Foster Care Giver Tizzies

I periodically get mail from foster care givers. They have their own groups online and every now and then one of them will find my letter to foster children on my web site and go into various iterations of tizzies. They'll tell all their foster friends on the groups and they will all contact me to tell me of their outrage, secure that they know more than I know about these children. Like the most recent email eruption I've been receiving from foster care givers. Like Laurel Haper here:
Greetings,

I have read the letter you wrote here http://www.profane-justice.org/html/foster_child.html . Are you saying that every foster child is in a bad foster care environment, and that every foster child is better off with their family of origin? Are you also saying that every foster child is able to reason through their situation and make the best decision? I am just wondering; I have worked with foster children, and have learned some important things about them.

Thanks,
Laurel Harper

Dear Laurel

I am saying that no matter how good the foster home is, the stranger foster care environment is bad for a child.

     Let me ask you, when these children come into your home, do you make that home environment conform to what that child is comfortable and familiar with, or do you make that traumatized child conform to your rules, your culture, your religion, your eating habits, your schedule, your scent, your parenting style?

     In any objective analysis of this child, is it fair to say that this child must deny his own identity, his culture, his persona, his needs, his schedule, his expressions of his love for his parents, his needs and wants to make your job as a parent-for-pay easier for you? Or do you make wholesale changes in your household to accommodate this child's comfort level? If you are honest, you make this traumatized child adapt to your household.
     I am saying the law says every foster child is better off with their family of origin. Studies have consistently proven that it is better for the child that the family is provided with appropriate services and supervision while the child remains in the family home. However, I do acknowledge that warehousing children in stranger's homes is much less labor intensive for the case worker than providing appropriate services and supervision in the family home.
     I am saying that every foster child is emotionally attached to their parents, and despite what any well-intentioned meddler-in-denial thinks is best for that child, interfering with that attachment is the primary cause of "troubled children," "acting out," and reactive attachment disorder.
     And from Mickey, whose apparent intellectual and grammatical limitations obviously reduce her occupational options to performing janitorial services or being a parent-for-pay:

Hi Suzanne,
to be completely honest I take great offense to the letter on your web site. As a foster parent we have had many troubled children in our lives, to this date I don't think there has been one that the parents didn't deserve to have their children removed from the home. Children are a gift from God and should be treated as such. To tell them that all foster parents, case workers, judges, etc are terrible peoples trying to keep them from their mom and dad is an utter [sic] lie. It appears you had a rough time of it when you were a child and I am very sorry you had to suffer through that. No child deserves to be mistreated. I'll close this out now but before I go, I will say that we have adopted two of our little darlings, one full blown meth baby and the other an alcohol and marijuana baby, they are almost 3 years old now and we love them with all our heart. Instead of telling the kids how awful the system is, we tell them of the great love of our savior Jesus
Christ. It is truly amazing how sharing Jesus with these children lifts them up.
Mickey

Dear Mickey
Actually, I didn't have it rough in my foster home. It was one of the better ones. Despite that, I consider my placement in stranger foster care one of the most traumatic events in my childhood.
     What you don't understand is that foster children must be chameleons in order to feel safe. They conform. Of course sharing Jesus with them lifts them up, because if it didn't, you would disapprove. They already know you disapprove of their tears, of their missing their parents. You disapprove of their parents. You disapprove of everything important in their entire world. You have no idea how stressful that is to a child in a strange place, deprived of the only things he loves and knows.
     You are the authority figure, and you have turned their world upside down when you tell them their parents aren't worthy of their love. I'm sure you never used those words, but that's what they hear when you say, "Your parents love you but they aren't good parents and can't keep you safe like we can."
     You don't see the real child. You see the facade that the foster children wear in self-defense. They can only take so much conflict, and since their entire existence is now in conflict with their understanding of their world, their family and their identity, they do what they can to minimize it. They conform by submerging who they are. This can never be healthy for a child.
     No wonder every parent who is reunited with their children says they aren't the same children they were before they were taken. No wonder, years after reunification with their families, former foster children run screaming to hide in a closet when someone knocks at the door.
     Mickey, removing a child is not supposed to punish parents for being imperfect, so asserting that they "deserve" to have their children removed is inconsistent with the intent of the law. And whether the parents "deserve" it or not, do the children deserve what they get?

Texas, CPS, FLDS and The Professionals Can't Get it Right!

Alice F. Barlow will not sign the CPS safety plan, and CPS wants to retaliate and take her kids away from her. Supervisor Lyn McFadden stated no changes would be implement to the safety plan, in other word, take it or leave it and lose your kids, lady. Story and docs here.

