Blog authors note:
The below talks about federal money and divorcing parents. The same scenario accounts for IV-E funding involving children who are removed by CPS.
-----
Various Fathers, Mothers, and former father-PI's have told me that for every child placed in Foster Care, the States receive between $4,000-6,000 (per month) that the child remains under the State's foster care / Replacement Parent Protection Plan #1 (RPPP-1). The States also receive a similar amount for each child placed in adoption, or RPPP-2. And since the Majority of the Money that the State receives from the Feds does NOT go to the Replacement Parent, but rather to the State, there is a Financial Incentive for the States to place as many children as possible in one of their two Replacement Parent Protection Plans: and for this reason, THAT is exactly what is going on -- in Many cases -- with little or no justification.
My understanding is that the States receive from two-thirds to three-fourths of the Money, and the other 1/3 to 1/4 goes to RPPP-1 or RPPP-2. Therefore, the more children who are taken away from their parents, the More Money the States receive to feed their growing Monster.
See the Links below for more on how Title IV-D Federal Funding of Child Support Services, Child Protective Services, and Family Courts has turned a natural tendency to obtain More Money and Power and what it can purchase for me and my family, into a Nightmare for Divorcing Parents: and especially those who Don't Want to share the Kids, but instead to nitpick and lie about the other parent and seek Sole Legal Custody. This has given birth to Monster-Gov: with an insatiable appetite for More Children and Parents, and All their Assets: and a Free for All for state and private licensed "clinical" social workers, Family Law attorneys, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, and last but not least, State and local budgets.
Go to this link, http://www.earthage.org/familycourtcrooks/title_iv-d-federal-funding.htm, and there are several other links that explain all of this very well.
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label STATE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label STATE. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Minnesota - High court: State, not tribe, must preside over adoption
Decision reverses two earlier orders favoring White Earth Band of Ojibwe. Parents' rights had been terminated.
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Newspapers accuse state of illegally withholding child-death records
By Beth Musgrave — bmusgrave@herald-leader.com
Posted: 7:43pm on Aug 17, 2011; Modified: 10:18pm on Aug 17, 2011
FRANKFORT — A lawyer for Kentucky's two largest newspapers told a Franklin Circuit Court judge Wednesday that the state was "thumbing its nose at the law" by withholding records relating to the deaths of abused and neglected children.
"They are acting illegally and they are doing it in a brazen fashion," said Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer representing the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Courier-Journal of Louisville.
Fleischaker's comments came during a hearing about whether the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which oversees child protection, must turn over records regarding children who died of abuse and neglect while under the state's care. This is the second time in two years the newspapers have sued the cabinet to get such records.
Cabinet officials said Wednesday there were about 44 cases during the past two years that involved children who died or were nearly killed as a result of abuse and neglect while under the cabinet's supervision.
Meanwhile, a convicted murderer and four anonymous women tried to intervene in the case, saying release of the records would harm a legal appeal or violate privacy rights.
Fayette Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson also wrote a letter to Judge Phillip Shepherd expressing concerns about the release of child death documents. Larson said it could prejudice a jury if documents were released about the death of Katelynn Stinnett, a 2-year-old Fayette County girl. Brian Crabtree, who lived with Stinnett's father at the time of her death on Nov. 26, 2008, has been charged with rape and murder.
Shepherd on Wednesday allowed Patrick Watkins to intervene in the case.
Watkins and his wife were sentenced to life in prison in October 2008 for the murder of their daughter Michaela Watkins, 10. The Clark County girl's body was found severely bruised and burned on March 11, 2007, at the Watkinses' apartment. She had more than 77 injuries at the time of her death.
B. Scott West, a lawyer for Watkins, argued that Watkins could be granted a new trial and that releasing the cabinet's documents regarding Michaela could prejudice a jury. The state Supreme Court has overturned part of the case against Watkins but the Supreme Court's decision is not final yet.
Scott White, a Lexington lawyer, also filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of four anonymous women who say their privacy rights would be violated if the information requested by the media was made public. White said the four women had been investigated for abuse and neglect of their children.
Fleischaker questioned why the women could file to intervene in the case without telling the court who they were. There is no provision in the law that would allow the women to do so, he said.
White argued that their privacy rights would be violated if he revealed their identities before Shepherd ruled on whether they had a right to intervene. Shepherd said he would rule soon on whether the women could file to intervene as "Jane Does."
