By MITCHEL MADDUX
It’s a colossal foster-care nightmare that ended with the disappearance of a 7-year-old boy two years ago — and it didn’t have to happen.
Top-notch lawyers appointed by a judge to represent the interests of missing Patrick Alford claim that the child, who vanished from his Brooklyn foster home, could have been safe today if not for glaring missteps by city child-welfare workers.
The lawyers argue that the employees with the city’s Administration for Children’s Service outrageously misled the Family Court in their bid to prove the child was in danger and even required placement in foster care in the first place.
It’s not clear why the workers did what they did to justify taking the boy. But they failed to disclose to a Family Court judge that, at the time, the child had actually been living at an aunt’s house and not with his mother, who was battling drug-addiction problems, lawyer Jonathan Lerner argued in papers filed in Brooklyn federal court.
Child-welfare workers lied in a sworn affidavit by “falsely representing to the court” there was “an imminent danger to the child’s life” if he was not immediately removed, “when in truth” young Patrick “was in no danger, imminent or otherwise, from continuing in his aunt’s care,” the documents state.
Lerner, a senior attorney at the white-shoe firm of Skadden Arps now serving as pro-bono counsel for the child, said ACS “made no assessment” that the aunt’s temporary custody of the boy “posed any danger” when its workers decided to seize Patrick on Dec. 29, 2009.
When ACS workers met again with the aunt two weeks later, they even deemed her suitable to serve as a temporary guardian for the boy. But for reasons that are unclear, the child nevertheless continued to remain in the foster home until his disappearance, Lerner wrote in the scathing court papers.
Patrick, who would now be 9 years old, was last seen on the night of Jan. 22, 2010, after he apparently slipped off while taking out the trash with his foster mom at her East New York home.
Adding to the debacle, ACS put him with a foster mother who spoke only Spanish, even though Patrick spoke only English.
The child, who had documented emotional and educational issues, was so unhappy that he began to experience psychiatric problems and tried to run away on several occasions.
Despite a psychologist’s assessment that the boy urgently needed medication and psychiatric care, ACS failed to take immediate action to help the boy, Lerner charged.
This chain of events prompted a federal judge overseeing the lawsuit about the child’s disappearance to suggest that — if proven — the city could be liable for damages.
Lawyers for the city strongly dispute the claim that ACS workers deliberately misled a Family Court judge and contend that facts arose that led them to believe that leaving Patrick with relatives was not a good option.
Source http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/foster_fiasco_2t4PoiyY60swRmOCmHCVXN
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 child lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child lawyers. Show all posts
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Arizona CPS myths identified, cleared up by experts
by Mary K. Reinhart
Arizona’s child-welfare system has come under a microscope in recent months, with most of the attention focused on several high-profile deaths and how the state’s Child Protective Services might have prevented them.
State officials said at least six children, who had been the subject of one or more CPS reports, have died so far this year. Of the 70 children whose deaths officials attributed to maltreatment in 2010, 18 had prior CPS involvement.
As a gubernatorial task force on child safety works on recommendations, which will likely become legislation in the coming session, misconceptions and myths abound about the responsibilities and rules governing CPS and its workers.
“The myth is that there’s a simple solution to this problem,” said Karin Kline, who spent 26 years in a variety of CPS positions.
Another is that there are obvious red flags to show CPS workers which children should be removed, she said.
“That the kids who are killed have prior physical injuries and a prior report that a CPS worker somehow overlooked,” she said. “Often, it’s a kid sent to school dirty or hungry, or mom’s got drug problems.”
The Republic asked experts to help identify common myths surrounding child abuse and neglect. Among them:
CPS can force parents or caregivers into drug or mental-health treatment or to accept other services, such as parenting classes and child care.
In fact, state law limits the authority of CPS to require anything of parents or caregivers accused of abusing or neglecting their children. And the law requires the caseworker to inform the family of this right at the beginning of an investigation.
Once caseworkers remove children and place them in state custody, a judge can require the family to meet certain conditions in order for the state to return the children. Parents might be able to keep their children under an “in-home dependency,” which also involves a court order and requirements parents must meet to prevent the child’s placement into foster care.
But short of a court order, the law states that a CPS worker “has no legal authority to compel the family to cooperate with the investigation or to receive protective services offered.”
CPS will offer services to families accused or at risk of abuse or neglect, but participation is voluntary. Officials said families who agree to participate voluntarily are more likely to benefit than those forced to accept treatment or services as a condition for getting their children back.
