never know what happened to cause this child to be declared a legal orphan and redistributed to
We'll never know if adoptive homes are safer for children than imperfect biological homes as long as the reports do not distinguish between biological parents and adoptive parents. The only indication we have are these news articles that keep popping up in every community, showing that too many children are abused or killed by these state-approved parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)