Fleischaker also argued Wednesday that the cabinet was purposely dragging its feet on releasing records regarding child deaths, despite a previous order by Shepherd that declared similar documents were public. The cabinet has engaged in a series of moves to thwart the media's attempts to get those records, lawyers for the media have argued.
Brent Irvin, a lawyer for the cabinet, said the cabinet was not trying to circumvent the law. The cabinet still thinks federal law prohibits it from releasing some of the records.
If the cabinet releases information that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says is private, the state fears it could lose federal child protection funding, Irvin said.
Shepherd asked whether any state had ever lost federal funding because of the release of information about child deaths. Irvin said he was not sure.
Both newspapers sued the cabinet in 2010 to get access to records regarding the death of Kayden Branham, a 20-month-old Wayne County toddler who died after drinking drain cleaner used to make methamphetamine. He and his teen mother had been under cabinet supervision before his death.
After Shepherd made public the documents regarding Branham's death, both newspapers filed requests to get records about other children who have died of abuse and neglect while under the cabinet's care.
The cabinet denied both requests and then filed an emergency state regulation that limited the amount of information it could release about child deaths. The media sued the cabinet again in state court in January, but the cabinet had the case transferred to federal court. A federal court judge later ruled that the case involved state law, not federal law, and returned it to Shepherd's court.
Fleischaker argued that the issues before the court Wednesday were the same as those in the case involving Kayden Branham. The cabinet did not appeal Shepherd's previous ruling, Fleischaker noted.
"They don't care what the law is," Fleischaker said of the cabinet.
Irvin countered that there are still unanswered questions about what should be released to the public.
Shepherd released some of the information involving Kayden's death after he reviewed the file, but he did not tell the cabinet what information he chose not to release, Irvin said.
Shepherd said Wednesday that he released all of the information about Kayden Branham and his mother. The only records he did not release were about another minor related to Kayden Bran ham's mother.
Source: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/08/17/1849003/newspapers-accuse-state-of-illegally.html
Posted: 7:43pm on Aug 17, 2011; Modified: 10:18pm on Aug 17, 2011
FRANKFORT — A lawyer for Kentucky's two largest newspapers told a Franklin Circuit Court judge Wednesday that the state was "thumbing its nose at the law" by withholding records relating to the deaths of abused and neglected children.
"They are acting illegally and they are doing it in a brazen fashion," said Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer representing the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Courier-Journal of Louisville.
Fleischaker's comments came during a hearing about whether the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which oversees child protection, must turn over records regarding children who died of abuse and neglect while under the state's care. This is the second time in two years the newspapers have sued the cabinet to get such records.
Cabinet officials said Wednesday there were about 44 cases during the past two years that involved children who died or were nearly killed as a result of abuse and neglect while under the cabinet's supervision.
Meanwhile, a convicted murderer and four anonymous women tried to intervene in the case, saying release of the records would harm a legal appeal or violate privacy rights.
Fayette Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson also wrote a letter to Judge Phillip Shepherd expressing concerns about the release of child death documents. Larson said it could prejudice a jury if documents were released about the death of Katelynn Stinnett, a 2-year-old Fayette County girl. Brian Crabtree, who lived with Stinnett's father at the time of her death on Nov. 26, 2008, has been charged with rape and murder.
Shepherd on Wednesday allowed Patrick Watkins to intervene in the case.
Watkins and his wife were sentenced to life in prison in October 2008 for the murder of their daughter Michaela Watkins, 10. The Clark County girl's body was found severely bruised and burned on March 11, 2007, at the Watkinses' apartment. She had more than 77 injuries at the time of her death.
B. Scott West, a lawyer for Watkins, argued that Watkins could be granted a new trial and that releasing the cabinet's documents regarding Michaela could prejudice a jury. The state Supreme Court has overturned part of the case against Watkins but the Supreme Court's decision is not final yet.
Scott White, a Lexington lawyer, also filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of four anonymous women who say their privacy rights would be violated if the information requested by the media was made public. White said the four women had been investigated for abuse and neglect of their children.
Fleischaker questioned why the women could file to intervene in the case without telling the court who they were. There is no provision in the law that would allow the women to do so, he said.
White argued that their privacy rights would be violated if he revealed their identities before Shepherd ruled on whether they had a right to intervene. Shepherd said he would rule soon on whether the women could file to intervene as "Jane Does."
