By Jane Musgrave
WEST PALM BEACH — The father of three children who were killed and a fourth who was injured when his ex-wife's estranged husband went on a deadly rampage in September 2010 is suing the Florida Department of Children & Families for negligence.
The suit filed by Michael Barnett comes a month after the father of a fourth child who was killed in the massacre filed a similar lawsuit against the state agency that is to protect children from harm.
Instead, according to the lawsuit Barnett filed last week in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, the agency ignored obvious warning signs. For instance, the Riviera Beach Police Department was summoned to Natasha Whyte-Dell's home 34 times before Patrick Dell broke in and shot and killed Whyte-Dell and four of her seven children and wounded another youngster before turning the gun on himself.
The agency did open an investigation in December 2009 after Dell was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief for coming after Whyte-Dell with a knife. While she and a friend cowered behind a door, she told police he screamed at her, "Your family is going to cry today" and "You will be going to the morgue."
However, despite the threats and ongoing violence, the agency closed its investigation, concluding the children weren't at "significant risk," according to Barnett's lawsuit.
In May 2010, Whyte-Dell got a restraining order against Dell after he again attacked her. In her petition, she said she heard Dell was trying to buy a gun and would use it to hurt her and her children. Four months later, that's exactly what he did.
Killed in the attack were Barnett's children: Daniel, 7; Diane, 13, and Bryan, 14. Injured was the divorced couple's 15-year-old son Ryan. Also killed was Javon Nelson, 11, the son of Leroy Nelson Jr., who is suing DCF. Two children survived.
DCF officials declined comment on the lawsuit. Shortly after the attack, then-DCF regional director Perry Borman admitted the case was not handled properly. The investigator was fired after being charged with battery in an unconnected incident.
Systems have been put in place in hopes of averting a similar disaster, said Mark Riordan, an agency spokesman. DCF now receives copies of any requests for restraining orders filed with the Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts. There also is greater cooperation between the agency and local law enforcement agencies, he said.
Source http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/father-of-3-children-slain-in-riviera-beach-2220804.html
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 children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Safety of children not always a priority for state in domestic violence cases - Kentucky
By Valarie Honeycutt Spears
There were warning signs that Michael Utley was a danger to his toddler son.
Utley had been charged with assaulting the mother of his child 18 months before the Gallatin County man attacked his live-in girlfriend and then shot and killed their 3-year-old son and himself in February 2009.
When the mother attempted to drive her "trashed" partner home from a local bar in September 2007, Utley slapped her hard enough to give her a black eye as 17-month-old Owen James Utley sat in the back seat.
A state adult-protection worker substantiated "partner abuse." But social workers never considered Owen's safety, according to an internal review of the boy's death conducted by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which handles child and adult protection in Kentucky.
Social workers should have formally assessed the "risk of harm" to Owen after the domestic violence episode, according to the internal review that focused on the handling of the case before the deaths.
That oversight was one of several problems related to domestic violence documented in internal reviews completed after children with whom the cabinet had previous contact died or were seriously harmed in 2009 and 2010.
A Lexington Herald-Leader analysis of the 85 reviews found that domestic violence in the family was mentioned in 48 of them and that an episode of domestic violence played a direct role in the injury or death of a child in five instances, including the death of Owen, who was killed shortly after his father had beaten his mother.
Among the shortcomings identified in the reviews:
■ Social workers don't always emphasize the safety of the child when domestic violence is discovered in a family.
■ Social workers sometimes fail to thoroughly assess whether domestic violence has occurred.
■ People living in some rural areas don't have convenient access to domestic violence shelters.
According to a 2011 report on deaths and near-deaths from child abuse and neglect in Kentucky, domestic violence was identified as a risk factor in 68 percent of cases from 2007 to 2011.
Another report released in January 2011 said studies have shown that there is an overlap of 30 percent to 60 percent between violence against children and violence against women in the same families.
In Kentucky, police must send the state a report of all incidents of domestic violence, and adult-protection workers are supposed to investigate those cases, although people are not required to accept the workers' help. Additionally, state regulations say that the cabinet must conduct an assessment to see whether a child is at risk of harm from domestic violence.
According to Jim Grace, assistant director of the cabinet's Division of Protection and Permanency, simultaneous child protection and domestic violence investigations are launched under a variety of circumstances, including if the child has been harmed, is prevented from leaving the premises by an abuser or is considered at risk of being harmed.
But cabinet officials conducting the fatality reviews said workers sometimes missed opportunities to protect children whose families experienced domestic violence.
For example, the cabinet's review of one 3-year-old's death raised questions about why the state found in a case involving the child's family that "there are no child-protection issues" even though a female relative told authorities, "I'm scared for my life and my child's life." The woman said she was being physically abused on a regular basis.
The review of Jeffrey B. Fields' death also questions whether a child-protection investigation should have been initiated after a report said, "Child has seen mother's paramour beat mommy up."
In the end, Jeffrey died in a traffic accident in 2010 when he was thrown from a car driven by a woman who was not his parent and who allegedly could not pass a drug test after the crash, according to the review of his death. There were previous reports of domestic violence in the child's family and the driver's family.
In an April 2009 case in Larue County, a child was taken to Hardin Memorial Hospital with 16 fractures and "multiple brain bleeds" and nearly died. A man in the child's home — his relationship to the mother was not made clear in documents — was criminally charged, and the cabinet found that the mother was neglectful for not protecting her child.
The review in that case noted that another child in the family was injured in 2007 during a domestic violence case involving the mother's previous boyfriend. That boyfriend assaulted the mother when she had an infant in her arms, cutting and bruising her and leaving a bruise and swelling on the baby's head.
The cabinet's review said staff should "continue to emphasize child safety and assessment" when conducting concurrent child-protection and adult-protection cases.
Grace said the cabinet is conducting training "on the dynamics of domestic violence and how it relates to a child's protection."
Once cabinet officials identify a systemic problem as a result of a fatality review, "there's the expectation that we would correct it," he said.
Shelters not always close
The death of Owen Utley also highlighted a lack of domestic violence shelters in rural portions of Kentucky.
After the initial 2007 report of domestic violence against Owen's mother, a social worker spoke with her about financial resources and alternative living arrangements that were available to her. But going to a shelter in her own community was not an option.
Ultimately, the cabinet's review said Michael Utley beat Owen's mother in February 2009 until she had two black eyes and cuts to her ear, and was missing chunks hair. When she ran to a neighbor's home for help, he killed the child and himself.
The "lack of shelter options in rural counties could be a deterrent to victims utilizing ... services," the review said.
Sherry Currens, executive director of the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, said there are 15 regional shelters with a total of 466 beds, which are nearly always full. All 120 counties are served by a shelter, but some residents have to travel farther than others, Currens said.
It's unlikely that shelters could expand their services without additional funding, she said, and domestic violence shelters in Kentucky got less state funding per resident in 2011 than in 1996.
Coordination lacking
Beyond the problems noted in the fatality reviews, there are other gaps, domestic violence victim advocates said.
Currens said she knows of instances when adult-protection workers have dropped a case after child-protection workers got involved. But both kinds of workers are needed to help the non-offending parent figure out "how to deal with the threat to the children," she said.
Coordination between advocates and cabinet workers has at times been lacking, advocates said.
Darlene Thomas, executive director of the Lexington-based Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, said advocates are sometimes not told by cabinet workers about domestic violence incidents. In other cases, advocates who contract with the cabinet to provide victim services don't have enough staff to attend team meetings about the family.
Lisa Holmes, the director of a domestic violence shelter in Elizabethtown, was concerned recently that she couldn't immediately get an answer at an intake line for the local child-protection office.
Holmes said she was "scared to death" for the safety of a child whose mother decided to leave the shelter.
Police had brought the mother to the SpringHaven shelter after "her boyfriend told her that the best way to handle his anger was to beat her 3-year-old child. So he picked her up and threw her, and she has a bruise on her face," Holmes said, referring to the child.
Holmes was trying to confirm that the boyfriend was in jail and that the mother and child would be safe if they returned home.
Holmes said she thought it would help "if we were quicker and better at adjudicating domestic violence cases and women had the support of CPS (child protection workers) instead of being afraid of them."
Removing children
Advocates and child-protection workers are sometimes at odds about the best way to keep safe a child who has been exposed to domestic violence.
Members of Currens' group are concerned that the cabinet sometimes unfairly recommends that judges remove children from a domestic violence victim's custody under the theory that the victim is failing to protect the child.
As a matter of policy, the cabinet does not recommend removal of any child from a parent's home unless there is risk to the child's physical safety or well-being, cabinet spokeswoman Anya Weber said. Recommendations are presented to the court, where the ultimate decision is made related to removal of the child, Weber said.
Thomas, the Lexington-based domestic violence advocate, said children should be protected from a parent who is a batterer. But she and other advocates said every attempt should be made to allow the child to remain with the non-offending parent.
The 2009 near-death of a 2-month-old girl demonstrates the difficult decisions that child-protection workers must sometimes make in cases of domestic violence.
A state review of the case noted that the cabinet substantiated neglect by the child's mother due to a "history of engaging in abusive relationships," not following through once she was granted domestic violence protection orders, and not being cooperative in previous law enforcement interventions involving domestic violence with the child's alleged abuser.
According to the review, the unidentified child was taken to the University of Kentucky Hospital in 2009 with a traumatic brain injury after her mother's paramour admitted to shaking her and handling her roughly.
Solutions
There are at least two legislative proposals this year to create task forces that would study the effect of domestic violence on Kentucky's children and come up with proposed laws for the 2013 General Assembly.
The sponsor of one proposal, Democratic state Rep. Joni Jenkins of Shively, said she worked in a domestic violence shelter for 10 years. She said expanding the services of domestic violence shelters would be beneficial.
"No kid gets beat in shelters. No kid gets neglected in shelters," she said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, and Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow, have introduced bills that would require the cabinet to assess the needs of children and custodial parents who have been exposed to domestic violence and to provide prevention services to help the child live at home. So far, neither bill has been considered by a legislative committee.
Other states have found success in having police, child-protection workers and domestic violence advocates working together on a team.
In Fresno, Calif., police Sgt. Daniel Macias is a member of the Children Exposed to Domestic Violence Team, which operates with a $200,000-a-year federal grant. The team's social workers and advocates, along with police detectives, investigate and provide services after domestic violence cases in which children are present, Macias said.
The team follows up with adult victims, Macias said, and "with the children, which are really the key to trying to stop the cycle of violence."
In Kentucky, Thomas said she would like to see collaborative efforts between the cabinet, which investigates allegations of abuse, and agencies that provide services for spouse-abuse victims to make sure families "have all available supports."
Having domestic violence advocates attend cabinet team meetings about individual families would help, she said.
But, Thomas said, "it all comes down to resources."
Source http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/26/2084442/safety-of-children-not-always.html
There were warning signs that Michael Utley was a danger to his toddler son.
Utley had been charged with assaulting the mother of his child 18 months before the Gallatin County man attacked his live-in girlfriend and then shot and killed their 3-year-old son and himself in February 2009.
When the mother attempted to drive her "trashed" partner home from a local bar in September 2007, Utley slapped her hard enough to give her a black eye as 17-month-old Owen James Utley sat in the back seat.
A state adult-protection worker substantiated "partner abuse." But social workers never considered Owen's safety, according to an internal review of the boy's death conducted by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which handles child and adult protection in Kentucky.
Social workers should have formally assessed the "risk of harm" to Owen after the domestic violence episode, according to the internal review that focused on the handling of the case before the deaths.
That oversight was one of several problems related to domestic violence documented in internal reviews completed after children with whom the cabinet had previous contact died or were seriously harmed in 2009 and 2010.
A Lexington Herald-Leader analysis of the 85 reviews found that domestic violence in the family was mentioned in 48 of them and that an episode of domestic violence played a direct role in the injury or death of a child in five instances, including the death of Owen, who was killed shortly after his father had beaten his mother.
Among the shortcomings identified in the reviews:
■ Social workers don't always emphasize the safety of the child when domestic violence is discovered in a family.
■ Social workers sometimes fail to thoroughly assess whether domestic violence has occurred.
■ People living in some rural areas don't have convenient access to domestic violence shelters.
According to a 2011 report on deaths and near-deaths from child abuse and neglect in Kentucky, domestic violence was identified as a risk factor in 68 percent of cases from 2007 to 2011.
Another report released in January 2011 said studies have shown that there is an overlap of 30 percent to 60 percent between violence against children and violence against women in the same families.
In Kentucky, police must send the state a report of all incidents of domestic violence, and adult-protection workers are supposed to investigate those cases, although people are not required to accept the workers' help. Additionally, state regulations say that the cabinet must conduct an assessment to see whether a child is at risk of harm from domestic violence.
According to Jim Grace, assistant director of the cabinet's Division of Protection and Permanency, simultaneous child protection and domestic violence investigations are launched under a variety of circumstances, including if the child has been harmed, is prevented from leaving the premises by an abuser or is considered at risk of being harmed.
But cabinet officials conducting the fatality reviews said workers sometimes missed opportunities to protect children whose families experienced domestic violence.
For example, the cabinet's review of one 3-year-old's death raised questions about why the state found in a case involving the child's family that "there are no child-protection issues" even though a female relative told authorities, "I'm scared for my life and my child's life." The woman said she was being physically abused on a regular basis.
The review of Jeffrey B. Fields' death also questions whether a child-protection investigation should have been initiated after a report said, "Child has seen mother's paramour beat mommy up."
In the end, Jeffrey died in a traffic accident in 2010 when he was thrown from a car driven by a woman who was not his parent and who allegedly could not pass a drug test after the crash, according to the review of his death. There were previous reports of domestic violence in the child's family and the driver's family.
In an April 2009 case in Larue County, a child was taken to Hardin Memorial Hospital with 16 fractures and "multiple brain bleeds" and nearly died. A man in the child's home — his relationship to the mother was not made clear in documents — was criminally charged, and the cabinet found that the mother was neglectful for not protecting her child.
The review in that case noted that another child in the family was injured in 2007 during a domestic violence case involving the mother's previous boyfriend. That boyfriend assaulted the mother when she had an infant in her arms, cutting and bruising her and leaving a bruise and swelling on the baby's head.
The cabinet's review said staff should "continue to emphasize child safety and assessment" when conducting concurrent child-protection and adult-protection cases.
Grace said the cabinet is conducting training "on the dynamics of domestic violence and how it relates to a child's protection."
Once cabinet officials identify a systemic problem as a result of a fatality review, "there's the expectation that we would correct it," he said.
