Written by: James Swift
Earlier this month, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that social workers in Adams County may be held legally responsible for failures to protect children in foster care from abuse.
The ruling stems from a case involving a lawsuit filed by three siblings, who claim that social workers failed to safeguard them from abuse in their mother’s home, and later deceived their adoptive parents about the severity of their abuse history.
Prior to the ruling, the adoptive parents of the children unsuccessfully filed a separate suit against the Adams County Department of Social Services, claiming that social workers did not disclose the full records of abuse prior to their adoption. Last December, a federal judge ruled that Denver’s social workers could be sued, following the case of a 7-year-old who starved to death under the watch of his foster parents.
The ruling allows the siblings to proceed with their lawsuit against the Adams County Department of Social Services, on the grounds that their rights to safety were violated by county social workers.
The appellate court determined that the state’s division director of Child Welfare Angela Lytle, who supervised social workers Joan Forsmark and Cathy O’Donnell, acted “recklessly in conscious disregard” of the plaintiffs’ safety.
“The conduct put the children at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm that was known to or suspected by Lytle at the time of the adoption,” the court opinion reads. “And such conduct, when viewed in total, is conscience shocking.”
Plaintiff attorney Jordan Factor said that the ruling could pave the way for major changes to the state’s foster home system.
“Each circumstance is a little different, and this adds to the mix of circumstances in which the courts consistently say that children in the custody of the state of Colorado have a right to be kept safe from harm,” Factor said. “It is a case that has an opportunity to do real justice.”
Source http://jjie.org/colorado-court-rules-social-workers-potentially-liable-foster-home-abuse/69345
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 court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Colorado appeals court allows abused siblings to sue social workers
By Felisa Cardona
Three siblings severely abused in the home of their biological mother and later in foster care can pursue their lawsuit against Adams County social workers who allegedly failed to protect them and deceived their adoptive parents about the extent of their problems, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
In the summer of 2002, the siblings — then ages 9, 6 and 3 — were adopted by a couple who only learned about the history of abuse on the eve of the adoption. The children were engaging in incestuous acts with each other, and one of them had to be removed from their home because she was suicidal.
The fallout of the abuse was so egregious that the adoptive parents installed alarms in the children's rooms to prevent them from abusing each other. The couple ended up divorcing, blaming the failure of the marriage on the stress caused by the children's emotional problems.
The names of the parents and siblings are being withheld by The Denver Post because the children are victims of sexual abuse and naming their adoptive parents would identify them.
The adoptive parents sued the Adams County Department of Social Services, asserting that social workers had a duty to fully disclose the background of the children. But the parents lost their case when a jury decided that the social workers were not "willful and wanton" in failing to inform them of the history of abuse.
Thursday's ruling allows lawyers for the children to proceed to trial with different claims — that the siblings' rights to be free from harm were violated by the workers entrusted to protect them.
"Evidence was presented at the first trial about the extraordinary challenges these children would face as a result of the defendants' conduct, and unfortunately it all seems to be coming to pass," said attorney Jordan Factor, who argued the case at the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Adams County argued that the social workers, Joan Forsmark, Cathy O'Donnell and Angela Lytle, were protected from the lawsuit by the state's governmental immunity law.
The court disagreed and concluded that Lytle, who as a division director of child welfare supervised O'Donnell and Forsmark, acted "recklessly."
"Lytle increased the children's vulnerability to the danger by not preparing the (adoptive parents) to deal with their extraordinary emotional needs, and by continuing to support the children's adoption as a sibling group, despite the revelations of incest, which distinguished them from the type of children the (adoptive parents) had indicated they were ready to adopt," the court's opinion reads. "This conduct put the children at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm that was known to or suspected by Lytle at the time of the adoption. Such allegations show that Lytle acted recklessly in conscious disregard of that risk. And such conduct, when viewed in total, is conscience shocking."
Adams County Attorney Hal Warren declined to comment on the merits of the claims because the case is heading to trial.
Warren is reviewing the court's ruling to decide whether an appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.
O'Donnell is still employed by the county. Forsmark has since retired. Lytle works for the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services.
The decision Thursday comes a month after a federal judge ruled that social workers in Denver were not immune from a lawsuit in the case of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner, who was starved to death by his foster parents.
In that case, the judge noted the neglect of Chandler by social services was also "conscious-shocking" and that a complaint of child abuse made by a teacher's aide a month before his death was not thoroughly investigated by Denver Human Services.
Factor, one of the siblings' lawyers in the Adams County case, said he hopes the rulings will have an impact on the quality of care for children.