Budget cuts over the past several years, however, have reduced the extent and the timeliness of voluntary services.
Confidentiality laws prevent CPS from talking publicly about cases.
In fact, Arizona has one of the least restrictive confidentiality laws in the country. State law allows the department to “confirm, clarify or correct” information about a case of child abuse or neglect that already has been made public.
That might include a situation where police investigating a missing or neglected child-release information about prior CPS involvement in the case. CPS could speak publicly about the case to correct misinformation or explain what caseworkers may have done to try to help the family.
The department rarely takes that opportunity, however, and some say that can make it appear that it’s got something to hide.
“They can talk until they’re blue in the face if they so choose,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “If they don’t talk, they’re stonewalling.”
Kline sees it differently.
“The myth here is that CPS is not talking to cover for themselves,” said Kline, now with Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy.
The agency does release basic information about child fatalities and near fatalities. One of the concerns about providing more information, however, is that it could endanger federal funding under a child-welfare law that has its own confidentiality requirements.
But Wexler said that’s just an excuse. Federal officials have never taken a nickel away from a state for a confidentiality breach, he said, and the move in recent years has been toward more openness, not less.
Most children are killed by their mother’s boyfriend.
In fact, mothers were the perpetrators in 34 out of 70 child maltreatment deaths in 2010, according to the Arizona Child Fatality Review Program, and fathers were responsible for 18 child deaths.
A mother’s partner was the culprit in six child deaths last year.
“It’s true that a boyfriend presents a risk factor to a young child,” Kline said. “But it is not true that they’re more likely to harm a child.”
The statistics reflect the fact that mothers are the primary caregivers. Sixteen of the child-abuse and neglect deaths in 2010 were because of prematurity or other medical causes, such as a mother failing to seek medical care for a child or a baby born prematurely because of prenatal drug exposure.
Child abuse and neglect is spread equally across all socio-economic levels.
In fact, the most recent federal study shows that children in families earning below $15,000 a year are more than five times as likely to be considered maltreated compared with other children.
Researchers aren’t clear whether that’s because of the stress of poverty, or if greater scrutiny by state agencies results in more abuse and neglect reports. Most of these families receive some kind of public benefit, such as food stamps or subsidized housing.
“The more challenges that a family experiences and the more stress a family experiences, the more likely children’s needs aren’t going to be met, and they’re gonna be abused” or neglected, Kline said, adding that the vast majority of low-income families don’t abuse or neglect their children.
Other factors that can put children at risk include lack of child care and health care, and the lack of support from extended family. Some argue that case managers sometimes confuse poverty with neglect, and they remove children instead of offering help that would keep families together.
“The biggest connection between poverty and neglect is the confusion of poverty with neglect,” Wexler said. “Either way, your best solution is to target the poverty.”
Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/11/27/arizona-cps-myths-identified-cleared-up-by-experts/
Arizona’s child-welfare system has come under a microscope in recent months, with most of the attention focused on several high-profile deaths and how the state’s Child Protective Services might have prevented them.
State officials said at least six children, who had been the subject of one or more CPS reports, have died so far this year. Of the 70 children whose deaths officials attributed to maltreatment in 2010, 18 had prior CPS involvement.
As a gubernatorial task force on child safety works on recommendations, which will likely become legislation in the coming session, misconceptions and myths abound about the responsibilities and rules governing CPS and its workers.
“The myth is that there’s a simple solution to this problem,” said Karin Kline, who spent 26 years in a variety of CPS positions.
Another is that there are obvious red flags to show CPS workers which children should be removed, she said.
“That the kids who are killed have prior physical injuries and a prior report that a CPS worker somehow overlooked,” she said. “Often, it’s a kid sent to school dirty or hungry, or mom’s got drug problems.”
The Republic asked experts to help identify common myths surrounding child abuse and neglect. Among them:
CPS can force parents or caregivers into drug or mental-health treatment or to accept other services, such as parenting classes and child care.
In fact, state law limits the authority of CPS to require anything of parents or caregivers accused of abusing or neglecting their children. And the law requires the caseworker to inform the family of this right at the beginning of an investigation.
Once caseworkers remove children and place them in state custody, a judge can require the family to meet certain conditions in order for the state to return the children. Parents might be able to keep their children under an “in-home dependency,” which also involves a court order and requirements parents must meet to prevent the child’s placement into foster care.
But short of a court order, the law states that a CPS worker “has no legal authority to compel the family to cooperate with the investigation or to receive protective services offered.”