Shelters not always close
The death of Owen Utley also highlighted a lack of domestic violence shelters in rural portions of Kentucky.
After the initial 2007 report of domestic violence against Owen's mother, a social worker spoke with her about financial resources and alternative living arrangements that were available to her. But going to a shelter in her own community was not an option.
Ultimately, the cabinet's review said Michael Utley beat Owen's mother in February 2009 until she had two black eyes and cuts to her ear, and was missing chunks hair. When she ran to a neighbor's home for help, he killed the child and himself.
The "lack of shelter options in rural counties could be a deterrent to victims utilizing ... services," the review said.
Sherry Currens, executive director of the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, said there are 15 regional shelters with a total of 466 beds, which are nearly always full. All 120 counties are served by a shelter, but some residents have to travel farther than others, Currens said.
It's unlikely that shelters could expand their services without additional funding, she said, and domestic violence shelters in Kentucky got less state funding per resident in 2011 than in 1996.
Coordination lacking
Beyond the problems noted in the fatality reviews, there are other gaps, domestic violence victim advocates said.
Currens said she knows of instances when adult-protection workers have dropped a case after child-protection workers got involved. But both kinds of workers are needed to help the non-offending parent figure out "how to deal with the threat to the children," she said.
Coordination between advocates and cabinet workers has at times been lacking, advocates said.
Darlene Thomas, executive director of the Lexington-based Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, said advocates are sometimes not told by cabinet workers about domestic violence incidents. In other cases, advocates who contract with the cabinet to provide victim services don't have enough staff to attend team meetings about the family.
Lisa Holmes, the director of a domestic violence shelter in Elizabethtown, was concerned recently that she couldn't immediately get an answer at an intake line for the local child-protection office.
Holmes said she was "scared to death" for the safety of a child whose mother decided to leave the shelter.
Police had brought the mother to the SpringHaven shelter after "her boyfriend told her that the best way to handle his anger was to beat her 3-year-old child. So he picked her up and threw her, and she has a bruise on her face," Holmes said, referring to the child.
Holmes was trying to confirm that the boyfriend was in jail and that the mother and child would be safe if they returned home.
Holmes said she thought it would help "if we were quicker and better at adjudicating domestic violence cases and women had the support of CPS (child protection workers) instead of being afraid of them."
Removing children
Advocates and child-protection workers are sometimes at odds about the best way to keep safe a child who has been exposed to domestic violence.
Members of Currens' group are concerned that the cabinet sometimes unfairly recommends that judges remove children from a domestic violence victim's custody under the theory that the victim is failing to protect the child.
As a matter of policy, the cabinet does not recommend removal of any child from a parent's home unless there is risk to the child's physical safety or well-being, cabinet spokeswoman Anya Weber said. Recommendations are presented to the court, where the ultimate decision is made related to removal of the child, Weber said.
Thomas, the Lexington-based domestic violence advocate, said children should be protected from a parent who is a batterer. But she and other advocates said every attempt should be made to allow the child to remain with the non-offending parent.
The 2009 near-death of a 2-month-old girl demonstrates the difficult decisions that child-protection workers must sometimes make in cases of domestic violence.
A state review of the case noted that the cabinet substantiated neglect by the child's mother due to a "history of engaging in abusive relationships," not following through once she was granted domestic violence protection orders, and not being cooperative in previous law enforcement interventions involving domestic violence with the child's alleged abuser.
According to the review, the unidentified child was taken to the University of Kentucky Hospital in 2009 with a traumatic brain injury after her mother's paramour admitted to shaking her and handling her roughly.
Solutions
There are at least two legislative proposals this year to create task forces that would study the effect of domestic violence on Kentucky's children and come up with proposed laws for the 2013 General Assembly.
The sponsor of one proposal, Democratic state Rep. Joni Jenkins of Shively, said she worked in a domestic violence shelter for 10 years. She said expanding the services of domestic violence shelters would be beneficial.
"No kid gets beat in shelters. No kid gets neglected in shelters," she said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, and Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow, have introduced bills that would require the cabinet to assess the needs of children and custodial parents who have been exposed to domestic violence and to provide prevention services to help the child live at home. So far, neither bill has been considered by a legislative committee.
Other states have found success in having police, child-protection workers and domestic violence advocates working together on a team.
In Fresno, Calif., police Sgt. Daniel Macias is a member of the Children Exposed to Domestic Violence Team, which operates with a $200,000-a-year federal grant. The team's social workers and advocates, along with police detectives, investigate and provide services after domestic violence cases in which children are present, Macias said.
The team follows up with adult victims, Macias said, and "with the children, which are really the key to trying to stop the cycle of violence."
In Kentucky, Thomas said she would like to see collaborative efforts between the cabinet, which investigates allegations of abuse, and agencies that provide services for spouse-abuse victims to make sure families "have all available supports."
Having domestic violence advocates attend cabinet team meetings about individual families would help, she said.
But, Thomas said, "it all comes down to resources."
Source http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/26/2084442/safety-of-children-not-always.html
Friday, January 20, 2012
Young mom refuses to give up on children - Washington DC
by Valencia Mohammed
This holiday season was the greatest celebration ever when Jewel Stroman, 23, finally got her daughter back from DC Child and Family Services Administration (CFSA). It has been 15 long months since the mother and child have spent time together as a family.
“This was long overdue. It feels good to be able to raise my own child once again. It’s a joy I can’t express in simple terms,” said Stroman. Her struggles of trying to keep her family intact date back years ago when Stroman was a teen mom.
In 2005, Stroman approached the AFRO about the struggles she faced trying to get her son out of foster care. Her father, Bruce Smith, suffering from kidney failure, placed his daughter and three-month old grandson in the Montgomery County Child and Family Services.
“I was advised to do so by social services because they thought I was going to die,” said Smith. His chances for survival were very slim at the time with no apparent kidney donor. He was on the transplant list for four years.
“I thought it was the right decision at that time. I had no idea that it would haunt me for the rest of my life and prove detrimental for me as a grandparent,” Smith said.
Stroman was released by the system on her 18th birthday, but her son remained. She filed a lawsuit, went to trial and won. But the scrutiny of the system of the teen mom did not stop there.
Hoping that a change of venue would make a difference, in 2006, Stroman moved to southeast Washington, got her own apartment and a job.
In 2007, Stroman became pregnant with a second son. In that year, she and the baby’s father were involved in a domestic quarrel. Both Stroman and the child’s father were locked up overnight. Instead of the police contacting her father or next of kin, child protective services was called and her eldest son was taken away. She felt the system was punishing her for outsmarting it years ago. Her eldest child is up for adoption. Although Stroman’s father was capable to raise the child after he received a kidney transplant, both systems denied him the right because he placed him in foster care years ago.
“I’m good enough to have my grandson for weekends and summertime visits but not good enough to raise him as his blood relative,” said Smith.
Stroman felt hopeless. “It’s like the system can get away with whatever it wants and as a young mother, you have no rights. No reunification was ever offered,” said Stroman.
While Stroman fought vigorously, other events affected her life. Her son’s placement didn’t stop her from loving him. She filed a complaint against CFSA when her son broke his femur under the watch of a foster care parent.
“If I didn’t bring it up, CFSA wouldn’t have done anything about it. No one punished the system for allowing this to happen,” said Stroman.
After the second child was born Stroman worked in Virginia and asked her second son’s aunt to take care of the child during the week. One Friday, when she came to get her son, the aunt refused to give him up. The aunt filed for custody with CFSA testifying on the aunt’s behalf using the Montgomery County case and removal of the first child as reasons for kinship custody. The baby’s father signed over his rights to his aunt. However, neither the court nor CFSA contacted the mother about the hearing until it was over.
“If I knew that overnight care with a family member would result in complete loss of my child, I would have placed him in kiddycare that had night hours. People have no idea how the system can work against a young mother,” said Stroman. The court order gave supervised visitation to Stroman but it has not been enforced. “I haven’t seen him in four years. Whenever I bring it up to the judge, nothing is done. It’s like he was legally stolen from me,” Stroman said.
Court officials said it provides attorneys for all parents to ensure that their rights are protected. “Federal and DC law and court rules require that reasonable efforts be made to keep the family intact.” said Leah Gurowitz, public information officer for the DC Superior Court.
But Stroman said the court ignored her requests through the attorney. So she kept filing complaints and her own lawsuits.
But the drama didn’t stop there. In 2008, Stroman was sentenced to 90 days in jail for articulating a threat to the 31-year old mother of her third boyfriend who refused to return Stroman’s car so she could get to work. She lost her apartment. Although the charges were dropped after Stroman successfully completed the terms of her probation, the conviction has been used against her numerous times in court proceedings.
In 2009, Stroman was pregnant with her third child. In February, 2010, the father of her second child was killed. The father of the third child was convicted of carjacking and is currently serving long term prison sentence.
Stroman joined a transitional housing program. One of the caseworkers was caught using the personal identifiable information of the clients to obtain credit cards, loans and cashed the money orders paid for rent. When Stroman reported the caseworker to authorities and confronted the culprit, she was given a two-hour notice to vacate.
Police illegally evicted Stroman with her daughter in the rain. The next day Stroman filed a complaint in court and the judge ordered her return to the premises. Stroman’s daughter caught pneumonia from the incident and was hospitalized. It was this incident that led to CFSA removing her daughter from the home claiming that the mother was negligent for not taking the child to a pediatric developmental evaluation.
“CFSA removes children when they can't be safe at home. In the vast majority of cases, the initial goal is reunification. To achieve that, parents must fulfill requirements of a case plan designed to reduce risk and increase safety. After a removal, parents have to meet requirements to get their children back,” said Mindy Good, public information officer for CFSA.
Stroman continued her quest to be a mother. At Stroman’s behest, the daughter was removed from two foster care families for extreme negligence. She filed four lawsuits and numerous complaints to the chief judge about illegal behavior of the family court judge who denied her legal rights for opportunities to reunify with her children.
To get custody of her daughter, Stroman was required to complete mental health evaluation, psychotherapy and anger management sessions, parenting classes, supervised visits, weekly urines, court proceedings, job placement program, maintain housing and attend bi-monthly meetings with caseworkers for reunification. The process was completed in February 2011 yet the daughter remained in the system until Dec. 16 of the same year.
Stroman’s complaints fell on deaf ears until recently. Stroman has received notification from the DC Superior Court family court monitor and CFSA citizens’ review board that they will examine her complaints.
“There’s no telling how many more mothers have been victimized by this system,” Stroman said.
Currently, there are over 4,000 children involved in court supervision and CFSA monitoring in the District. Stroman said, “It’s like this is a business of baby snatchers.”
Source http://www.afro.com/sections/news/Washington/story.htm?storyid=73796
This holiday season was the greatest celebration ever when Jewel Stroman, 23, finally got her daughter back from DC Child and Family Services Administration (CFSA). It has been 15 long months since the mother and child have spent time together as a family.
“This was long overdue. It feels good to be able to raise my own child once again. It’s a joy I can’t express in simple terms,” said Stroman. Her struggles of trying to keep her family intact date back years ago when Stroman was a teen mom.
In 2005, Stroman approached the AFRO about the struggles she faced trying to get her son out of foster care. Her father, Bruce Smith, suffering from kidney failure, placed his daughter and three-month old grandson in the Montgomery County Child and Family Services.
“I was advised to do so by social services because they thought I was going to die,” said Smith. His chances for survival were very slim at the time with no apparent kidney donor. He was on the transplant list for four years.
“I thought it was the right decision at that time. I had no idea that it would haunt me for the rest of my life and prove detrimental for me as a grandparent,” Smith said.
Stroman was released by the system on her 18th birthday, but her son remained. She filed a lawsuit, went to trial and won. But the scrutiny of the system of the teen mom did not stop there.
Hoping that a change of venue would make a difference, in 2006, Stroman moved to southeast Washington, got her own apartment and a job.
In 2007, Stroman became pregnant with a second son. In that year, she and the baby’s father were involved in a domestic quarrel. Both Stroman and the child’s father were locked up overnight. Instead of the police contacting her father or next of kin, child protective services was called and her eldest son was taken away. She felt the system was punishing her for outsmarting it years ago. Her eldest child is up for adoption. Although Stroman’s father was capable to raise the child after he received a kidney transplant, both systems denied him the right because he placed him in foster care years ago.
“I’m good enough to have my grandson for weekends and summertime visits but not good enough to raise him as his blood relative,” said Smith.
Stroman felt hopeless. “It’s like the system can get away with whatever it wants and as a young mother, you have no rights. No reunification was ever offered,” said Stroman.
While Stroman fought vigorously, other events affected her life. Her son’s placement didn’t stop her from loving him. She filed a complaint against CFSA when her son broke his femur under the watch of a foster care parent.
“If I didn’t bring it up, CFSA wouldn’t have done anything about it. No one punished the system for allowing this to happen,” said Stroman.
After the second child was born Stroman worked in Virginia and asked her second son’s aunt to take care of the child during the week. One Friday, when she came to get her son, the aunt refused to give him up. The aunt filed for custody with CFSA testifying on the aunt’s behalf using the Montgomery County case and removal of the first child as reasons for kinship custody. The baby’s father signed over his rights to his aunt. However, neither the court nor CFSA contacted the mother about the hearing until it was over.
“If I knew that overnight care with a family member would result in complete loss of my child, I would have placed him in kiddycare that had night hours. People have no idea how the system can work against a young mother,” said Stroman. The court order gave supervised visitation to Stroman but it has not been enforced. “I haven’t seen him in four years. Whenever I bring it up to the judge, nothing is done. It’s like he was legally stolen from me,” Stroman said.
Court officials said it provides attorneys for all parents to ensure that their rights are protected. “Federal and DC law and court rules require that reasonable efforts be made to keep the family intact.” said Leah Gurowitz, public information officer for the DC Superior Court.
But Stroman said the court ignored her requests through the attorney. So she kept filing complaints and her own lawsuits.
But the drama didn’t stop there. In 2008, Stroman was sentenced to 90 days in jail for articulating a threat to the 31-year old mother of her third boyfriend who refused to return Stroman’s car so she could get to work. She lost her apartment. Although the charges were dropped after Stroman successfully completed the terms of her probation, the conviction has been used against her numerous times in court proceedings.
In 2009, Stroman was pregnant with her third child. In February, 2010, the father of her second child was killed. The father of the third child was convicted of carjacking and is currently serving long term prison sentence.
Stroman joined a transitional housing program. One of the caseworkers was caught using the personal identifiable information of the clients to obtain credit cards, loans and cashed the money orders paid for rent. When Stroman reported the caseworker to authorities and confronted the culprit, she was given a two-hour notice to vacate.