The affidavit in support of the motion to take the kiddies away states, "Due to the ongoing joint investigation between CPS and Law enforcement, I [the caseworker, Paul Dyer] could not divulge all the facts CPS is relying upon in requesting that Dr. Lloyd Barlow have no contact with his children Virginia and Lynda." I told you so. . .Lawyers for parents and children are engaging in malpractice if they haven't moved the court to issue protective orders. Child welfare and criminal cases are totally different, have different goals. Protective orders protect the integrity of child welfare cases and serve the legislative purpose to protect children and strengthen the family.

For the record, folks, Dr. Barlow has NOT been accused of nor is being investigated for child sexual abuse of either of the two children named in the complaint. The motion for removal seems to be based largely on the allegation that he married a sixteen year old in 2001, without stating whether or not her parents consented to her marriage or whether a judge allowed it pursuant to the existing law of the time. What a convenient omission. For the record, my husband's mother legally married his father when she was sixteen. . .and had her first child within a year. She was a French citizen and my father-in-law was an adult American Airman stationed in France when they met and married. So what? Get a life, Paul Dryer. And that he failed to report child sexual abuse of his patients, for which he was indicted. I doubt that he witnessed any child sexual abuse. . .I apologize for being indelicate, but nobody has alleged he witnessed the actual alleged sex acts committed against a child that he was purported to be required to report. How can he legitimately report something he didn't actually see?

If course, CPS also must punish the mother for refusing to agree to CPS terms. . ."Alice F. Barlow shall not allow Llyod Barlow to have any contact, in any form, or being the presence of [his own children]. Alice F. Barlow shall notify Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services immediately if Alice F. Barlow discovers that Lloyd Barlow has had any form of contact with [his own children]," and "Alice F. Barlow shall prevent [her children] from being within 1000 feet of the location known as 'YFZ Ranch' in Eldorado, Texas."

Let's see. . .Mom, you can't live in your home town. We found a suspected-but-not-convicted sex offender living there so you must pack up and move. Yeah, right. Check your state sex offender registry, dear reader. How many of them live within a few miles of your home or your child's school? How many work in your child's school? How many, like Jeff Rentz in Colorado Springs, work for CPS? How would you like being ordered by a retarded caseworker to move or lose your kids for a reason as specious as this?

I must observe that there is less incriminating evidence of child sexual abuse against Dr. Barlow and less identified risk that he will abuse his little girls or even aloow them to be abused than there is against at least 50% of CPS licensed foster homes where these little girls have a good chance of being placed. Come on, CPS. . .this so-called safety plan is hypocritical and totally sto-opid will not protect the children. All you really need is an agreement that mom and dad will not marry off the little girls before they are eighteen. . .and ta-da. . .they are safe. I'll bet mom Alice will sign that one. Boneheads.

Good for Alice. I wouldn't sign that dumb safety plan either. I'd offer my own, just to prove reasonable effort weren't made. I hope her attorney and the children's attorneys know how to handle this. If not, she's screwed and it will cost her her children.

FLDS Fallout

We have 'experts' chiming in on the polys, and Marci Hamilton seems to have the answer! . . . criminalize child sexual abuse. No, really! Yes, even as I say this, my eyes are rolling.

She proposes to amend the RICO laws to include child sexual abuse. She evidently thinks religion is a racket like the mob is. . . and she doesn't appear to limit this to a religion that believes in plural marriage. She proposes:

First, amend 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) to include the following bolded language:

It shall be unlawful for any person, or enterprise engaging in, promoting, or facilitating childhood sexual abuse or neglect, employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

Second, amend 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(a), the definition of “Racketeering Activity,” to include the bolded language:

(1)“racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, engaging in, promoting or facilitating childhood sexual abuse or neglect, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;

She also proposes to expand the injuries defined by RICO from only injury to business or property to add injury to the person, if a child sexual abuse victim. This would allow for triple damages in a civil lawsuit.

Now, I don't get it. How does plural marriage or a religious practice constitute a business operation? I mean, RICO must, by definition involve commerce. Well? ( yes, readers, she appears to be a lawyer. )

Based on her writings, she is not only targeting FLDS, but the Catholic Church, with its child molesting priest scandals that have been covered up by virtually all the powers-that-be until the requisite critical mass of victims could no longer be denied. Yet, with the FLDS we are talking about how many alleged victims? A mere handful? A few members of a community doing wrong? Just like in any other American community?