"Each circumstance is a little different, and this adds to the mix of circumstances in which the courts consistently say that children in the custody of the state of Colorado have a right to be kept safe from harm," he said. "It is a case that has an opportunity to do real justice."
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19685387
Three siblings severely abused in the home of their biological mother and later in foster care can pursue their lawsuit against Adams County social workers who allegedly failed to protect them and deceived their adoptive parents about the extent of their problems, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
In the summer of 2002, the siblings — then ages 9, 6 and 3 — were adopted by a couple who only learned about the history of abuse on the eve of the adoption. The children were engaging in incestuous acts with each other, and one of them had to be removed from their home because she was suicidal.
The fallout of the abuse was so egregious that the adoptive parents installed alarms in the children's rooms to prevent them from abusing each other. The couple ended up divorcing, blaming the failure of the marriage on the stress caused by the children's emotional problems.
The names of the parents and siblings are being withheld by The Denver Post because the children are victims of sexual abuse and naming their adoptive parents would identify them.
The adoptive parents sued the Adams County Department of Social Services, asserting that social workers had a duty to fully disclose the background of the children. But the parents lost their case when a jury decided that the social workers were not "willful and wanton" in failing to inform them of the history of abuse.
Thursday's ruling allows lawyers for the children to proceed to trial with different claims — that the siblings' rights to be free from harm were violated by the workers entrusted to protect them.
"Evidence was presented at the first trial about the extraordinary challenges these children would face as a result of the defendants' conduct, and unfortunately it all seems to be coming to pass," said attorney Jordan Factor, who argued the case at the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Adams County argued that the social workers, Joan Forsmark, Cathy O'Donnell and Angela Lytle, were protected from the lawsuit by the state's governmental immunity law.
The court disagreed and concluded that Lytle, who as a division director of child welfare supervised O'Donnell and Forsmark, acted "recklessly."
"Lytle increased the children's vulnerability to the danger by not preparing the (adoptive parents) to deal with their extraordinary emotional needs, and by continuing to support the children's adoption as a sibling group, despite the revelations of incest, which distinguished them from the type of children the (adoptive parents) had indicated they were ready to adopt," the court's opinion reads. "This conduct put the children at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm that was known to or suspected by Lytle at the time of the adoption. Such allegations show that Lytle acted recklessly in conscious disregard of that risk. And such conduct, when viewed in total, is conscience shocking."
Adams County Attorney Hal Warren declined to comment on the merits of the claims because the case is heading to trial.
Warren is reviewing the court's ruling to decide whether an appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.
O'Donnell is still employed by the county. Forsmark has since retired. Lytle works for the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services.
The decision Thursday comes a month after a federal judge ruled that social workers in Denver were not immune from a lawsuit in the case of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner, who was starved to death by his foster parents.
In that case, the judge noted the neglect of Chandler by social services was also "conscious-shocking" and that a complaint of child abuse made by a teacher's aide a month before his death was not thoroughly investigated by Denver Human Services.
Factor, one of the siblings' lawyers in the Adams County case, said he hopes the rulings will have an impact on the quality of care for children.
"Each circumstance is a little different, and this adds to the mix of circumstances in which the courts consistently say that children in the custody of the state of Colorado have a right to be kept safe from harm," he said. "It is a case that has an opportunity to do real justice."
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19685387
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Pre-Thanksgiving March Will Memorialize Iowa’s Lost Children
By Stephanie Woodard
In the days before Thanksgiving, mourners and protesters will participate in the Ninth Annual Memorial March to Honor Our Lost Children. The pilgrimage takes walkers from South Sioux City, Nebraska, over the Missouri river and into Sioux City, Iowa, where Native children have for years been swept up by the child-welfare system and even died in its custody. The route evokes the passage of Nebraska tribes, including Poncas, Omahas, Santees and Winnebagos, who came to the city looking for jobs after World War II, as did Sioux people from South Dakota and others.
“They were seeking a better life,” said Frank LaMere, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and executive director of Four Directions Community Center, in Sioux City, which is organizing the march. “But it didn’t work out that way.” The consequences have been devastating for the Native children of Sioux City, surrounding Woodbury County and Iowa as a whole, according to LaMere, who is a national leader in child-welfare and juvenile-justice issues. “If you’re a Native parent in this county, you’re many times more likely to lose your kids than a white parent. In recent years, three of our Native children—Hannah Thomas, Nathaniel Saunsoci-Mitchell and Larissa Starr-Red Owl—have died after being taken from their families. We march to remember them and all the children who have been separated from their families and communities.”