Police illegally evicted Stroman with her daughter in the rain. The next day Stroman filed a complaint in court and the judge ordered her return to the premises. Stroman’s daughter caught pneumonia from the incident and was hospitalized. It was this incident that led to CFSA removing her daughter from the home claiming that the mother was negligent for not taking the child to a pediatric developmental evaluation.
“CFSA removes children when they can't be safe at home. In the vast majority of cases, the initial goal is reunification. To achieve that, parents must fulfill requirements of a case plan designed to reduce risk and increase safety. After a removal, parents have to meet requirements to get their children back,” said Mindy Good, public information officer for CFSA.
Stroman continued her quest to be a mother. At Stroman’s behest, the daughter was removed from two foster care families for extreme negligence. She filed four lawsuits and numerous complaints to the chief judge about illegal behavior of the family court judge who denied her legal rights for opportunities to reunify with her children.
To get custody of her daughter, Stroman was required to complete mental health evaluation, psychotherapy and anger management sessions, parenting classes, supervised visits, weekly urines, court proceedings, job placement program, maintain housing and attend bi-monthly meetings with caseworkers for reunification. The process was completed in February 2011 yet the daughter remained in the system until Dec. 16 of the same year.
Stroman’s complaints fell on deaf ears until recently. Stroman has received notification from the DC Superior Court family court monitor and CFSA citizens’ review board that they will examine her complaints.
“There’s no telling how many more mothers have been victimized by this system,” Stroman said.
Currently, there are over 4,000 children involved in court supervision and CFSA monitoring in the District. Stroman said, “It’s like this is a business of baby snatchers.”
Source http://www.afro.com/sections/news/Washington/story.htm?storyid=73796
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Poverty is an inadequate reason to take children from families - Michigan
By Vivek Sankaran
Detroit Free Press Guest Writer
A loving father sees a judge place his children in foster care because his Walmart job doesn't pay enough, and he and his child live with his sister.
Another father can't get his two boys out of foster care because he can't afford to buy them separate beds.
And a baby is removed from her parents' custody and placed with strangers simply because the family is homeless -- despite the parents' attempt to place the baby with family friends, instead.
All three Michigan families share a common denominator: poverty.
The foster care system exists to protect children from being abused by their parents. Yet, every day, children are separated from their families and placed in the system for no better reason than their parents' low income.
A short conversation with lawyers, caseworkers and judges bears this truth out. And in a state like Michigan, where the child poverty rate has increased by more than 60% in the last 10 years, recent cuts in public assistance and a staggering economy have only made things worse.
The Legislature, courts and the Department of Human Services must take immediate actions to address this growing problem. Here are steps they should consider taking:
• First, Michigan's Legislature should join other states around the country and revise current laws to clarify that a child cannot be placed in foster care -- nor can a parent's rights be terminated -- solely because of poverty. As noted by the California Court of Appeals, "Indigency, by itself, does not make one an unfit parent."
• Second, courts must enforce federal laws that require the Department of Human Service to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent a child's removal from his or her home. When dealing with poor families, this must include providing services such as emergency cash and housing services, day care or assistance in paying utilities, which may be the only barriers preventing the family from being able to take care of itself. Making these types of efforts is far cheaper than paying for children to live in the homes of licensed foster parents.
• Finally, the DHS must offer comprehensive training and enact policies to help its caseworkers, hundreds of whom are brand new, understand the difference between poverty and neglect. Too many caseworkers seem to be confusing the two and, as a direct result, Michigan children face a risk of being unnecessarily separated from their families.
The unfortunate reality in our state is that some families will continue to struggle for as long as the economy does.
But we need to remember: Society's failure to eradicate the evil of poverty can never justify taking children from their loving parents.
Vivek Sankaran is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the founder of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20111229/OPINION05/112290395/-Guest-commentary-Poverty-is-an-inadequate-reason-to-take-children-from-families-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7COPINION
Detroit Free Press Guest Writer
A loving father sees a judge place his children in foster care because his Walmart job doesn't pay enough, and he and his child live with his sister.
Another father can't get his two boys out of foster care because he can't afford to buy them separate beds.
And a baby is removed from her parents' custody and placed with strangers simply because the family is homeless -- despite the parents' attempt to place the baby with family friends, instead.
All three Michigan families share a common denominator: poverty.
The foster care system exists to protect children from being abused by their parents. Yet, every day, children are separated from their families and placed in the system for no better reason than their parents' low income.
A short conversation with lawyers, caseworkers and judges bears this truth out. And in a state like Michigan, where the child poverty rate has increased by more than 60% in the last 10 years, recent cuts in public assistance and a staggering economy have only made things worse.
The Legislature, courts and the Department of Human Services must take immediate actions to address this growing problem. Here are steps they should consider taking:
• First, Michigan's Legislature should join other states around the country and revise current laws to clarify that a child cannot be placed in foster care -- nor can a parent's rights be terminated -- solely because of poverty. As noted by the California Court of Appeals, "Indigency, by itself, does not make one an unfit parent."
• Second, courts must enforce federal laws that require the Department of Human Service to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent a child's removal from his or her home. When dealing with poor families, this must include providing services such as emergency cash and housing services, day care or assistance in paying utilities, which may be the only barriers preventing the family from being able to take care of itself. Making these types of efforts is far cheaper than paying for children to live in the homes of licensed foster parents.
• Finally, the DHS must offer comprehensive training and enact policies to help its caseworkers, hundreds of whom are brand new, understand the difference between poverty and neglect. Too many caseworkers seem to be confusing the two and, as a direct result, Michigan children face a risk of being unnecessarily separated from their families.
The unfortunate reality in our state is that some families will continue to struggle for as long as the economy does.
But we need to remember: Society's failure to eradicate the evil of poverty can never justify taking children from their loving parents.
Vivek Sankaran is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the founder of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20111229/OPINION05/112290395/-Guest-commentary-Poverty-is-an-inadequate-reason-to-take-children-from-families-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7COPINION
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Professor who helped youths in foster care systems charged with rape and sexual child abuse
Dwain Pellebon, 54, arrested for rape and lewd acts
Denies charges but admitted being 'affectionate and sensual'
Admitted watching child porn
By Rachel Quigley
A social work professor accused of rape and performing other lewd acts on teenage girls has been formally charged.
Dwain Pellebon, 54, of the University of Oklahoma, was arraigned on two counts of rape, two counts of lewd acts with a child and two counts of sexual child abuse.
The professor was arrested last week after authorities received allegations from a child welfare worker he had sexually abused two teenage girls in the past two years. He denies all the allegations.
A state Department of Human Services worker told Norman police that a 13-year-old reported seeing Pellebon fondle another 13-year-old during a sleepover at the suspect's Norman home, according to a search warrant affidavit.
The girl was interviewed by police last week, according to NewsOk, and told them she woke up in his home on at least two occasions with Pellebon lying beside her touching her 'from her hair to her ankles'.
The alleged abuse started when she was 11.
The social worker also said Pellebon sexually abused a mentally disabled 15-year-old at least twice.
The girl also told police the suspect would remove her from bed, take her clothes off and 'display her on a bed for viewing'.
Court documents also revealed the girl said Pellebon kept track of her menstrual cycle and showed her 'parts of the body you weren't supposed to see'.
The social work professor admitted taking off the girl's clothes but said he did it to apply cream to her 'chest, back and butt' while they were alone in his bedroom.
NewsOk reported that though Pellebon denies any sexual contact, he described himself to investigators as an 'affectionate, sensual man who liked to hug, kiss, cuddle and stroke young girls that he felt close to'.
He also told police that he had viewed child pornography once but did not download it.
In 2001, Pellebon was investigated by DHS under similar circumstances but no charges were filed because the alleged victim — the daughter of a former Norman police officer — failed to give investigators a statement, documents show.
He has been placed on administrative leave without pay and is free on $75,000 bail.
The 54-year-old was a director on a local board for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which helps children in juvenile court and foster systems.
He took a leave of absence from the board earlier this year, a Cleveland County CASA spokesman told The Oklahoman.
Pellebon teaches a course on human sexuality that looks at ‘sexual behaviour, gender differences and sexual values’, reported CNN.
After he was arrested a university spokesman said they 'acted swiftly to suspend Pellebon from any contact with students and from use of any university facilities'.
Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076602/Dwain-Pellebon-University-Oklahoma-social-work-professor-charged-rape-sexual-child-abuse.html
Denies charges but admitted being 'affectionate and sensual'
Admitted watching child porn
By Rachel Quigley
A social work professor accused of rape and performing other lewd acts on teenage girls has been formally charged.
Dwain Pellebon, 54, of the University of Oklahoma, was arraigned on two counts of rape, two counts of lewd acts with a child and two counts of sexual child abuse.
The professor was arrested last week after authorities received allegations from a child welfare worker he had sexually abused two teenage girls in the past two years. He denies all the allegations.
A state Department of Human Services worker told Norman police that a 13-year-old reported seeing Pellebon fondle another 13-year-old during a sleepover at the suspect's Norman home, according to a search warrant affidavit.
The girl was interviewed by police last week, according to NewsOk, and told them she woke up in his home on at least two occasions with Pellebon lying beside her touching her 'from her hair to her ankles'.
The alleged abuse started when she was 11.
The social worker also said Pellebon sexually abused a mentally disabled 15-year-old at least twice.
The girl also told police the suspect would remove her from bed, take her clothes off and 'display her on a bed for viewing'.
Court documents also revealed the girl said Pellebon kept track of her menstrual cycle and showed her 'parts of the body you weren't supposed to see'.
The social work professor admitted taking off the girl's clothes but said he did it to apply cream to her 'chest, back and butt' while they were alone in his bedroom.
NewsOk reported that though Pellebon denies any sexual contact, he described himself to investigators as an 'affectionate, sensual man who liked to hug, kiss, cuddle and stroke young girls that he felt close to'.
He also told police that he had viewed child pornography once but did not download it.
In 2001, Pellebon was investigated by DHS under similar circumstances but no charges were filed because the alleged victim — the daughter of a former Norman police officer — failed to give investigators a statement, documents show.
He has been placed on administrative leave without pay and is free on $75,000 bail.
The 54-year-old was a director on a local board for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which helps children in juvenile court and foster systems.
He took a leave of absence from the board earlier this year, a Cleveland County CASA spokesman told The Oklahoman.
Pellebon teaches a course on human sexuality that looks at ‘sexual behaviour, gender differences and sexual values’, reported CNN.
After he was arrested a university spokesman said they 'acted swiftly to suspend Pellebon from any contact with students and from use of any university facilities'.
Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076602/Dwain-Pellebon-University-Oklahoma-social-work-professor-charged-rape-sexual-child-abuse.html
Thursday, December 15, 2011
A Letter For Your Neighbors – If They Are Calling CPS (from fightcps.com)
Blogger note:
Thank you Linda from fightcps.com, for all that you do and for helping those trying to keep their families intact while CPS is trying to rip them apart. Thank you for writing this letter to help those who are devastated by the thought of losing their children. You are awesome!
---
Today I heard from a parent who is terrified because her neighbors are calling CPS to make reports about her. I was inspired to write this letter on her behalf. You can download this letter in a printable PDF format to print and give to neighbors in your area, to post on bulletin boards at stores and laundromats, or to send to a specific reporting party if you know who it is. I will modify the letter for other situations if you can give me some ideas on who needs a letter like this. Is it the teachers at the school, the doctor’s office? Who? Let’s educate the public on the dangers of CPS. You can help do that by distributing this letter in your area.
Dear Neighbors – PDF printable format
Dear neighbors,
Someone called CPS. Was it you? Please read this letter before calling CPS again.
I am honestly terrified of losing my children and implore you, if you are the one who made the call, to let me know if I do something you think is wrong regarding my children, and do not call CPS again.
My terror is nothing compared to the trauma my children suffer at the thought of losing me, their home, their friends, their school, their pets, their toys, their grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, and everything else that is part of their world. In the foster care system siblings often even lose each other.
You might think foster care is a better place for children but according to federal statistics children are much more likely to be abused in state custody foster homes. In foster homes many thousands of children have been abused emotionally, physically, and sexually. Many children have died in foster homes – many of whom were beaten to death by foster “parents”.
A professor at MIT did a study on foster children and learned that their long-range outcomes are not good, and that they’re better off left in marginal homes if there’s no extreme abuse going on. Most prison inmates were foster children.
So I ask that even if you don’t like me, please have mercy on my children and do not call CPS. It is a very dangerous government agency and not good for children. You are welcome to come to my house to advise me if you think I’m doing something wrong.
The government is very intrusive these days, and interferes with people for many reasons. We the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for all these intrusions. The cost of child protective services intrusions, the foster home placements, the “services” forced on parents – are all running up our tax bills. State custody for children is very expensive.
I would prefer a life where we as neighbors can help one another without having to call in government workers for every little thing. Please do not be afraid to contact me if you feel I’m doing something wrong. Do not be afraid to offer to help me. If you’re afraid, show me this letter… let me know that something has to change if that’s how you feel. But please, do not terrorize my children – they are traumatized at the thought of being taken away.
Thank you… from a neighbor.
Written by Linda at http://www.fightcps.com for someone in your neighborhood.
(If you use this but change the wording please do not use my name on your revised letter. I’d prefer that you use the printable PDF version.)
Thank you Linda from fightcps.com, for all that you do and for helping those trying to keep their families intact while CPS is trying to rip them apart. Thank you for writing this letter to help those who are devastated by the thought of losing their children. You are awesome!
---
Today I heard from a parent who is terrified because her neighbors are calling CPS to make reports about her. I was inspired to write this letter on her behalf. You can download this letter in a printable PDF format to print and give to neighbors in your area, to post on bulletin boards at stores and laundromats, or to send to a specific reporting party if you know who it is. I will modify the letter for other situations if you can give me some ideas on who needs a letter like this. Is it the teachers at the school, the doctor’s office? Who? Let’s educate the public on the dangers of CPS. You can help do that by distributing this letter in your area.
Dear Neighbors – PDF printable format
Dear neighbors,
Someone called CPS. Was it you? Please read this letter before calling CPS again.
I am honestly terrified of losing my children and implore you, if you are the one who made the call, to let me know if I do something you think is wrong regarding my children, and do not call CPS again.
My terror is nothing compared to the trauma my children suffer at the thought of losing me, their home, their friends, their school, their pets, their toys, their grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, and everything else that is part of their world. In the foster care system siblings often even lose each other.