Moving on. . .she wants the states to eliminate statutes of limitations on sexual abuse allegations. Given the history of sexual abuse allegations, false memories, and the child saver mentality to believe the child no matter what, this is a horrifying prospect for anyone would would be falsely accused by a bratty child seeking to get his or her own way or a vindictive ex seeking to eliminate all challenges to custody! Many states have long statutes of limitations already. This is a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction based on emotions. Typical of the child saver.

Finally, she proposes something that actually makes sense, and I could get behind this one:

Revocation of tax-exempt status for organizations furthering child abuse or neglect. Tax-exempt status for a charitable organization under the Internal Revenue Code shall be revoked by the Internal Revenue Service from any organization if it is found by a court of law in a civil or criminal case that the organization:

(a) Fostered the abuse of children,

OR

(b) Took steps to conceal the abuse of children,

OR

(c) Failed to report knowledge of child abuse or neglect to the relevant law enforcement authorities.

Finally, federal agencies should not be permitted to do business with any organization that furthers or fosters child sex abuse or neglect.

Given the plethora of private charities so poorly and callously administering child welfare, foster care and adoptions, this could completely booger up the child welfare works by making foster care safer than the family home, and in the process, eliminating all inferior foster care.

The largest segment of our population who sexually abuses children is the foster care business. And foster care is a multi-billion dollar interstate commerce enterprise.

Sometimes it's the foster caregivers doing it, sometimes it's the foster care-giver's kids molesting the foster kids, sometimes it's another foster kid doing the molesting, and sometimes it's a friend of the foster care-givers. But most of it happens in foster care.

This would be an excellent tool for aggrieved parents to use to shut down the foster care agency or group home that sexually abuses, allows, covers up, or fails to report sexual abuse of their children. Bring it on, Ms. Hamilton, I can see the decimation of private foster care and adoption agencies, group homes and, OMG, residential treatment centers for children and the subsequent reduction of out-of-home placements of children due to lack of homes and beds for placement.

But wait. . .back to the proposed RICO provisions. . .perhaps these foster placement agencies, group homes and residential treatment centers COULD be held criminally or civilly liable under RICO? RICO is a darned hard case to make and most courts toss RICO claims. . . BUT. . .while the RICO might not fly for a religion, it might fly for these non-profits.

Cool.

Texas, FLDS, Crimes and Misdemeanors

5 more arrested from Texas polygamist sect

AUSTIN, Texas -- Five indicted members of a West Texas polygamist sect turned themselves in to authorities Monday to face charges related to allegations of child sexual abuse.

The five men were indicted last week with Warren Jeffs, the already-jailed leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The charges stem from a state investigation into allegations that the sect forced underage girls into marriage and motherhood with much older men.

State authorities raided the FLDS's Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado on April 3, eventually sweeping more than 400 children into foster care until the state Supreme Court said officials had overreached and sent the children home.

Raymond Merrill Jessop, 36, Allan Eugene Keate, 56, Michael George Emack, 57, and Merrill Leroy Jessop, 33, were charged with one count each of sexual assault of a child, a felony punishable by a sentence ranging from five to 99 years or life in prison. Their bond was set at $100,000 each.

Merrill Leroy Jessop also was charged with bigamy, a felony with the same potential penalties as the sexual assault charge.

Lloyd Hammon Barlow, 38, the ranch's onsite physician, was charged with three counts of failure to report child abuse, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. His bond was set at $5,000.

I have a few comments about this, including the ones I raised in prior blogs about the church members submitting to the DNA testing, especially without protective orders in place on the CPS cases to insure that the results are not used in criminal prosecution. How else could these indictments have come about? And could those results be thrown out as unlawfully obtained for law enforcement purposes and for being the fruit of the poisonousness tree?

The marriage conundrum is evidently going to be addressed, too. This should be interesting. Honestly, how nitpicky can the nanny-state get about what goes on in adult bedrooms with or without the benefit of a state issued marriage license? The same people who insist you can't legislate morality are . . .legislating morality. How hypocritical is that? And are the alleged child brides going to testify? or will they invoke spousal privilege? CAN they invoke spousal privilege? Are they children or emancipated adults? What was the age of parental consent at the time of the marriage? Does parental consent only apply to marriages with marriage licenses or to common-law marriages? The muddy Texas marriage waters are likely to emerge from this episode much clearer, and how will they contrast with the recent legal decisions regarding same-sex marriages in other states? Wow. It will be fascinating to see how much more the government can screw up the institution of marriage in this country.