CPS will offer services to families accused or at risk of abuse or neglect, but participation is voluntary. Officials said families who agree to participate voluntarily are more likely to benefit than those forced to accept treatment or services as a condition for getting their children back.
Budget cuts over the past several years, however, have reduced the extent and the timeliness of voluntary services.
Confidentiality laws prevent CPS from talking publicly about cases.
In fact, Arizona has one of the least restrictive confidentiality laws in the country. State law allows the department to “confirm, clarify or correct” information about a case of child abuse or neglect that already has been made public.
That might include a situation where police investigating a missing or neglected child-release information about prior CPS involvement in the case. CPS could speak publicly about the case to correct misinformation or explain what caseworkers may have done to try to help the family.
The department rarely takes that opportunity, however, and some say that can make it appear that it’s got something to hide.
“They can talk until they’re blue in the face if they so choose,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “If they don’t talk, they’re stonewalling.”
Kline sees it differently.
“The myth here is that CPS is not talking to cover for themselves,” said Kline, now with Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy.
The agency does release basic information about child fatalities and near fatalities. One of the concerns about providing more information, however, is that it could endanger federal funding under a child-welfare law that has its own confidentiality requirements.
But Wexler said that’s just an excuse. Federal officials have never taken a nickel away from a state for a confidentiality breach, he said, and the move in recent years has been toward more openness, not less.
Most children are killed by their mother’s boyfriend.
In fact, mothers were the perpetrators in 34 out of 70 child maltreatment deaths in 2010, according to the Arizona Child Fatality Review Program, and fathers were responsible for 18 child deaths.
A mother’s partner was the culprit in six child deaths last year.
“It’s true that a boyfriend presents a risk factor to a young child,” Kline said. “But it is not true that they’re more likely to harm a child.”
The statistics reflect the fact that mothers are the primary caregivers. Sixteen of the child-abuse and neglect deaths in 2010 were because of prematurity or other medical causes, such as a mother failing to seek medical care for a child or a baby born prematurely because of prenatal drug exposure.
Child abuse and neglect is spread equally across all socio-economic levels.
In fact, the most recent federal study shows that children in families earning below $15,000 a year are more than five times as likely to be considered maltreated compared with other children.
Researchers aren’t clear whether that’s because of the stress of poverty, or if greater scrutiny by state agencies results in more abuse and neglect reports. Most of these families receive some kind of public benefit, such as food stamps or subsidized housing.
“The more challenges that a family experiences and the more stress a family experiences, the more likely children’s needs aren’t going to be met, and they’re gonna be abused” or neglected, Kline said, adding that the vast majority of low-income families don’t abuse or neglect their children.
Other factors that can put children at risk include lack of child care and health care, and the lack of support from extended family. Some argue that case managers sometimes confuse poverty with neglect, and they remove children instead of offering help that would keep families together.
“The biggest connection between poverty and neglect is the confusion of poverty with neglect,” Wexler said. “Either way, your best solution is to target the poverty.”
Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/11/27/arizona-cps-myths-identified-cleared-up-by-experts/
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Changes at DCF cause concern on advisory panel - Conn.
By Jacqueline Rabe Thomas
The sweeping changes the Department of Children and Families has made in recent months are drawing the ire of the agency's advisory panel, whose members--as parents, community providers, child lawyers and foster parents--are seeing first-hand the ramifications.
"You need to hear the crap that's going on," Janice Andersen, the deputy director of a Bridgeport-based group that deals with juvenile justice and other child welfare issues, told a top DCF official Monday.
It wasn't quite the reaction Fernando Muniz was expecting. He came to the meeting with a three-page update on the positive impact of keeping more children with their families, how reducing congregate care for the youngest children has played out and how the number of children living out of state has declined.
"As we have sat around this table all these years, these are all things you asked for," Muniz said in response to the harsh criticism. "Your points have been well taken."
But members of the State Advisory Council say many of the changes are causing widespread concern.
"Foster families are in absolute panic that you are sending children into unsafe homes. Just because someone shares the same genes does mean their criminal history shouldn't matter," said Laurie Landry, a therapist in Wethersfield. "What are you thinking?"
Connecticut previously had one of the lowest rates in the country of placing abused and neglected children with family members when it was determined they couldn't stay at home. Because of this, the department began waiving what Muniz describes as "the most restrictive guidelines in the country." That often includes waiving what the agency calls a non-relevant criminal record.
As a result of the changes, the number of children placed with family members increased from one in seven at the end of last year to one in five in September.
The group also said the agency's move to decrease the number of abused and neglected children with specialized needs being sent to live out-of-state--from 364 children in January to 258 in October--also is having some harmful affects.