You might think foster care is a better place for children but according to federal statistics children are much more likely to be abused in state custody foster homes. In foster homes many thousands of children have been abused emotionally, physically, and sexually. Many children have died in foster homes – many of whom were beaten to death by foster “parents”.
A professor at MIT did a study on foster children and learned that their long-range outcomes are not good, and that they’re better off left in marginal homes if there’s no extreme abuse going on. Most prison inmates were foster children.
So I ask that even if you don’t like me, please have mercy on my children and do not call CPS. It is a very dangerous government agency and not good for children. You are welcome to come to my house to advise me if you think I’m doing something wrong.
The government is very intrusive these days, and interferes with people for many reasons. We the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for all these intrusions. The cost of child protective services intrusions, the foster home placements, the “services” forced on parents – are all running up our tax bills. State custody for children is very expensive.
I would prefer a life where we as neighbors can help one another without having to call in government workers for every little thing. Please do not be afraid to contact me if you feel I’m doing something wrong. Do not be afraid to offer to help me. If you’re afraid, show me this letter… let me know that something has to change if that’s how you feel. But please, do not terrorize my children – they are traumatized at the thought of being taken away.
Thank you… from a neighbor.
Written by Linda at http://www.fightcps.com for someone in your neighborhood.
(If you use this but change the wording please do not use my name on your revised letter. I’d prefer that you use the printable PDF version.)
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Child Welfare Agencies Nationwide Traffic ‘Adoptable’ Children Into Foster Care
Here's a very good article about the truth of CPS and children being removed and placed into foster care. It touches on a little bit of everything involved.
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-san-jose/child-welfare-agencies-nationwide-traffic-adoptable-children-into-foster-care
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-san-jose/child-welfare-agencies-nationwide-traffic-adoptable-children-into-foster-care
Ohio AG calls for foster care review
Mike DeWine wants to know why kids are not being adopted or reunited with their families.
(Cincinnati) — Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine today called for a complete review of the foster care system in Ohio. DeWine's call for action was made at a Child Safety Summit he hosted in Cincinnati.
"I convened this child safety summit today, the first of many I intend to hold across Ohio, because we need to conduct a comprehensive, holistic review of the entire foster care system in this state," said Attorney General DeWine. "Too many of these children are languishing in foster care with no real hope of ever having a permanent loving home."
About 40 representatives from foster care agencies, law enforcement, advocacy groups, prosecutors' offices, and adoption agencies attended the summit, including Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, Rita Soronen of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, and Moira Weir, director of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services.
The Summit discussed several issues facing the foster care system, including recent deaths of foster children after being reunified with relatives.
According to data from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 33 children died (not necessarily from abuse or neglect) after being in foster care and being reunified with their biological parents from 2005-2010.
Hamilton County has had three deaths of foster children reunified with their biological parents in 2010. In the U.S. Senate, DeWine authored language in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act clarifying laws that in issues of family reunification, the best interests of the child always have to come first.
However, DeWine noted today that his call for review is not limited to family reunification.
"There are children in the Ohio child welfare system who are dying, but there are also children dying who have been abused and neglected who have never been in foster care," said Attorney General DeWine. "There are also children in foster care who spend their entire lives in the system, never being adopted into a safe and loving home."
Many of Ohio's foster care children end up "aging out of foster care," DeWine noted. The percentage of children aging out in Ohio is greater than the national average of 11 percent in 2010. In 2009, Ohio emancipated 1,453 foster children, which represented 15 percent of the foster care population.
DeWine also noted the alarming amount of psychiatric medications apparently being prescribed to foster children. A recently released federal Government Accountability Office report said foster children can be prescribed these drugs at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the FDA, and many foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time.
Source http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122520&article=9493889
(Cincinnati) — Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine today called for a complete review of the foster care system in Ohio. DeWine's call for action was made at a Child Safety Summit he hosted in Cincinnati.
"I convened this child safety summit today, the first of many I intend to hold across Ohio, because we need to conduct a comprehensive, holistic review of the entire foster care system in this state," said Attorney General DeWine. "Too many of these children are languishing in foster care with no real hope of ever having a permanent loving home."
About 40 representatives from foster care agencies, law enforcement, advocacy groups, prosecutors' offices, and adoption agencies attended the summit, including Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, Rita Soronen of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, and Moira Weir, director of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services.
The Summit discussed several issues facing the foster care system, including recent deaths of foster children after being reunified with relatives.
According to data from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 33 children died (not necessarily from abuse or neglect) after being in foster care and being reunified with their biological parents from 2005-2010.
Hamilton County has had three deaths of foster children reunified with their biological parents in 2010. In the U.S. Senate, DeWine authored language in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act clarifying laws that in issues of family reunification, the best interests of the child always have to come first.
However, DeWine noted today that his call for review is not limited to family reunification.
"There are children in the Ohio child welfare system who are dying, but there are also children dying who have been abused and neglected who have never been in foster care," said Attorney General DeWine. "There are also children in foster care who spend their entire lives in the system, never being adopted into a safe and loving home."
Many of Ohio's foster care children end up "aging out of foster care," DeWine noted. The percentage of children aging out in Ohio is greater than the national average of 11 percent in 2010. In 2009, Ohio emancipated 1,453 foster children, which represented 15 percent of the foster care population.
DeWine also noted the alarming amount of psychiatric medications apparently being prescribed to foster children. A recently released federal Government Accountability Office report said foster children can be prescribed these drugs at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the FDA, and many foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time.
Source http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122520&article=9493889
Monday, December 5, 2011
Scandals at Texas agency facilities brought reforms, but state hospitals didn't follow lead
By Eric Dexheimer and Andrea Ball
In 2007, stunned by revelations of ongoing sexual abuse of young state wards by the adults charged with caring for them, legislators passed a series of laws that reformed how the Texas Youth Commission kept its teenage offenders safe. The changes included simple adjustments considered best practices in lockups for years: increased use of security cameras to capture and record incidents, independent monitors to field complaints and a separate investigative team to pursue allegations of abuse.
In 2009, images discovered on a lost cellphone revealed that staff members at a state-run school for people with disabilities had promoted a "fight club," instigating young residents to hit and push one another. The reports came on the heels of a federal lawsuit requiring reforms to the same system of schools. Another, but similar set of reforms added thousands of cameras and a standing order that investigators start looking for patterns in past claims of abuse to identify problem employees.
Now a third agency in less than five years finds itself in the spotlight because of claims a staffer abused children in state care. In late October, the Department of Family and Protective Services, which investigates claims of abuse in state facilities, found reason to believe psychiatrist Charles Fischer had sexually abused two patients, in 2003 and 2006, at the Austin State Hospital. Weeks later, the Texas Medical Board concluded that evidence supported nine claims of sexual abuse against Fischer dating back at least two decades.
Fischer has not been criminally charged. Through his lawyer he "vigorously" denied the allegations.
The news nevertheless has promoted self-examination among state officials.
"We want to know, how did we get to this place with a number of allegations (against Fischer), even if not confirmed?" said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services Commission.
One likely reason, reporting by the American-Statesman shows, is that none of the basic reforms mandated by lawmakers only a few years earlier at the Youth Commission and state schools made their way to the state hospital system, despite the similarities in the three agencies' missions: caring for troubled, mentally fragile children in an institutional setting.
The 13 state supported living centers (formerly called state schools) and the state psychiatric hospital system are even overseen by the same agency: the Health and Human Services Commission, which shares office space with the Texas Youth Commission.
"There are a number of things we put into place at the state supported living centers that we are looking at to see if we could put them in place at the state hospitals," acknowledged Goodman.
"In hindsight, could we have done things differently?" added Carrie Williams of the Department of State Health Services, which oversees the state's 10 psychiatric hospitals. "Absolutely."
There is no allegation that confirmed abuse claims at the state hospital system extend past a single person — a contrast to the Youth Commission and the living centers, which were found to have deep and systemic deficiencies requiring immediate repair.
Legislators are vowing new investigations anyway.
"I am reviewing the measures taken by our state agencies in response to this tragedy to determine whether they need to be put into statute and possibly strengthened," said state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound , who chairs the Senate Health and Human Services Committee .
The allegation that one of the hospital system's doctors could have carried on a series of assaults over decades despite numerous reports, as reforms were occurring at similar agencies literally next door, suggests missed opportunities and raises questions about government's ability to anticipate and prevent serious problems, rather than to react and respond only to scandal.
The agencies treat different clients; however, not different enough to account for security variations, advocates say.
"Any additional precautions when you're working with such vulnerable population are important," said Beth Mitchell, supervising attorney for Disability Rights Texas, an Austin-based group that often litigates on behalf of mentally ill patients. "Hopefully, this will put the hospitals on notice, and they'll do the right thing."
News that officials at the Texas Youth Commission knew about but largely ignored confirmed reports that two administrators at a West Texas facility were sexually preying on teenagers in their custody hit just as the 2007 legislative session was getting under way. Forced by lawmakers to remake itself, the agency — last week renamed the Texas Juvenile Justice Department — undertook a series of reform measures.
A number of the changes were specifically designed to make Youth Commission facilities physically safer for offenders in its custody. Several were informed by the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a 2003 federal law that seeks to address the high incidence of sexual assault in lockups by targeting the culture and physical settings that allowed abuse.
Chief among them was the purchase, for $18 million, of 12,000 new high-definition cameras that peered into literally every corner of the Youth Commission's facilities. The images can be accessed at any time by the facility administrators, investigators and even agency executives in Austin.
The 10 state psychiatric hospitals, by comparison, have a total of 549 cameras, about a third from the 1980s. Three of the facilities have fewer than six cameras each.
Stored digital images not only protect youth, but also accused staff, said Cris Love, head of the Youth Commission's Office of Inspector General. "They're extremely important — a huge, huge asset to investigations," he said.
Though the agency doesn't keep numbers, Love said, images from the cameras have "absolutely" been used to both clear and convict staff of abuse allegations.
A November 2010 report by an outside consulting company hired to evaluate the reforms concluded, "Youth and staff commented at every TYC facility that cameras have increased safety, especially sexual safety."
The agency also made small but significant physical changes to its facilities. It took down walls that blocked sight lines, decreasing opportunities for hidden activity. It replaced solid wooden doors with doors that had windows and exchanged individual locks for a new keyless entry system that requires staff to have a control room operator open doors.
"This practice contributes to the sexual safety of youth by limiting the number of keys held by staff, thereby decreasing the number of areas they are able to access," the consultant wrote.
Criminal cases against the West Texas facility administrators had stalled when local prosecutors dragged their feet, so how the agency pursued claims of abuse was overhauled as well.
Senate Bill 103, which provided the blueprint for the Youth Commission's reform, created the independent inspector general, whose officers were granted police powers to investigate abuse claims and make arrests. New laws also allowed the Youth Commission to use the adult prison system's Special Prosecution Unit to take children's cases to court on its own.
"Looking at the fight club situation at the state school," Hurley said, "a lot of the things we now have in place would have prevented that."
Living centers react
In fact, recent reforms at the state living centers mirrored those implemented at the Youth Commission less than two years earlier.
The centers, residential facilities where people with intellectual and developmental disabilities receive a full range of psychiatric and medical care, came under scrutiny in 2006 after a federal civil rights investigation of the Lubbock center found "just deplorable conditions generally," recalled Disability Rights' Mitchell.
Follow-up investigations found problems in other centers, and the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state to force reforms. Among other claims, federal lawyers asserted that the Texas facilities did not provide "reasonably safe conditions, including protection from abuse, neglect, and other harm." In 2009, the Department of Aging and Disability Services signed a consent order, promising to improve how center residents were treated and cared for.
Reports in March 2009 that employees at the Corpus Christi living center had been arranging late-night fights among disabled residents came as legislators were beginning a new biennial session. Three months later, Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill mandating a sweeping set of reforms.
Within months, the state began laying 35 miles of fiber-optic cable and installing 3,200 new surveillance cameras at its centers.
Though the cameras were not as pervasively placed as those at the Youth Commission facilities — they cover mainly common areas, not treatment or residential rooms — they are monitored around the clock by center staff, spokeswoman Allison Lowery said.
State hospitals don't have employees designated to monitor cameras, health services department spokeswoman Williams said.
"They're a big component of our larger reforms," Lowery said, adding that the recorded images have been used to train staff, as well as to provide definitive evidence to confirm or dismiss complaints.
Department of Family and Protective Services data show the number of confirmed allegations at state supported living centers — reports that investigators determined were true based on a preponderance of evidence — grew from 8 percent in 2009, before the new cameras, to 9 percent in 2011, a difference of 90 cases. The case confirmation rate at state hospitals fell a percentage point over the same period.
Officials say the new cameras may not be entirely responsible for the difference. But "it has helped with the confirmation rate," said Wendy Ivy, a policy analyst with the protective service's facility investigation unit.
New inquiry policies
The 2009 living center reforms also required that investigations into allegations of abuse at the facilities be pursued differently than at other mental health agencies.
At state hospitals, Department of Family and Protective Services investigators looking into allegations of abuse are given 14 days to respond and finish their initial report. The new rules for the living centers require the reports be completed more expeditiously, in 10 days.
As with the Texas Youth Commission, the reforms also empowered the Health and Human Services Commission's Office of Inspector General to act as official law enforcement agents and assist with investigations — but only on those cases within the state supported living centers.
Perhaps the biggest difference in abuse inquiries between facilities, however, has been in how investigators can research and weigh an accused perpetrator's past record. At state hospitals, detectives generally do not take into account previous complaints and accusations against an individual.
Because of the 2009 federal reforms, however, the same investigators examining comparable allegations at the living centers must examine older cases to identify patterns. "Trends shall be tracked by the categories of: type of incident; staff alleged to have caused the incident; individuals directly involved; location of incident; date and time of incident; cause(s) of incident; and outcome of investigation," the new law stated.
Even if the new investigation is inconclusive, Ivy said, examiners can still document a noteworthy history of complaints on the "concerns and recommendations" portion of their reports, alerting future investigators to a suspect's troubled past.
Trending analysis "makes a big difference when you have a perpetrator who's constantly being reported, being called in for the same incidents time after time by different individuals," Mitchell added.
State records show that seven boys ages 13 to 17 who were patients at the Austin State Hospital accused Fischer of inappropriate sexual contact between 2001 and 2006 and that two others made complaints against him while he was working at other facilities.