And the hapless doctor, a mandated reporter didn't report child abuse? This would be only the SECOND case I have heard of in the past seventeen years where a mandated reporter was charged with failure to report. The first (if memory serves. . .it's been a while) involved a school nurse in Missouri, who was not convicted, because she didn't believe the incident she was charged with not reporting constituted child abuse. Her reasonable belief was adequate to defeat the conviction. That and the vague laws which define abuse loaded with loopholes for both sides. I don't know of a single conviction against a mandated reporter for failure to report, anywhere.

It's almost like the Clash of the Titans, Child Savers vs. Religion. If only the child savers had gone after the Catholic Priest child molesters and the foster care molesters with the same red-eyed vengeance they are going after the polygamists. Then they might appear more credible to the public.

Come on, guys. . .your double standard isn't hidden very well.

Kansas, SRS problems escalate

The press conference held yesterday by Kansas family rights group Citizens-for-Change has resulted in yet another front page article in the Wichita Eagle condemning certain practices by Kansas Social and Rehabilitative Agency, and Secretary Don Jordan.

It seems that Mr. Jordan has become the target of a feeding frenzy which looks like more of a knee-jerk reaction than a well thought out solution to a very serious problem. AFAC has not joined the call for his resignation as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform has.

Don't get me wrong, from a family rights perspective, Mr. Jordan is incompetent. But so are most state heads of CPS agencies. He's obviously got something to bring to the job, even if it is only really pretty ass-kissing.

I know from reliable sources that other serious problems were raised at the March 18 meeting with Mr. Jordan, but this one has gotten all the attention. I see a way that Mr. Jordan could come of this smelling like a rose, and save Governer Kathleen Sebelius's precious hopes for a vice presidential slot with Obama. Kansas could become the model for a more family friendly, best practice child welfare agency if the leadership cared for those kind of kudos.

I don't think Mr. Jordan needs to be canned. Instead, I think SRS has a great opportunity to fix their child welfare system, keep the federal funds flowing in, and come out looking like real heroes.

I don't want to flog the Kansas dog like Richard Wexler appears to want to do, what's the point? I want to solve the problem and I have some ideas where pretty much everyone gets to save face. Just in case anyone is interested.

KSN news story

Wichita, Kansas and SRS (CPS)

The Wichita Eagle has just broken a story about SRS practices in that state which mirror practices we have seen in the Texas FLDS cases related to the YFZ Ranch.

It seems Don Jordan, secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services has blabbed some very incriminating information and it was caught on tape. I have it on good authority that Jordan was accompanied to the subject meeting by certain attorneys whose job it was to insure he didn't blab. It didn't work.

The Eagle reports:

During a meeting with the advocacy group Citizens for Change (CFC) on March 18 in Topeka, Jordan was recorded saying:

"But in Sedgwick County oftentimes we end up writing things because it's what our social workers get bullied by the District Attorney's Office into writing. So they really have no belief in what it says."

Later in the meeting, Jordan said: "I am working on our staff that we do our assessments properly and we not get bullied into writing things we don't believe. But then the reality comes down to, you send a 25-year-old social worker into a room with a 15-year county ADA (assistant district attorney) who is willing to yell at them, cuss at them, scream at them and threaten them, you know."

This disclosure is no surprise to me. Been there, seen that, reported on it. In and of itself, it would not represent a real problem because there are other mechanisms in place under child welfare laws which are designed to short circuit this kind of egregious practice.

One of those checks and and balances are the attorneys who represent the children and the parents in these cases. Each parent has an attorney, as do the children, and these attorneys have the duty to put these caseworkers on the stand and cross examine them as to the truth of their report. Problem is, the attorneys don't challenge the report, don't cross examine the workers and don't demand an evidentiary hearing. This check and balance is effectively broken when these false statements become part of the record without being challenged. And when, by the admission of Judge Burgess who is quoted saying "at least 95 percent" of the cases, parents do not contest moves to keep their children in temporary custody. That's because the lawyers representing the parents refuse to contest it. What's wrong with this picture?

The next check and balance are the judges who hear this information. They are charged with weighing the truth of the matters and insuring a fair and equitable process. But, they resist evidentiary hearings in favor of rubber stamping caseworker recommendations. After all, caseworkers wouldn't lie in an affidavit, would they? In fact, informed sources advise me that parents are rarely even allowed in the courtroom for any hearings in Sedgwick County, including for the death penalty of the family, Termination of Parental Rights. Without a meaningful opportunity to be heard by judicial edict, this check and balance is broken.

What about the caseworkers? They are, after all, the ones trained to manage these cases. They have a duty to the children if not to the parents, to resist allowing a lawyer to manage the case. Lawyers are trained in the law, not in social work. When a caseworker allows a lawyer to impose his practice into her practice, they system is no longer intended to help families, but to serve the prosecutors goal of achieving a win. I've seen plenty of lawyers bullying caseworkers into going against their own judgment and best practices. So, the checks and balances fail, again.