Fleischaker also argued Wednesday that the cabinet was purposely dragging its feet on releasing records regarding child deaths, despite a previous order by Shepherd that declared similar documents were public. The cabinet has engaged in a series of moves to thwart the media's attempts to get those records, lawyers for the media have argued.
Brent Irvin, a lawyer for the cabinet, said the cabinet was not trying to circumvent the law. The cabinet still thinks federal law prohibits it from releasing some of the records.
If the cabinet releases information that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says is private, the state fears it could lose federal child protection funding, Irvin said.
Shepherd asked whether any state had ever lost federal funding because of the release of information about child deaths. Irvin said he was not sure.
Both newspapers sued the cabinet in 2010 to get access to records regarding the death of Kayden Branham, a 20-month-old Wayne County toddler who died after drinking drain cleaner used to make methamphetamine. He and his teen mother had been under cabinet supervision before his death.
After Shepherd made public the documents regarding Branham's death, both newspapers filed requests to get records about other children who have died of abuse and neglect while under the cabinet's care.
The cabinet denied both requests and then filed an emergency state regulation that limited the amount of information it could release about child deaths. The media sued the cabinet again in state court in January, but the cabinet had the case transferred to federal court. A federal court judge later ruled that the case involved state law, not federal law, and returned it to Shepherd's court.
Fleischaker argued that the issues before the court Wednesday were the same as those in the case involving Kayden Branham. The cabinet did not appeal Shepherd's previous ruling, Fleischaker noted.
"They don't care what the law is," Fleischaker said of the cabinet.
Irvin countered that there are still unanswered questions about what should be released to the public.
Shepherd released some of the information involving Kayden's death after he reviewed the file, but he did not tell the cabinet what information he chose not to release, Irvin said.
Shepherd said Wednesday that he released all of the information about Kayden Branham and his mother. The only records he did not release were about another minor related to Kayden Bran ham's mother.
Source: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/08/17/1849003/newspapers-accuse-state-of-illegally.html
Bariatric Physicians do not Support State Intervention for Childhood Obesity
AURORA, Colo., Aug. 17, 2011 -- The American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP) does not support the concept that state intervention to remove a child from his or her home is the proper way to address life threatening cases of childhood obesity. Comprised of physicians involved in the frontline clinical treatment of obesity, the ASBP believes that in most cases this type of state intervention is extreme and unjustified.
With approximately one out of three children in America considered overweight or obese, it is clear that childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions. Since the CDC began tracking childhood obesity data in the mid 1970s, and despite millions of dollars spent on various campaigns and research efforts, childhood obesity rates have continued to rise. ASBP does not attribute this dramatic increase solely to poor parenting.
Race and ethnicity, genetic predisposition, environment in utero and birth weight all affect obesity rates long before any active parenting occurs. After birth, poverty, infant feeding practices, parent education level, and the well recognized cost disparity between healthy and less healthful foods play a role. Children cannot expend energy as in the past due to the unfortunate fear of injury or abduction as well as unsafe sidewalks, trails, and parks left behind due to state budget deficits. In schools, vending machines, poor quality subsidized school lunches, and the regrettable removal of physical education, recess, and health education classes factor in. If that child turns on a computer and browses the internet, she is barraged by cereal, candy, soda and various other unhealthy advertisements. The same occurs if he listens to the radio, downloads music, or turns on the television. Increased caloric density of foods and portion sizes, and introduction of processed foods have also paralleled our obesity epidemic.
This is not to say that parents are completely defenseless to our obesogenic environment. As physicians who treat childhood obesity, ASBP recognizes that parental involvement is paramount to a child's long term success. Simple changes such as sitting down to dinner as a family, decreasing dining out and fast food consumption, controlling electronics and modeling good behavior can have a significant impact on the weight of the entire family. Parents can drink water instead of sugar sweetened beverages, remove junk foods from the home, decrease processed foods and increase produce (if they can afford to do so and have access to fresh fruits and vegetables). However, these behaviors alone do not guarantee success. Consider an engaged family who has made these changes and the child remains severely obese. ASBP does not agree that the only option is to put him through surgery or remove him from his home.
Approximately two million children are severely obese, clearly more than an overburdened foster care system can handle. Research has shown that the quality of life of an obese child is analogous to that of a child with cancer. Obese children are discriminated against by peers and teachers, and are bullied relentlessly. The additional insult of removing a child from her home will in most cases do more harm than good. In addition, given the fact that 2/3 of our society is overweight and 1/3 obese, the chances that a child will be placed in a home of a family who itself struggles with a weight problem is more likely than not.