Hospitals follow suit
State officials say they are already changing how they run the hospitals and investigate abuse incidents. Two weeks ago, executives announced a ban on after-hours therapy sessions unless two staff members are present and a requirement that individual treatment services occur only in rooms with windows or in locations that can be observed by other staff members — all rules adopted years earlier by the Texas Youth Commission following its 2007 scandal, Hurley said.
State Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, said he plans to introduce a bill in 2013 that would require the Department of State Health Services to perform a more extensive FBI fingerprint background check on employees — a safeguard already required by the Department of Aging and Disability Services, which runs the state centers.
Hospital administrators also have ordered "a review of sexual abuse allegations, confirmations and actions taken \u2026 to identify any trends" in old state hospital cases. The Department of Family and Protective Services announced that it was undertaking a review of all sexual abuse complaints filed in the past five years at every state facility. "Trends or patterns may result in the reopening of old cases," agency spokesman Patrick Crimmins said. "We want to make sure we haven't missed anything."
Williams said officials also are discussing whether to add more cameras to state hospitals, although vulnerabilities of its patients could limit where and how many. "These are psychiatric patients who come to us for mental health treatment, and they have a right to privacy," she said
Still, she added, "there will be more changes. We're looking at what other agencies have done."
About this story
Last month, the American-Statesman broke the story that state investigators had found credible evidence that longtime staff psychiatrist Charles Fischer had sexually abused two of his patients at Austin State Hospital. Soon after the story, state health officials announced immediate reforms to protect patients, and the Texas Medical Board suspended Fischer's license based on its determination that he had abused nine children under his care dating back to the early 1990s.
Source http://www.statesman.com/news/statesman-investigates/scandals-at-texas-agency-facilities-brought-reforms-but-2010985.html
In 2007, stunned by revelations of ongoing sexual abuse of young state wards by the adults charged with caring for them, legislators passed a series of laws that reformed how the Texas Youth Commission kept its teenage offenders safe. The changes included simple adjustments considered best practices in lockups for years: increased use of security cameras to capture and record incidents, independent monitors to field complaints and a separate investigative team to pursue allegations of abuse.
In 2009, images discovered on a lost cellphone revealed that staff members at a state-run school for people with disabilities had promoted a "fight club," instigating young residents to hit and push one another. The reports came on the heels of a federal lawsuit requiring reforms to the same system of schools. Another, but similar set of reforms added thousands of cameras and a standing order that investigators start looking for patterns in past claims of abuse to identify problem employees.
Now a third agency in less than five years finds itself in the spotlight because of claims a staffer abused children in state care. In late October, the Department of Family and Protective Services, which investigates claims of abuse in state facilities, found reason to believe psychiatrist Charles Fischer had sexually abused two patients, in 2003 and 2006, at the Austin State Hospital. Weeks later, the Texas Medical Board concluded that evidence supported nine claims of sexual abuse against Fischer dating back at least two decades.
Fischer has not been criminally charged. Through his lawyer he "vigorously" denied the allegations.
The news nevertheless has promoted self-examination among state officials.
"We want to know, how did we get to this place with a number of allegations (against Fischer), even if not confirmed?" said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services Commission.
One likely reason, reporting by the American-Statesman shows, is that none of the basic reforms mandated by lawmakers only a few years earlier at the Youth Commission and state schools made their way to the state hospital system, despite the similarities in the three agencies' missions: caring for troubled, mentally fragile children in an institutional setting.
The 13 state supported living centers (formerly called state schools) and the state psychiatric hospital system are even overseen by the same agency: the Health and Human Services Commission, which shares office space with the Texas Youth Commission.
"There are a number of things we put into place at the state supported living centers that we are looking at to see if we could put them in place at the state hospitals," acknowledged Goodman.
"In hindsight, could we have done things differently?" added Carrie Williams of the Department of State Health Services, which oversees the state's 10 psychiatric hospitals. "Absolutely."
There is no allegation that confirmed abuse claims at the state hospital system extend past a single person — a contrast to the Youth Commission and the living centers, which were found to have deep and systemic deficiencies requiring immediate repair.
Legislators are vowing new investigations anyway.
"I am reviewing the measures taken by our state agencies in response to this tragedy to determine whether they need to be put into statute and possibly strengthened," said state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound , who chairs the Senate Health and Human Services Committee .
The allegation that one of the hospital system's doctors could have carried on a series of assaults over decades despite numerous reports, as reforms were occurring at similar agencies literally next door, suggests missed opportunities and raises questions about government's ability to anticipate and prevent serious problems, rather than to react and respond only to scandal.
The agencies treat different clients; however, not different enough to account for security variations, advocates say.
"Any additional precautions when you're working with such vulnerable population are important," said Beth Mitchell, supervising attorney for Disability Rights Texas, an Austin-based group that often litigates on behalf of mentally ill patients. "Hopefully, this will put the hospitals on notice, and they'll do the right thing."
News that officials at the Texas Youth Commission knew about but largely ignored confirmed reports that two administrators at a West Texas facility were sexually preying on teenagers in their custody hit just as the 2007 legislative session was getting under way. Forced by lawmakers to remake itself, the agency — last week renamed the Texas Juvenile Justice Department — undertook a series of reform measures.
A number of the changes were specifically designed to make Youth Commission facilities physically safer for offenders in its custody. Several were informed by the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a 2003 federal law that seeks to address the high incidence of sexual assault in lockups by targeting the culture and physical settings that allowed abuse.
Chief among them was the purchase, for $18 million, of 12,000 new high-definition cameras that peered into literally every corner of the Youth Commission's facilities. The images can be accessed at any time by the facility administrators, investigators and even agency executives in Austin.
The 10 state psychiatric hospitals, by comparison, have a total of 549 cameras, about a third from the 1980s. Three of the facilities have fewer than six cameras each.
Stored digital images not only protect youth, but also accused staff, said Cris Love, head of the Youth Commission's Office of Inspector General. "They're extremely important — a huge, huge asset to investigations," he said.
Though the agency doesn't keep numbers, Love said, images from the cameras have "absolutely" been used to both clear and convict staff of abuse allegations.
A November 2010 report by an outside consulting company hired to evaluate the reforms concluded, "Youth and staff commented at every TYC facility that cameras have increased safety, especially sexual safety."
The agency also made small but significant physical changes to its facilities. It took down walls that blocked sight lines, decreasing opportunities for hidden activity. It replaced solid wooden doors with doors that had windows and exchanged individual locks for a new keyless entry system that requires staff to have a control room operator open doors.
"This practice contributes to the sexual safety of youth by limiting the number of keys held by staff, thereby decreasing the number of areas they are able to access," the consultant wrote.
Criminal cases against the West Texas facility administrators had stalled when local prosecutors dragged their feet, so how the agency pursued claims of abuse was overhauled as well.
Senate Bill 103, which provided the blueprint for the Youth Commission's reform, created the independent inspector general, whose officers were granted police powers to investigate abuse claims and make arrests. New laws also allowed the Youth Commission to use the adult prison system's Special Prosecution Unit to take children's cases to court on its own.
"Looking at the fight club situation at the state school," Hurley said, "a lot of the things we now have in place would have prevented that."
Living centers react
In fact, recent reforms at the state living centers mirrored those implemented at the Youth Commission less than two years earlier.
The centers, residential facilities where people with intellectual and developmental disabilities receive a full range of psychiatric and medical care, came under scrutiny in 2006 after a federal civil rights investigation of the Lubbock center found "just deplorable conditions generally," recalled Disability Rights' Mitchell.
Follow-up investigations found problems in other centers, and the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state to force reforms. Among other claims, federal lawyers asserted that the Texas facilities did not provide "reasonably safe conditions, including protection from abuse, neglect, and other harm." In 2009, the Department of Aging and Disability Services signed a consent order, promising to improve how center residents were treated and cared for.
Reports in March 2009 that employees at the Corpus Christi living center had been arranging late-night fights among disabled residents came as legislators were beginning a new biennial session. Three months later, Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill mandating a sweeping set of reforms.
Within months, the state began laying 35 miles of fiber-optic cable and installing 3,200 new surveillance cameras at its centers.
Though the cameras were not as pervasively placed as those at the Youth Commission facilities — they cover mainly common areas, not treatment or residential rooms — they are monitored around the clock by center staff, spokeswoman Allison Lowery said.
State hospitals don't have employees designated to monitor cameras, health services department spokeswoman Williams said.
"They're a big component of our larger reforms," Lowery said, adding that the recorded images have been used to train staff, as well as to provide definitive evidence to confirm or dismiss complaints.
Department of Family and Protective Services data show the number of confirmed allegations at state supported living centers — reports that investigators determined were true based on a preponderance of evidence — grew from 8 percent in 2009, before the new cameras, to 9 percent in 2011, a difference of 90 cases. The case confirmation rate at state hospitals fell a percentage point over the same period.
Officials say the new cameras may not be entirely responsible for the difference. But "it has helped with the confirmation rate," said Wendy Ivy, a policy analyst with the protective service's facility investigation unit.
New inquiry policies
The 2009 living center reforms also required that investigations into allegations of abuse at the facilities be pursued differently than at other mental health agencies.
At state hospitals, Department of Family and Protective Services investigators looking into allegations of abuse are given 14 days to respond and finish their initial report. The new rules for the living centers require the reports be completed more expeditiously, in 10 days.
As with the Texas Youth Commission, the reforms also empowered the Health and Human Services Commission's Office of Inspector General to act as official law enforcement agents and assist with investigations — but only on those cases within the state supported living centers.
Perhaps the biggest difference in abuse inquiries between facilities, however, has been in how investigators can research and weigh an accused perpetrator's past record. At state hospitals, detectives generally do not take into account previous complaints and accusations against an individual.
Because of the 2009 federal reforms, however, the same investigators examining comparable allegations at the living centers must examine older cases to identify patterns. "Trends shall be tracked by the categories of: type of incident; staff alleged to have caused the incident; individuals directly involved; location of incident; date and time of incident; cause(s) of incident; and outcome of investigation," the new law stated.
Even if the new investigation is inconclusive, Ivy said, examiners can still document a noteworthy history of complaints on the "concerns and recommendations" portion of their reports, alerting future investigators to a suspect's troubled past.
Trending analysis "makes a big difference when you have a perpetrator who's constantly being reported, being called in for the same incidents time after time by different individuals," Mitchell added.
State records show that seven boys ages 13 to 17 who were patients at the Austin State Hospital accused Fischer of inappropriate sexual contact between 2001 and 2006 and that two others made complaints against him while he was working at other facilities.
Hospitals follow suit
State officials say they are already changing how they run the hospitals and investigate abuse incidents. Two weeks ago, executives announced a ban on after-hours therapy sessions unless two staff members are present and a requirement that individual treatment services occur only in rooms with windows or in locations that can be observed by other staff members — all rules adopted years earlier by the Texas Youth Commission following its 2007 scandal, Hurley said.
State Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, said he plans to introduce a bill in 2013 that would require the Department of State Health Services to perform a more extensive FBI fingerprint background check on employees — a safeguard already required by the Department of Aging and Disability Services, which runs the state centers.
Hospital administrators also have ordered "a review of sexual abuse allegations, confirmations and actions taken \u2026 to identify any trends" in old state hospital cases. The Department of Family and Protective Services announced that it was undertaking a review of all sexual abuse complaints filed in the past five years at every state facility. "Trends or patterns may result in the reopening of old cases," agency spokesman Patrick Crimmins said. "We want to make sure we haven't missed anything."
Williams said officials also are discussing whether to add more cameras to state hospitals, although vulnerabilities of its patients could limit where and how many. "These are psychiatric patients who come to us for mental health treatment, and they have a right to privacy," she said
Still, she added, "there will be more changes. We're looking at what other agencies have done."
About this story
Last month, the American-Statesman broke the story that state investigators had found credible evidence that longtime staff psychiatrist Charles Fischer had sexually abused two of his patients at Austin State Hospital. Soon after the story, state health officials announced immediate reforms to protect patients, and the Texas Medical Board suspended Fischer's license based on its determination that he had abused nine children under his care dating back to the early 1990s.
Source http://www.statesman.com/news/statesman-investigates/scandals-at-texas-agency-facilities-brought-reforms-but-2010985.html
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Number of American Indian children in foster care worries tribal leaders - Minnesota
by Sasha Aslanian
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday Journal: For social worker, biggest lie didn't come from 'hoodlum children'
By Derry Smith
Driving a child to the Florida School for Boys in Marianna was not in the job description when my mother accepted the position of social worker for the Pinellas County Juvenile Justice System in 1959.
Fresh out of college, she felt privileged to join the department. She intended to work toward improving the future for kids who lived with neglectful or abusive parents. What she learned was that Florida's state and county agencies didn't have much compassion for kids.
Children, some as young as six, were arrested for such petty crimes as trespassing and taken away from their homes. Typically, parents weren't punished for neglecting or even abusing their children.
As a juvenile guardian for the court, my mother would hear tales from kids about the horrendous punishment they had to endure at the hands of foster parents. When she took these revelations to her supervisors she was chastised for believing "lies."
The Marianna School for Boys was a threat that was part of the protocol when working with disobedient kids. And her charge, Jackie, had been threatened many times. He knew first-hand about the place, being a seasoned attendee by the time he was 11 years old.
Jackie lived with a mother who showed no interest in him. She didn't keep him fed or clean. The truant officer visited regularly, and the neighbors called the police often about the boy trespassing in their yards and stealing fruit. His mother finally gave up custody, and the state put him in a foster home. Within a month Jackie ran away. The authorities caught up with him. My mother was the social worker who interviewed him.
"The foster mother doesn't feed me," he told her. "I only eat if there's something left after her own kids do."
Again my mother reported the complaint to supervisors. Her report was met with indifference.
"Children lie," she was told as before. "Especially hoodlum children."
Her orders to escort Jackie to Marianna came as a "gift." She understood that the state had an expense account for traveling to the School for Boys and she was expected to use it.
Her supervisor informed her of the nicest hotel in the area and the best places to eat. She made the reservations and, accompanied by my father, left on a Friday. With the blessing of her boss they intended to make a weekend of it. It wasn't until they sped north with Jackie in the back seat that she realized this would be no blissful vacation.
He was small for 11, and his freckled face lacked childish wonder. His haggard eyes seemed too old for tears, and this may be why he didn't cry. He begged to be taken somewhere else. Anywhere else.
"Please don't take me there," he said. "They're mean. They beat you."
My mother looked at the child, his brown bangs almost in his eyes.
"You've survived this place before," she said. "And I bet if you cooperate, the guards won't beat you."
But still he begged.
"It's only an eight-month sentence," she said. "Use it as an opportunity to turn your life around."