Meanwhile, everyone is backpedaling and playing CYA.

Jordan said he made the comments but wishes he hadn't said "bullied," adding that he respects District Attorney Nola Foulston and her staff.

"I don't think they intend to bully our staff. It was a poor choice of words.... I don't believe anybody's asked to perjure themselves or lie."

I'm not buying this. He also claimed he was 'pandering' to CFC when he blabbed. Since Citizens for Change has been selected by SRS as a collaborator, pandering is a violation of the State Plan and other agreements SRS has with the federal government as a condition of receiving federal funding. Which is it, Mr. Jordan?

Deputy District Attorney Ron Paschal, who oversees Sedgwick County juvenile cases, said his staff reviews the affidavits but does not improperly pressure social workers about what they write in the documents.

Although preserving families is one goal of the child-welfare system, "our utmost concern is the immediate safety of the child," he said.

"We have a job to do, and they have a job to do, and if they come to our office and have not done it, we're not going to hesitate to ask them to follow up," Paschal said.

Prosecutors have the legal authority and responsibility to order that relevant information be put in the affidavits, Paschal said. Social workers don't have to sign them if they disagree, he said

It is not the mission of the lawyer representing SRS to do anything except what SRS instructs him to do. The lawyer has no mission to protect the child. That is SRS's mission, and the lawyer is not permitted to second-guess or trump the caseworker's assessment. In this instance, the prosecutor's office is overstepping it's authority.

And the judges. . .turn a blind eye and justify doing so by qualifying their statements:

Sedgwick County District Judge Jim Burgess, presiding judge in the juvenile division, which handles the child custody cases, said the process is thorough and fair.

Burgess said he is confident that prosecutors "would never intentionally put in false information."

Over the years, he has heard complaints that social workers get pressured but has not seen evidence of it, he said. . .

Have you ASKED to see the evidence, Your Honor? You set the tone, if the lawyers can't object and demand the evidence, it's because you made it clear they had better not object or demand the evidence. See how easy it is to short-circuit an important check and balance?

District Judge Tim Henderson said he typically sees a social worker's affidavit about 48 hours into a child abuse investigation, after a child has been taken into protective custody.

Before he signs a custody order, Henderson said, "I look at the social worker, and I say, 'Do you believe we've done everything we can to prevent this child from being removed from the family?'

"I am very comfortable in the integrity of the DA's office and the (SRS) workers... because I am constantly asking them if they believe it is appropriate," he said.

Belief is not the appropriate standard, Your Honor, evidence is. . .you don't belong on the juvenile bench.

I hope the Wichita Eagle will stay on this story, which is sure to expose even more suspicious practices by SRS in their endeavors to save children who really don't need saving.

Texas, CPS, FLDS and the Pseudo-Adversarial Process

Q. What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 60? A. Your Honor.

It took a very embarrassing public spanking from the appeals court to get Her Honor to do her job, if she is doing her job. She will insist upon a full blown adversarial hearing. . .says Her Honor of the cases being heard this past week.

Yet, during this hearing, the origin of the shocking photos of Warren Jeffs kissing a child bride which were admitted into evidence was not divulged. CPS refused to say who took the photos, who possessed the photos, or in any other way treat them according to the rules of evidence.

They had nothing to do with the parents whose hearing they were introduced into. They had absolutely no probative value for the case being heard. They were intended solely for prejudicial value. This is a typical CPS cheap shot when they have no case. The less intelligent of our society are swayed by such tactics, including certain judges. Critical thinkers are put off when government agencies have to play fast and loose with the law, with the court rules and with the rights of children.

The photos were not authenticated. . .which is required by the rules of evidence. Somehow, that does not jive with the judge's statement. It looks like she is still just posturing. Not only that, but she's allowing CPS to violate a child's confidentiality by releasing the photos while refusing to submit proof that the photos are valid. Form over substance. Doesn't this judge know better? She's been to law school, to judge school. What the heck is going on in her courtroom? In any of the five courtrooms?

Besides, Jeffs has been tried and convicted. Is Texas CPS seeking to punish the entire congregation for Jeffs's crimes by taking the kiddies? If the photos are what CPS says they are, then try Jeffs for those crimes, don't steal the babies from the arms of their mothers.

The fact is, CPS doesn't have the proof it needs to sustain the cases against the parents at the YFZ ranch. But that doesn't matter, they have these dirty pictures of another guy who doesn't live there any more.