Choices do exist separate from surgery and state intervention that should be considered, including early recognition and treatment by medical obesity experts. Research has shown that the probability of childhood obesity persisting into adulthood is estimated to be 20% at age 4 and 80% by adolescence. Research is currently being conducted by bariatricians and other childhood obesity experts using techniques that are much less invasive and equally promising as surgical outcomes without the risks.
Certainly, the premise of turning a severely obese child over to the state is thought provoking, but unless there are clear signs of neglect or abuse in conjunction with the obesity, the ASBP considers it unnecessary, unrealistic and likely damaging to that child long term.
About the ASBP
Founded in 1950, the ASBP is the oldest medical association dedicated to the non-surgical treatment of obesity and associated diseases. The ASBP is a collaborative organization that provides its members practical information and business tools to implement a successful medical bariatric practice. For more information about the ASBP, visit http://www.asbp.org.
SOURCE: American Society of Bariatric Physicians
RELATED LINKS" http://www.asbp.org
With approximately one out of three children in America considered overweight or obese, it is clear that childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions. Since the CDC began tracking childhood obesity data in the mid 1970s, and despite millions of dollars spent on various campaigns and research efforts, childhood obesity rates have continued to rise. ASBP does not attribute this dramatic increase solely to poor parenting.
Race and ethnicity, genetic predisposition, environment in utero and birth weight all affect obesity rates long before any active parenting occurs. After birth, poverty, infant feeding practices, parent education level, and the well recognized cost disparity between healthy and less healthful foods play a role. Children cannot expend energy as in the past due to the unfortunate fear of injury or abduction as well as unsafe sidewalks, trails, and parks left behind due to state budget deficits. In schools, vending machines, poor quality subsidized school lunches, and the regrettable removal of physical education, recess, and health education classes factor in. If that child turns on a computer and browses the internet, she is barraged by cereal, candy, soda and various other unhealthy advertisements. The same occurs if he listens to the radio, downloads music, or turns on the television. Increased caloric density of foods and portion sizes, and introduction of processed foods have also paralleled our obesity epidemic.
This is not to say that parents are completely defenseless to our obesogenic environment. As physicians who treat childhood obesity, ASBP recognizes that parental involvement is paramount to a child's long term success. Simple changes such as sitting down to dinner as a family, decreasing dining out and fast food consumption, controlling electronics and modeling good behavior can have a significant impact on the weight of the entire family. Parents can drink water instead of sugar sweetened beverages, remove junk foods from the home, decrease processed foods and increase produce (if they can afford to do so and have access to fresh fruits and vegetables). However, these behaviors alone do not guarantee success. Consider an engaged family who has made these changes and the child remains severely obese. ASBP does not agree that the only option is to put him through surgery or remove him from his home.
Approximately two million children are severely obese, clearly more than an overburdened foster care system can handle. Research has shown that the quality of life of an obese child is analogous to that of a child with cancer. Obese children are discriminated against by peers and teachers, and are bullied relentlessly. The additional insult of removing a child from her home will in most cases do more harm than good. In addition, given the fact that 2/3 of our society is overweight and 1/3 obese, the chances that a child will be placed in a home of a family who itself struggles with a weight problem is more likely than not.
Choices do exist separate from surgery and state intervention that should be considered, including early recognition and treatment by medical obesity experts. Research has shown that the probability of childhood obesity persisting into adulthood is estimated to be 20% at age 4 and 80% by adolescence. Research is currently being conducted by bariatricians and other childhood obesity experts using techniques that are much less invasive and equally promising as surgical outcomes without the risks.
Certainly, the premise of turning a severely obese child over to the state is thought provoking, but unless there are clear signs of neglect or abuse in conjunction with the obesity, the ASBP considers it unnecessary, unrealistic and likely damaging to that child long term.
About the ASBP
Founded in 1950, the ASBP is the oldest medical association dedicated to the non-surgical treatment of obesity and associated diseases. The ASBP is a collaborative organization that provides its members practical information and business tools to implement a successful medical bariatric practice. For more information about the ASBP, visit http://www.asbp.org.
SOURCE: American Society of Bariatric Physicians
RELATED LINKS" http://www.asbp.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)