She had no advice for what he said next.
"The big kids. They chase the little kids," he said quietly. "And when they catch ya' they blow ya'."
"They blow you?"
My mother assumed he spoke of oral sex. After listening to more description she realized he meant sodomy.
"I seen 'em even kill dogs that way," he concluded.
She felt sick to her stomach.
She contemplated not taking him. He wasn't handcuffed. He ate lunch with my parents in a restaurant outside of Tallahassee, and she waited for him to run away. But he didn't. Instead he tagged along behind her like a wounded animal, begging her not to leave him.
My mother didn't ask any more questions. She didn't say much either. She was young and inexperienced and stuck with a system that didn't care. She listened to his pleas, knowing she could do nothing for him.
When she returned to work on that Monday, it was only to hand in her resignation.
Derry Smith lives in St. Petersburg. She shares her stories on her blog, storiesonthenines.org.
Source http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/sunday-journal-for-social-worker-biggest-lie-didnt-come-from-hoodlum/1201820
Driving a child to the Florida School for Boys in Marianna was not in the job description when my mother accepted the position of social worker for the Pinellas County Juvenile Justice System in 1959.
Fresh out of college, she felt privileged to join the department. She intended to work toward improving the future for kids who lived with neglectful or abusive parents. What she learned was that Florida's state and county agencies didn't have much compassion for kids.
Children, some as young as six, were arrested for such petty crimes as trespassing and taken away from their homes. Typically, parents weren't punished for neglecting or even abusing their children.
As a juvenile guardian for the court, my mother would hear tales from kids about the horrendous punishment they had to endure at the hands of foster parents. When she took these revelations to her supervisors she was chastised for believing "lies."
The Marianna School for Boys was a threat that was part of the protocol when working with disobedient kids. And her charge, Jackie, had been threatened many times. He knew first-hand about the place, being a seasoned attendee by the time he was 11 years old.
Jackie lived with a mother who showed no interest in him. She didn't keep him fed or clean. The truant officer visited regularly, and the neighbors called the police often about the boy trespassing in their yards and stealing fruit. His mother finally gave up custody, and the state put him in a foster home. Within a month Jackie ran away. The authorities caught up with him. My mother was the social worker who interviewed him.
"The foster mother doesn't feed me," he told her. "I only eat if there's something left after her own kids do."
Again my mother reported the complaint to supervisors. Her report was met with indifference.
"Children lie," she was told as before. "Especially hoodlum children."
Her orders to escort Jackie to Marianna came as a "gift." She understood that the state had an expense account for traveling to the School for Boys and she was expected to use it.
Her supervisor informed her of the nicest hotel in the area and the best places to eat. She made the reservations and, accompanied by my father, left on a Friday. With the blessing of her boss they intended to make a weekend of it. It wasn't until they sped north with Jackie in the back seat that she realized this would be no blissful vacation.
He was small for 11, and his freckled face lacked childish wonder. His haggard eyes seemed too old for tears, and this may be why he didn't cry. He begged to be taken somewhere else. Anywhere else.
"Please don't take me there," he said. "They're mean. They beat you."
My mother looked at the child, his brown bangs almost in his eyes.
"You've survived this place before," she said. "And I bet if you cooperate, the guards won't beat you."
But still he begged.
"It's only an eight-month sentence," she said. "Use it as an opportunity to turn your life around."
She had no advice for what he said next.
"The big kids. They chase the little kids," he said quietly. "And when they catch ya' they blow ya'."
"They blow you?"
My mother assumed he spoke of oral sex. After listening to more description she realized he meant sodomy.
"I seen 'em even kill dogs that way," he concluded.
She felt sick to her stomach.
She contemplated not taking him. He wasn't handcuffed. He ate lunch with my parents in a restaurant outside of Tallahassee, and she waited for him to run away. But he didn't. Instead he tagged along behind her like a wounded animal, begging her not to leave him.
My mother didn't ask any more questions. She didn't say much either. She was young and inexperienced and stuck with a system that didn't care. She listened to his pleas, knowing she could do nothing for him.
When she returned to work on that Monday, it was only to hand in her resignation.
Derry Smith lives in St. Petersburg. She shares her stories on her blog, storiesonthenines.org.
Source http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/sunday-journal-for-social-worker-biggest-lie-didnt-come-from-hoodlum/1201820
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Parents of ‘Adolf Hitler’ Lose Custody of Newborn - New Jersey
By Alyssa Newcomb
Heath and Deborah Campbell, the New Jersey parents of three children with Nazi-inspired names, lost custody of their fourth child 17 hours after he was born, the Express-Times of Lehigh Valley, Pa., reported.
Hons Campbell was taken into custody by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services late Thursday night after the doctor who delivered the baby called the agency, the paper reported.
“There’s no legal binding court order. It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” Heath Campbell told the Express-Times.
The Campbell family stepped into the spotlight in December 2008 when a ShopRite grovery store declined to decorate a birthday cake for their son Adolf Hitler Campbell’s third birthday.
The state took custody of Adolf, along with his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Himler Jeannie Campbell, in January of 2009. The three children have remained in foster care ever since.
A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.
Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”
The couple’s attorney, Pasquale Giannetta, told The Associated Press that a court a hearing has been scheduled for Monday to determine the custody status of the newborn.
ABC News’ Russell Goldman contributed to this report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/parents-of-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-of-newborn/
Heath and Deborah Campbell, the New Jersey parents of three children with Nazi-inspired names, lost custody of their fourth child 17 hours after he was born, the Express-Times of Lehigh Valley, Pa., reported.
Hons Campbell was taken into custody by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services late Thursday night after the doctor who delivered the baby called the agency, the paper reported.
“There’s no legal binding court order. It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” Heath Campbell told the Express-Times.
The Campbell family stepped into the spotlight in December 2008 when a ShopRite grovery store declined to decorate a birthday cake for their son Adolf Hitler Campbell’s third birthday.
The state took custody of Adolf, along with his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Himler Jeannie Campbell, in January of 2009. The three children have remained in foster care ever since.
A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.
Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”
The couple’s attorney, Pasquale Giannetta, told The Associated Press that a court a hearing has been scheduled for Monday to determine the custody status of the newborn.
ABC News’ Russell Goldman contributed to this report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/parents-of-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-of-newborn/
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Does Foster Care Protect Children?
by Law Journal for Social Justice at Arizona State University
November 16, 2011
by Fatima Badreddine
On Jenna’s eighteenth birthday, she arrived at her home only to discover that her foster parents had taken all of her belongings and placed them in the driveway. She stayed at a friend’s house for a few days, but she soon became homeless. Jenna had been in foster care since she was six years old and was passed around from foster home to foster home. The lack of stability in her life left her traumatized, feeling alone and unwanted. Jenna’s eighteenth birthday should have been a happy day. Instead, it was one of her most hurtful experiences, invoking a renewed sense of anguish and rejection.
Unfortunately, Jenna’s experience illustrates one of many examples of the problems associated with foster care in America. Foster care has been a traumatic experience for children, many of whom are shuffled between different foster homes. Sanda Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodley reported in 2004 that after about three months of being placed in a foster home, many children exhibited symptoms of “depression, aggression, or withdrawal.” In severe cases, children exhibited symptoms of “sleep disturbance, hoarding food, excessive eating, self-stimulation, rocking, or failure to thrive.”[1] Like Jenna, more than half of the former-foster children that were surveyed reported that they were not prepared to support themselves after leaving foster care.[2]
However, foster care was created as a temporary injunction to find safe havens for abused and neglected children. Foster care was not designed to be a permanent remedy for abused and neglected children. Rather, the goal was to either return the foster children to their parents, or to place the children for adoption when returning them to their families is inappropriate. However, some children have remained in foster care permanently, being shuffled among different foster homes until they reached the age of majority. This unstable and continuously evolving environment contributes to the psychological problems described by Sandra Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodly. Furthermore, some children have been placed in abusive foster homes, meaning that they were shuffled from one abusive or neglectful environment to another. Considering that many children have been negatively impacted by foster care, is it an appropriate method for protecting abused and neglected children?
In Arizona, the statistics for children who have been removed from their home, both temporarily and permanently, are staggering. The number of children in out-of-home care[3] increased monthly from January to June 2011. In January 2011, 10,512 children were in out-of-home care, and by June 2011, 11,082 children were in out-of-home care.[4] These statistics become more significant when compared to the length of time that children remain in out-of-home care. About 22.6% of children remain in out-of-home care for over a year, while 20.7% of children remain in the state’s care for over two years.[5] This means that over twenty percent of foster children in Arizona have not been in a permanent living arrangement for more than two years. Furthermore, the report fails to clarify how long children are in state custody beyond two years, leaving the impression that the Department is attempting to bury this important information.
Likewise, the Arizona Department of Economic Services does not include statistics regarding the mental health and emotional well-being of children under state care. As mentioned above, the longer a child is separated from his/her family and support system, the more likely he/she is to experience emotional distress. Yet, the Department excludes this information from its statistical reports, which prevents the public from reviewing whether the Department adequately meets the needs of foster children.
Unfortunately, some children in Arizona have suffered from abuse while in foster care. Arizona Child Protective Services (“CPS”) does not consistently visit all children in out-of-home care, which is an important element in preventing and reporting foster care abuse. In March 2011, CPS case managers failed to visit 17.5% of children, and licensing case managers failed to visit 11.5% of foster homes.[6] This is a significant amount of children who have not received the minimal monitoring required by the state, thereby increasing the potential for unreported abuse in foster homes and families. In fact, during a mere six month time period, from October 2010 to March 2011, two children in Arizona died while in CPS custody due to “alleged abuse.”[7] The report did not include statistics concerning the number of reported abuses that resulted in harm other than death. Furthermore, the majority of children in out-of-home care are under the age of six[8] and unlikely to have the mental and emotional capacity to understand, let alone report, abuse. Thus, the actual amount abuse inflicted on foster children in Arizona is likely higher than disclosed in the Semi-Annual Child Welfare Report.
Victims of abuse while in state custody may seek restitution through the courts, but this process is complicated by state statutes that grant sovereign immunity to government officials and employees. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permits victims of foster care abuse to overcome sovereign immunity, the burden to overcome it is heavy. As a result, there is minimal litigation in the United States and Arizona involving foster care abuse.
In Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State (2003), the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that foster children could establish liability against state employees for abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concluded that a foster child “has a right to reasonable safety while in foster care” and that this right required more than protection just from “known or obvious dangers.”[9] So, the Court expanded the previous Grubbs II test to include a negligence liability for social workers.[10]
However, a foster child still has a difficult burden to overcome. He/she must prove that: 1) the social worker was unjustified in acting “with deliberate indifference” by putting or keeping a child in foster care, when the social worker knew or should have known that the child would be exposed to danger; or, 2) the state worker deliberately ignored or refused to obtain information that placing the child in foster care would expose that child to danger, and the worker had “time to consider the placement for a foster child . . . .”[11] Furthermore, the court must consider “the totality of the circumstances” because the social worker is not liable if he/she cannot find placement for the child or is bound by “financial constraints.”[12] The totality of circumstances rule grants wide deference to social workers because the Court does not clarify what constitutes adequate time to consider or find placement. The Court also fails to specify the extent of reasonable “financial constraints.” So, although the Court expanded the state’s liability under § 1983 to include negligence, it simultaneously granted wide deference to social workers, making the plaintiff’s burden difficult to overcome.
Foster care in the United States and Arizona is in a state of chaos and confusion. Although foster care was created as a temporary tool to protect abused and neglected children, a significant amount of children in Arizona remain in foster care for over a year. A year or longer in an unstable and impermanent home environment is a considerable amount of time for a child, making it more likely that the child will develop psychological or physical harm. Until foster care is reformed to account for these issues, it should be reserved as an emergency solution for extreme cases of abuse and neglect that seriously threaten the safety and/or health of the child.
[1] Douglas Abrams & Sarah Ramsey, Children and the Law: Doctrine, Policy and Practice 439 (West, 4th ed. 2010).
[2] Id. at 440.
[3] Defined by the Arizona Department of Economic Security as the number of children in CPS custody “who require placement in a foster care setting.” Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Protective Service Bi-Annual Financial and Accountability Report, at 3 (Ariz. 2011), http://www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/dcyf_ financial_and_program_accountability_2024_report.pdf.
[4] Id. at 3a, 3f.
[5] Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Welfare Reporting Requirements: Semi-Annual Report, at 44 (Ariz. 2011), http:// www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/semi_annual_child_welfare_report_oct_2010_ mar_2011.pdf.
[6] Id. at 46.
[7] Id. at 58.
[8] Id. at 39.
[9] Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State, 206 Ariz. 529, 537 (2003).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 538.
Source http://ljsj.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-foster-care-protect-children/
November 16, 2011
by Fatima Badreddine
On Jenna’s eighteenth birthday, she arrived at her home only to discover that her foster parents had taken all of her belongings and placed them in the driveway. She stayed at a friend’s house for a few days, but she soon became homeless. Jenna had been in foster care since she was six years old and was passed around from foster home to foster home. The lack of stability in her life left her traumatized, feeling alone and unwanted. Jenna’s eighteenth birthday should have been a happy day. Instead, it was one of her most hurtful experiences, invoking a renewed sense of anguish and rejection.
Unfortunately, Jenna’s experience illustrates one of many examples of the problems associated with foster care in America. Foster care has been a traumatic experience for children, many of whom are shuffled between different foster homes. Sanda Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodley reported in 2004 that after about three months of being placed in a foster home, many children exhibited symptoms of “depression, aggression, or withdrawal.” In severe cases, children exhibited symptoms of “sleep disturbance, hoarding food, excessive eating, self-stimulation, rocking, or failure to thrive.”[1] Like Jenna, more than half of the former-foster children that were surveyed reported that they were not prepared to support themselves after leaving foster care.[2]
However, foster care was created as a temporary injunction to find safe havens for abused and neglected children. Foster care was not designed to be a permanent remedy for abused and neglected children. Rather, the goal was to either return the foster children to their parents, or to place the children for adoption when returning them to their families is inappropriate. However, some children have remained in foster care permanently, being shuffled among different foster homes until they reached the age of majority. This unstable and continuously evolving environment contributes to the psychological problems described by Sandra Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodly. Furthermore, some children have been placed in abusive foster homes, meaning that they were shuffled from one abusive or neglectful environment to another. Considering that many children have been negatively impacted by foster care, is it an appropriate method for protecting abused and neglected children?