"They may be coming home, but we aren't prepared for them," said Betsy Palmer-Ehrenfeld, who coordinates a network of foster homes for special-needs children across the state. She says the money is not available to ensure appropriate treatment for children with severe behavioral issues such as cutting themselves or exhibiting problem sexual behavior.
Muniz said many of those that were living out-of-state aged out of care, some went home and others were placed in facilities in the state. He said about half of the applications to place a child out-of-state have been rejected since the start of the year.
Anderson, who is the chairwoman of the advisory panel, also complained that parents continue to be treated poorly by DCF, despite the agency's ending surprise visits in response to allegations of abuse and neglect.
"There's a huge elephant in this room we have to talk about," she said. "You are not really trying to get parents and families involved." She cited advice the department is giving school districts in the Bridgeport region on how to handle a situation when they suspect a child is not getting the health care they require. "They are being told to report the parent for medical neglect. You should be helping them find the help."
Muniz responded that there would undoubtedly be hiccups in implementing such sweeping changes, but reminded the group that it is the agency's job to make sure children are safe.
"We are only here for abuse and neglect," he said. "DCF is not intended to be a poverty help program."
That upset Karen Hanson, a coordinator for child services at Yale's Child Study Center.
"You are going to send them to 2-1-1 and the Department of Social Services. Give me a break they can't even pick up the phone. That makes no sense," she said.
Source http://www.ctmirror.org/story/14453/changes-dcf-cause-consternation-their-advisory-panel
The sweeping changes the Department of Children and Families has made in recent months are drawing the ire of the agency's advisory panel, whose members--as parents, community providers, child lawyers and foster parents--are seeing first-hand the ramifications.
"You need to hear the crap that's going on," Janice Andersen, the deputy director of a Bridgeport-based group that deals with juvenile justice and other child welfare issues, told a top DCF official Monday.
It wasn't quite the reaction Fernando Muniz was expecting. He came to the meeting with a three-page update on the positive impact of keeping more children with their families, how reducing congregate care for the youngest children has played out and how the number of children living out of state has declined.
"As we have sat around this table all these years, these are all things you asked for," Muniz said in response to the harsh criticism. "Your points have been well taken."
But members of the State Advisory Council say many of the changes are causing widespread concern.
"Foster families are in absolute panic that you are sending children into unsafe homes. Just because someone shares the same genes does mean their criminal history shouldn't matter," said Laurie Landry, a therapist in Wethersfield. "What are you thinking?"
Connecticut previously had one of the lowest rates in the country of placing abused and neglected children with family members when it was determined they couldn't stay at home. Because of this, the department began waiving what Muniz describes as "the most restrictive guidelines in the country." That often includes waiving what the agency calls a non-relevant criminal record.
As a result of the changes, the number of children placed with family members increased from one in seven at the end of last year to one in five in September.
The group also said the agency's move to decrease the number of abused and neglected children with specialized needs being sent to live out-of-state--from 364 children in January to 258 in October--also is having some harmful affects.
"They may be coming home, but we aren't prepared for them," said Betsy Palmer-Ehrenfeld, who coordinates a network of foster homes for special-needs children across the state. She says the money is not available to ensure appropriate treatment for children with severe behavioral issues such as cutting themselves or exhibiting problem sexual behavior.
Muniz said many of those that were living out-of-state aged out of care, some went home and others were placed in facilities in the state. He said about half of the applications to place a child out-of-state have been rejected since the start of the year.
Anderson, who is the chairwoman of the advisory panel, also complained that parents continue to be treated poorly by DCF, despite the agency's ending surprise visits in response to allegations of abuse and neglect.
"There's a huge elephant in this room we have to talk about," she said. "You are not really trying to get parents and families involved." She cited advice the department is giving school districts in the Bridgeport region on how to handle a situation when they suspect a child is not getting the health care they require. "They are being told to report the parent for medical neglect. You should be helping them find the help."
Muniz responded that there would undoubtedly be hiccups in implementing such sweeping changes, but reminded the group that it is the agency's job to make sure children are safe.
"We are only here for abuse and neglect," he said. "DCF is not intended to be a poverty help program."
That upset Karen Hanson, a coordinator for child services at Yale's Child Study Center.
"You are going to send them to 2-1-1 and the Department of Social Services. Give me a break they can't even pick up the phone. That makes no sense," she said.
Source http://www.ctmirror.org/story/14453/changes-dcf-cause-consternation-their-advisory-panel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)