In Arizona, the statistics for children who have been removed from their home, both temporarily and permanently, are staggering. The number of children in out-of-home care[3] increased monthly from January to June 2011. In January 2011, 10,512 children were in out-of-home care, and by June 2011, 11,082 children were in out-of-home care.[4] These statistics become more significant when compared to the length of time that children remain in out-of-home care. About 22.6% of children remain in out-of-home care for over a year, while 20.7% of children remain in the state’s care for over two years.[5] This means that over twenty percent of foster children in Arizona have not been in a permanent living arrangement for more than two years. Furthermore, the report fails to clarify how long children are in state custody beyond two years, leaving the impression that the Department is attempting to bury this important information.
Likewise, the Arizona Department of Economic Services does not include statistics regarding the mental health and emotional well-being of children under state care. As mentioned above, the longer a child is separated from his/her family and support system, the more likely he/she is to experience emotional distress. Yet, the Department excludes this information from its statistical reports, which prevents the public from reviewing whether the Department adequately meets the needs of foster children.
Unfortunately, some children in Arizona have suffered from abuse while in foster care. Arizona Child Protective Services (“CPS”) does not consistently visit all children in out-of-home care, which is an important element in preventing and reporting foster care abuse. In March 2011, CPS case managers failed to visit 17.5% of children, and licensing case managers failed to visit 11.5% of foster homes.[6] This is a significant amount of children who have not received the minimal monitoring required by the state, thereby increasing the potential for unreported abuse in foster homes and families. In fact, during a mere six month time period, from October 2010 to March 2011, two children in Arizona died while in CPS custody due to “alleged abuse.”[7] The report did not include statistics concerning the number of reported abuses that resulted in harm other than death. Furthermore, the majority of children in out-of-home care are under the age of six[8] and unlikely to have the mental and emotional capacity to understand, let alone report, abuse. Thus, the actual amount abuse inflicted on foster children in Arizona is likely higher than disclosed in the Semi-Annual Child Welfare Report.
Victims of abuse while in state custody may seek restitution through the courts, but this process is complicated by state statutes that grant sovereign immunity to government officials and employees. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permits victims of foster care abuse to overcome sovereign immunity, the burden to overcome it is heavy. As a result, there is minimal litigation in the United States and Arizona involving foster care abuse.
In Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State (2003), the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that foster children could establish liability against state employees for abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concluded that a foster child “has a right to reasonable safety while in foster care” and that this right required more than protection just from “known or obvious dangers.”[9] So, the Court expanded the previous Grubbs II test to include a negligence liability for social workers.[10]
However, a foster child still has a difficult burden to overcome. He/she must prove that: 1) the social worker was unjustified in acting “with deliberate indifference” by putting or keeping a child in foster care, when the social worker knew or should have known that the child would be exposed to danger; or, 2) the state worker deliberately ignored or refused to obtain information that placing the child in foster care would expose that child to danger, and the worker had “time to consider the placement for a foster child . . . .”[11] Furthermore, the court must consider “the totality of the circumstances” because the social worker is not liable if he/she cannot find placement for the child or is bound by “financial constraints.”[12] The totality of circumstances rule grants wide deference to social workers because the Court does not clarify what constitutes adequate time to consider or find placement. The Court also fails to specify the extent of reasonable “financial constraints.” So, although the Court expanded the state’s liability under § 1983 to include negligence, it simultaneously granted wide deference to social workers, making the plaintiff’s burden difficult to overcome.
Foster care in the United States and Arizona is in a state of chaos and confusion. Although foster care was created as a temporary tool to protect abused and neglected children, a significant amount of children in Arizona remain in foster care for over a year. A year or longer in an unstable and impermanent home environment is a considerable amount of time for a child, making it more likely that the child will develop psychological or physical harm. Until foster care is reformed to account for these issues, it should be reserved as an emergency solution for extreme cases of abuse and neglect that seriously threaten the safety and/or health of the child.
[1] Douglas Abrams & Sarah Ramsey, Children and the Law: Doctrine, Policy and Practice 439 (West, 4th ed. 2010).
[2] Id. at 440.
[3] Defined by the Arizona Department of Economic Security as the number of children in CPS custody “who require placement in a foster care setting.” Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Protective Service Bi-Annual Financial and Accountability Report, at 3 (Ariz. 2011), http://www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/dcyf_ financial_and_program_accountability_2024_report.pdf.
[4] Id. at 3a, 3f.
[5] Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Welfare Reporting Requirements: Semi-Annual Report, at 44 (Ariz. 2011), http:// www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/semi_annual_child_welfare_report_oct_2010_ mar_2011.pdf.
[6] Id. at 46.
[7] Id. at 58.
[8] Id. at 39.
[9] Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State, 206 Ariz. 529, 537 (2003).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 538.
Source http://ljsj.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-foster-care-protect-children/
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Kinship Care and Child Only Cases
Blog Author Notes:
We feel that kinship care is under untilized by state CPS systems. We also find that CPS goes out of their way to make it next to impossible for relatives to get kinship placement of their family members in the system, especially if the kinship placement is not formal, no matter the ethnicity of the family. We feel the reason for this is because states get less federal funding than they would if the child is placed in a state recognized foster home or institution. The numbers have shown this to be true, time and time again. It's a shame because the one's who suffer most are the very children that states claim to be looking out for. What states are really looking out for is their bottom line, which is sad.
-----
Here is an informative link for our readers to check out concerning tribes and kinship placement:
http://www.peerta.acf.hhs.gov/uploadedFiles/Kathy%20Deserly.pdf
We feel that kinship care is under untilized by state CPS systems. We also find that CPS goes out of their way to make it next to impossible for relatives to get kinship placement of their family members in the system, especially if the kinship placement is not formal, no matter the ethnicity of the family. We feel the reason for this is because states get less federal funding than they would if the child is placed in a state recognized foster home or institution. The numbers have shown this to be true, time and time again. It's a shame because the one's who suffer most are the very children that states claim to be looking out for. What states are really looking out for is their bottom line, which is sad.
-----
Here is an informative link for our readers to check out concerning tribes and kinship placement:
http://www.peerta.acf.hhs.gov/uploadedFiles/Kathy%20Deserly.pdf
Friday, November 11, 2011
ABA Practice & Policy Brief on Psychotropic Medication and Children in Foster Care
Click this link to read an informative pdf file:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/child_law/PsychMed.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/child_law/PsychMed.authcheckdam.pdf
Children in Foster Care Higher Report Higher Rates of Sexual Abuse
Article provided by New York Injury Accident Attorney - The Orlow Firm
A carefree childhood should not be considered a luxury. Children should not have to live their life in fear of their caregivers, which is unfortunately what sometimes occurs when children are placed in foster care.
Generally, studies find that children do best when they are raised by their natural parents, but this ideal arrangement is not possible when neglected or abused children are removed from their homes and enter the foster care system. Unfortunately for these already mistreated children, foster care often perpetuates their dreadful treatment ― as recent studies have found a higher prevalence of sexual abuse when children reside in foster care.
A Baltimore study concluded that children in foster care suffered four times higher rates of sexual abuse than the general population. Another study, conducted in Indiana, found three times more physical abuse and twice the rate of sexual abuse in foster homes when compared with the general population. On further examination of the higher rates of abuse in foster care, it was discovered that often times it is the children themselves that are abusing each other.
Unreported Abuse
Even though child abuse is now discussed more openly than in the past, with more child victims and adults who were abused as children coming forward, there is still a large number of victims who never report these crimes. Child abuse is a hidden and deeply rooted problem. Children often suffer quietly, allowing abusers to continue to victimize other children with impunity.
Children and adults are often hesitant to report sexual assaults that occur during their childhood. The reluctance to disclose abuse may be caused by the shame an older child might feel. Also, many children are terrified the abuser will hurt them if they disclose the abuse. Moreover, a child might also fear they will lose the love of someone special or be forced to leave their family or move to a different foster home.
Problems with Delayed Sexual Abuse Reporting
If you were a victim of sexual abuse as a child, you have the right to bring a civil lawsuit against the person who committed the abuse and anyone who could have prevented the abuse. But you only have a certain amount of time to bring a lawsuit. In New York, victims have five years to bring a sexual abuse claim. If you were abused as a child, you can bring a lawsuit until the age of 23 (the five year limitations period begins when you turn 18).
Recent legislation seeks to change the limitations period. According to the proposed changes, the five year limitations period would start at the age of 23 instead of 18. This would allow a victim until the age of 28 to file a sexual abuse lawsuit. Passage, however, of this legislation, is very problematic.
If you were abused as a child, you need to consult with an experienced attorney. Discussing past abuse is sensitive and an attorney will be able to help you by advising you as to your rights and options.
Source http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Sep/378791.html
A carefree childhood should not be considered a luxury. Children should not have to live their life in fear of their caregivers, which is unfortunately what sometimes occurs when children are placed in foster care.
Generally, studies find that children do best when they are raised by their natural parents, but this ideal arrangement is not possible when neglected or abused children are removed from their homes and enter the foster care system. Unfortunately for these already mistreated children, foster care often perpetuates their dreadful treatment ― as recent studies have found a higher prevalence of sexual abuse when children reside in foster care.
A Baltimore study concluded that children in foster care suffered four times higher rates of sexual abuse than the general population. Another study, conducted in Indiana, found three times more physical abuse and twice the rate of sexual abuse in foster homes when compared with the general population. On further examination of the higher rates of abuse in foster care, it was discovered that often times it is the children themselves that are abusing each other.
Unreported Abuse
Even though child abuse is now discussed more openly than in the past, with more child victims and adults who were abused as children coming forward, there is still a large number of victims who never report these crimes. Child abuse is a hidden and deeply rooted problem. Children often suffer quietly, allowing abusers to continue to victimize other children with impunity.
Children and adults are often hesitant to report sexual assaults that occur during their childhood. The reluctance to disclose abuse may be caused by the shame an older child might feel. Also, many children are terrified the abuser will hurt them if they disclose the abuse. Moreover, a child might also fear they will lose the love of someone special or be forced to leave their family or move to a different foster home.
Problems with Delayed Sexual Abuse Reporting
If you were a victim of sexual abuse as a child, you have the right to bring a civil lawsuit against the person who committed the abuse and anyone who could have prevented the abuse. But you only have a certain amount of time to bring a lawsuit. In New York, victims have five years to bring a sexual abuse claim. If you were abused as a child, you can bring a lawsuit until the age of 23 (the five year limitations period begins when you turn 18).
Recent legislation seeks to change the limitations period. According to the proposed changes, the five year limitations period would start at the age of 23 instead of 18. This would allow a victim until the age of 28 to file a sexual abuse lawsuit. Passage, however, of this legislation, is very problematic.
If you were abused as a child, you need to consult with an experienced attorney. Discussing past abuse is sensitive and an attorney will be able to help you by advising you as to your rights and options.
Source http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Sep/378791.html
Investigation of Sandusky in 1998 Raises Questions
By NATE SCHWEBER
In 1998, the Penn State campus police and local law enforcement authorities investigated an allegation that Jerry Sandusky, then a prominent coach with the university’s football team, had engaged in inappropriate and perhaps sexual conduct with a boy in the football facility’s showers.
A lengthy police report was generated, state prosecutors said. The boy was interviewed. A second potential victim was identified. Child welfare authorities were brought in. Sandusky confessed to showering with one or both of the children. The local district attorney was given material to consider prosecution.
In the end, no prosecution was undertaken. The child welfare agency did not take action. And, according to prosecutors, the commander of the university’s campus police force told his detective, Ronald Schreffler, to close the case.
“Sandusky admitted showering naked with Victim 6, admitted to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admitted that it was wrong,” said the report issued last weekend by the Pennsylvania attorney general. “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said that he would not.”
Questions about that investigation abound: Who was interviewed? Who received the report? If the case was shut down, was Sandusky sanctioned in some way?
The New York Times has reached three of the principals involved in the investigation: the two men identified by prosecutors as the police officers who worked on the case, Schreffler and Ralph Ralston, and the investigator with the state welfare department, Gerald Lauro, who was charged with determining if a child had been harmed.
Schreffler — who appears to have been the lead detective, and who interviewed Sandusky — refused to comment when reached at his home in Bellefonte, Pa. He has retired from the campus police force and works at least part time for a security firm in Baltimore, according to his former wife.
“I’ve got nothing to say,” Schreffler said Tuesday night.
Schreffler’s current wife, Laurel, reached Wednesday, said, “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk.”
In an interview this week, Ralston, who said he worked for the local State College police force, insisted he played only a peripheral role in the investigation. He said his role was merely to make sure that campus police had access to the boy, who Ralston said lived in his jurisdiction.
“I can’t even remember anything about it,” Ralston said.
He said he never followed up with campus police or child welfare authorities to find out the conclusion of their investigations.
“I didn’t think any more of it until I read the report over the weekend,” he said of the attorney general’s charges against Sandusky and other university officials. “There was stuff in there I never heard before.”
Lauro, the investigator for the state welfare department in 1998, said he was aware during the investigation that Sandusky was a prominent local figure, but that it did not affect his work.
“Was he a high-profile person?” Lauro asked. “I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him.”
At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.
Lauro suggested that the child, now grown, had told the grand jury convened by the attorney general a much more explicit account.
Lauro said he has felt worse and worse as the scandal has unfolded, particularly when he read quotations in a newspaper from a victim’s mother blaming him and other officials for not doing more to stop Sandusky.
“I feel bad that there was not more information so I could have done something,” he said. “I feel bad that the mom thinks I should’ve done more. I just didn’t have all the information back then.”
In 1998, though, Lauro said his judgment was that the allegation fell under the category of what he termed “boundary issues,” not sexual assault.
“It was definitely boundary issues, and I worked with boundary issues a lot,” Lauro said. “But if I believed it was more than boundary issues, I would’ve gone to the mat.”
Lauro said he met Schreffler, the campus detective, twice during the investigation. Lauro said he was surprised to learn that the detective would not talk about the investigation of 1998.
“Wow,” he said. “That’s really saying something.”
A version of this article appeared in print on November 10, 2011, on page B16 of the New York edition with the headline: Investigation of Sandusky in 1998 Raises Questions.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html?_r=1
In 1998, the Penn State campus police and local law enforcement authorities investigated an allegation that Jerry Sandusky, then a prominent coach with the university’s football team, had engaged in inappropriate and perhaps sexual conduct with a boy in the football facility’s showers.
A lengthy police report was generated, state prosecutors said. The boy was interviewed. A second potential victim was identified. Child welfare authorities were brought in. Sandusky confessed to showering with one or both of the children. The local district attorney was given material to consider prosecution.
In the end, no prosecution was undertaken. The child welfare agency did not take action. And, according to prosecutors, the commander of the university’s campus police force told his detective, Ronald Schreffler, to close the case.
“Sandusky admitted showering naked with Victim 6, admitted to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admitted that it was wrong,” said the report issued last weekend by the Pennsylvania attorney general. “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said that he would not.”
Questions about that investigation abound: Who was interviewed? Who received the report? If the case was shut down, was Sandusky sanctioned in some way?
The New York Times has reached three of the principals involved in the investigation: the two men identified by prosecutors as the police officers who worked on the case, Schreffler and Ralph Ralston, and the investigator with the state welfare department, Gerald Lauro, who was charged with determining if a child had been harmed.
Schreffler — who appears to have been the lead detective, and who interviewed Sandusky — refused to comment when reached at his home in Bellefonte, Pa. He has retired from the campus police force and works at least part time for a security firm in Baltimore, according to his former wife.
“I’ve got nothing to say,” Schreffler said Tuesday night.
Schreffler’s current wife, Laurel, reached Wednesday, said, “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk.”
In an interview this week, Ralston, who said he worked for the local State College police force, insisted he played only a peripheral role in the investigation. He said his role was merely to make sure that campus police had access to the boy, who Ralston said lived in his jurisdiction.
“I can’t even remember anything about it,” Ralston said.
He said he never followed up with campus police or child welfare authorities to find out the conclusion of their investigations.
“I didn’t think any more of it until I read the report over the weekend,” he said of the attorney general’s charges against Sandusky and other university officials. “There was stuff in there I never heard before.”
Lauro, the investigator for the state welfare department in 1998, said he was aware during the investigation that Sandusky was a prominent local figure, but that it did not affect his work.
“Was he a high-profile person?” Lauro asked. “I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him.”
At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.
Lauro suggested that the child, now grown, had told the grand jury convened by the attorney general a much more explicit account.
Lauro said he has felt worse and worse as the scandal has unfolded, particularly when he read quotations in a newspaper from a victim’s mother blaming him and other officials for not doing more to stop Sandusky.
“I feel bad that there was not more information so I could have done something,” he said. “I feel bad that the mom thinks I should’ve done more. I just didn’t have all the information back then.”
In 1998, though, Lauro said his judgment was that the allegation fell under the category of what he termed “boundary issues,” not sexual assault.
“It was definitely boundary issues, and I worked with boundary issues a lot,” Lauro said. “But if I believed it was more than boundary issues, I would’ve gone to the mat.”
Lauro said he met Schreffler, the campus detective, twice during the investigation. Lauro said he was surprised to learn that the detective would not talk about the investigation of 1998.
“Wow,” he said. “That’s really saying something.”
A version of this article appeared in print on November 10, 2011, on page B16 of the New York edition with the headline: Investigation of Sandusky in 1998 Raises Questions.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html?_r=1
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Native children suffer under a modern-day version of forced assimilation
by Donna Ennis
The federal government began sending American Indians to off-reservation boarding schools in the 1870s, when the United States was still at war with Indians. An Army officer, Richard Pratt, founded the first of these schools.
Pratt believed that the Indian Wars weren't extinguishing the culture fast enough, so he came up with the idea of separating children from their parents. The first boarding schools were started in the late 1800s. Our elders describe trains coming into tribal communities and grabbing children from their homes and taking them to these boarding schools. The effects of boarding schools are far-reaching and have resulted in historical, intergenerational and cultural trauma to our Native people.
Those boarding schools have an echo today.
Beginning with his separation from his family at the age of 4, Andrew was shuffled 28 times from foster home to foster home. He was stripped of his identity and placed in homes outside of his culture. He grew up not knowing who he was or where he came from because he was removed at such an impressionable young age, leaving him with no sense of belonging. I believe that a child's most important need, besides food, clothing and shelter, is the need to belong. Although Andrew had many siblings, he saw only a couple of the older ones on occasion and never saw his younger siblings again.
Andrew committed suicide at the age of 17 by hanging himself from a tree on the property of what was to be his last foster home. After his death, arrangements were made to get the family together for his burial. I have worked with many youth over the years, and it never gets any easier for me to comprehend what kind of child welfare system allows these atrocities to happen.
The trauma that Andrew suffered echoed the assimilation policies set out by the government through the federal Indian boarding school program. He too was separated from his family and tribe. Dominant cultural values were forced on him through a process of forced assimilation.
The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act was created by the federal government in order to establish federal authority over adoption of Native American children. The goal of the act was to strengthen and preserve Native American families and culture.
Each year, South Dakota removes an average of 700 Native children from their homes. Of these 700 children, 90 percent are placed in non-Native homes or group care. The continuing separation of children from their heritage is a tragic and destructive aspect of these cross-cultural placements.
Despite federal law to the contrary, a boarding school mentality exists in favor of placing Native children in non-Indian settings. The identity of Native youth is devalued. Forced assimilation leads to conflict with these young people, who can become very confused about their tribal identity.
There is again a price on Indian children's heads, seen in the distribution of federal money to social services for their care. In addition, South Dakota has a record of designating Native children as having special needs -- which means they are worth more to the state financially than other children.
Social service agencies like Children's Home Society have become the new boarding schools for South Dakota. Just like in early tribal communities, children are being forcibly taken from their homes with no real basis. Families and tribes are being forced to hide their children from the state.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/08/ennis/
The federal government began sending American Indians to off-reservation boarding schools in the 1870s, when the United States was still at war with Indians. An Army officer, Richard Pratt, founded the first of these schools.
Pratt believed that the Indian Wars weren't extinguishing the culture fast enough, so he came up with the idea of separating children from their parents. The first boarding schools were started in the late 1800s. Our elders describe trains coming into tribal communities and grabbing children from their homes and taking them to these boarding schools. The effects of boarding schools are far-reaching and have resulted in historical, intergenerational and cultural trauma to our Native people.
Those boarding schools have an echo today.
Beginning with his separation from his family at the age of 4, Andrew was shuffled 28 times from foster home to foster home. He was stripped of his identity and placed in homes outside of his culture. He grew up not knowing who he was or where he came from because he was removed at such an impressionable young age, leaving him with no sense of belonging. I believe that a child's most important need, besides food, clothing and shelter, is the need to belong. Although Andrew had many siblings, he saw only a couple of the older ones on occasion and never saw his younger siblings again.
Andrew committed suicide at the age of 17 by hanging himself from a tree on the property of what was to be his last foster home. After his death, arrangements were made to get the family together for his burial. I have worked with many youth over the years, and it never gets any easier for me to comprehend what kind of child welfare system allows these atrocities to happen.
The trauma that Andrew suffered echoed the assimilation policies set out by the government through the federal Indian boarding school program. He too was separated from his family and tribe. Dominant cultural values were forced on him through a process of forced assimilation.
The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act was created by the federal government in order to establish federal authority over adoption of Native American children. The goal of the act was to strengthen and preserve Native American families and culture.
Each year, South Dakota removes an average of 700 Native children from their homes. Of these 700 children, 90 percent are placed in non-Native homes or group care. The continuing separation of children from their heritage is a tragic and destructive aspect of these cross-cultural placements.
Despite federal law to the contrary, a boarding school mentality exists in favor of placing Native children in non-Indian settings. The identity of Native youth is devalued. Forced assimilation leads to conflict with these young people, who can become very confused about their tribal identity.
There is again a price on Indian children's heads, seen in the distribution of federal money to social services for their care. In addition, South Dakota has a record of designating Native children as having special needs -- which means they are worth more to the state financially than other children.
Social service agencies like Children's Home Society have become the new boarding schools for South Dakota. Just like in early tribal communities, children are being forcibly taken from their homes with no real basis. Families and tribes are being forced to hide their children from the state.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/08/ennis/
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Federal Government Should Not Decide If Kids Need Mental Health Screening
by Dr. Susan Berry
On the heels of new recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), that children as young as four years of age be evaluated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a new study (funded by two agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services) has concluded that the drugs used to treat ADHD do not pose risk of serious heart problems to children and young adults. Currently, ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed neurobehavioral disorder in children, with about 10% of children having been labeled with the diagnosis, as of 2007. The highest number of parent reports of ADHD has been among those covered by Medicaid.
But, why are increasing numbers of children and adults being diagnosed with ADHD? Is it just coincidence that DHHS-funded research has recently concluded that it’s safe to give stimulant medications to very young children immediately after the AAP, a major supporter of Obamacare, has announced its recommendations for earlier screening? To be sure, many physicians and mental health practitioners believe ADHD is being overdiagnosed. MedPage Today, a service for physicians that provides a clinical perspective on breaking medical news, found that 80% of its readers believed the disorder is overdiagnosed. Similarly, psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances states that ADHD has become an “epidemic” for several reasons: (1) Changes in the wording of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), (2) heavy drug company marketing to doctors and advertising to the public, (3) extensive media coverage, (4) pressure from parents and schools to control disruptive behavior in children and (5) the use of stimulant medication (such as Ritalin) for performance enhancement.
In light of what appears to be a drive to diagnose more behaviors as “abnormal” earlier in life, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has reintroduced H.R. 2769. The Parental Consent Act 2011 prohibits mandatory mental health screening of students without the express written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. The bill seeks to protect the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. With the passage of this bill, federal education funds cannot be used to pay any local school or government agency that charges parents, who refuse consent to permit mental health screening for their child, with child abuse or child, medical, or educational neglect.
A major concern is that daycare providers and teachers are the main referral sources for ADHD screening. The types of behaviors many of these individuals may view as “problematic,” in a classroom setting, such as fidgeting, distractibility, inattention, interrupting, and lack of organization are very much consistent with a normal four-year old’s stage of development. While some adults may view the children’s behavior as a “problem,” the real issue may be that adults are expecting young children to function, without disruption, in an institutional setting.
As more young children have been placed in daycare settings, larger groups of them must be managed by just a few adults. Dr. Paul’s bill prevents children who attend public schools, or daycare programs that receive federal funding, from being forced to submit to mental health screening without parental consent.
According to Congressman Paul, a physician:
“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.”
The bill is in response to a recommendation by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, established in 2002 by President George W. Bush, whose stated purpose was to bring greater awareness and service guidelines regarding mental health issues to Americans. According to Congressman Paul:
“The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.”
While AAP recommends that behavioral interventions be utilized first, prior to medications, for young children diagnosed with ADHD, Dr. Frances states:
“…experience suggests that these cautions will be widely ignored in busy everyday practice, especially because behavioral approaches are usually unavailable and medication is so highly promoted and readily available.”
As a practicing psychologist, this last statement is the crux of the matter. While there is a small minority of children who have neurological disorders that require medications, some parents and teachers would prefer a quick fix of medication for a child in order to make teaching and parenting easier, rather than work on an approach that requires thinking outside the box and consistent implementation by both parents and teachers. The number of young children who come to my office already tagged with ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, etc. is staggering. The larger educational issue is that many of the children diagnosed with ADHD are actually very bright and need to be taught in a different manner, one that our “one size fits all,” institutional public education system does not adequately address.
Source http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2011/11/04/the-federal-government-should-not-decide-if-kids-need-mental-health-screening/
On the heels of new recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), that children as young as four years of age be evaluated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a new study (funded by two agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services) has concluded that the drugs used to treat ADHD do not pose risk of serious heart problems to children and young adults. Currently, ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed neurobehavioral disorder in children, with about 10% of children having been labeled with the diagnosis, as of 2007. The highest number of parent reports of ADHD has been among those covered by Medicaid.
But, why are increasing numbers of children and adults being diagnosed with ADHD? Is it just coincidence that DHHS-funded research has recently concluded that it’s safe to give stimulant medications to very young children immediately after the AAP, a major supporter of Obamacare, has announced its recommendations for earlier screening? To be sure, many physicians and mental health practitioners believe ADHD is being overdiagnosed. MedPage Today, a service for physicians that provides a clinical perspective on breaking medical news, found that 80% of its readers believed the disorder is overdiagnosed. Similarly, psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances states that ADHD has become an “epidemic” for several reasons: (1) Changes in the wording of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), (2) heavy drug company marketing to doctors and advertising to the public, (3) extensive media coverage, (4) pressure from parents and schools to control disruptive behavior in children and (5) the use of stimulant medication (such as Ritalin) for performance enhancement.
In light of what appears to be a drive to diagnose more behaviors as “abnormal” earlier in life, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has reintroduced H.R. 2769. The Parental Consent Act 2011 prohibits mandatory mental health screening of students without the express written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. The bill seeks to protect the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. With the passage of this bill, federal education funds cannot be used to pay any local school or government agency that charges parents, who refuse consent to permit mental health screening for their child, with child abuse or child, medical, or educational neglect.
A major concern is that daycare providers and teachers are the main referral sources for ADHD screening. The types of behaviors many of these individuals may view as “problematic,” in a classroom setting, such as fidgeting, distractibility, inattention, interrupting, and lack of organization are very much consistent with a normal four-year old’s stage of development. While some adults may view the children’s behavior as a “problem,” the real issue may be that adults are expecting young children to function, without disruption, in an institutional setting.
As more young children have been placed in daycare settings, larger groups of them must be managed by just a few adults. Dr. Paul’s bill prevents children who attend public schools, or daycare programs that receive federal funding, from being forced to submit to mental health screening without parental consent.
According to Congressman Paul, a physician:
“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.”
The bill is in response to a recommendation by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, established in 2002 by President George W. Bush, whose stated purpose was to bring greater awareness and service guidelines regarding mental health issues to Americans. According to Congressman Paul:
“The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.”
While AAP recommends that behavioral interventions be utilized first, prior to medications, for young children diagnosed with ADHD, Dr. Frances states:
“…experience suggests that these cautions will be widely ignored in busy everyday practice, especially because behavioral approaches are usually unavailable and medication is so highly promoted and readily available.”
As a practicing psychologist, this last statement is the crux of the matter. While there is a small minority of children who have neurological disorders that require medications, some parents and teachers would prefer a quick fix of medication for a child in order to make teaching and parenting easier, rather than work on an approach that requires thinking outside the box and consistent implementation by both parents and teachers. The number of young children who come to my office already tagged with ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, etc. is staggering. The larger educational issue is that many of the children diagnosed with ADHD are actually very bright and need to be taught in a different manner, one that our “one size fits all,” institutional public education system does not adequately address.
Source http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2011/11/04/the-federal-government-should-not-decide-if-kids-need-mental-health-screening/
Lawmaker: Mom’s struggle to keep her children shows problems with DCFS
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)