The march has changed lives. Several years ago, an Internet image of the march inspired a Native boy to stand his ground. “The child had acquiesced to adoption into a white home after years of being told, ‘your people have forgotten about you, your people are drunks and no-goods,’” said LaMere, who was present at a final adjudication in the case. Then one day, the boy was clicking around the web and saw a photograph of the march. “He was shocked. He told the court he’d been lied to. He said he saw hundreds of people looking for their lost children. ‘They were marching for me,’ the boy said. ‘They were looking for me.’ He balked at the adoption and was returned to his tribe.”
On another occasion, an adoptive family watching a television segment on the march happened to see a Native mother who’d lost her parental rights years before carrying a baby picture they recognized. “All excited, the adoptive mother called me and arranged to bring the child to be reunited with the birth mother,” recalled LaMere.
Events surrounding this year’s march—which is also supported by other local groups, including the Community Initiative for Native Children and Families, a coalition of government agencies and nonprofits—begin November 22 with a prayer gathering at 7 p.m. at the Marina Inn, in South Sioux City. The next morning, November 23, at 9 a.m., the marchers progress, rain or shine, into Sioux City, where they stop at the Woodbury County Courthouse and the Department of Human Services. In both places, strangers decide the fate of Native people, according to LaMere.
The reception at each building is expected to be different than it was nine years ago, when a sheriff tried to stop marchers from entering the courthouse, said LaMere. This year, the group will be welcomed and will have an opportunity to read a letter calling for a national investigation into non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. “There are no grey areas in ICWA,” said LaMere. “But racist judges, attorneys, guardians ad litem and more are feeding the system, making money off our kids with their decisions.”
Two special guests during the event will include Cade and Jace Courtright, 14-year-old Rosebud Sioux twins who’ve just been reunited with their mother with the help of LaMere and Four Directions program director, Judy Yellowbank, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. Cade relies on a wheelchair, and Jace is blind, so LaMere suggested the twins meet the march at the Four Directions Community Center dinner that closes the event. However, the boys insisted on making the journey with the other marchers. “We’ll do whatever is necessary to make that happen,” said LaMere. “An elder once told us that the prayers of children are very powerful, more powerful than those of adults. Those boys’ presence during this time is a gift to us.”
Things are changing in Woodbury County, he added. “When it comes to Native child-welfare decisions, we have a place at the table now, along with the Department of Human Services. They even support our parenting and leadership programs. We can hold their feet to the fire on the issues, and no matter how heated the meetings get, we come away from them knowing we are going to move forward together, as collaborators. We in the Woodbury County Native community are winning the battle to keep our families together, one family, one child at a time.”
Recently, LaMere sat in on a meeting concerning an Omaha child. The judge announced that the tribe had intervened, and the child was going home. “Everyone’s jaws dropped, including mine. Hopefully, the good we see growing here will spread, and more of our children nationwide will be going—and staying—home.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/11/20/pre-thanksgiving-march-will-memorialize-iowa%E2%80%99s-lost-children-63914
In the days before Thanksgiving, mourners and protesters will participate in the Ninth Annual Memorial March to Honor Our Lost Children. The pilgrimage takes walkers from South Sioux City, Nebraska, over the Missouri river and into Sioux City, Iowa, where Native children have for years been swept up by the child-welfare system and even died in its custody. The route evokes the passage of Nebraska tribes, including Poncas, Omahas, Santees and Winnebagos, who came to the city looking for jobs after World War II, as did Sioux people from South Dakota and others.
“They were seeking a better life,” said Frank LaMere, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and executive director of Four Directions Community Center, in Sioux City, which is organizing the march. “But it didn’t work out that way.” The consequences have been devastating for the Native children of Sioux City, surrounding Woodbury County and Iowa as a whole, according to LaMere, who is a national leader in child-welfare and juvenile-justice issues. “If you’re a Native parent in this county, you’re many times more likely to lose your kids than a white parent. In recent years, three of our Native children—Hannah Thomas, Nathaniel Saunsoci-Mitchell and Larissa Starr-Red Owl—have died after being taken from their families. We march to remember them and all the children who have been separated from their families and communities.”
The march has changed lives. Several years ago, an Internet image of the march inspired a Native boy to stand his ground. “The child had acquiesced to adoption into a white home after years of being told, ‘your people have forgotten about you, your people are drunks and no-goods,’” said LaMere, who was present at a final adjudication in the case. Then one day, the boy was clicking around the web and saw a photograph of the march. “He was shocked. He told the court he’d been lied to. He said he saw hundreds of people looking for their lost children. ‘They were marching for me,’ the boy said. ‘They were looking for me.’ He balked at the adoption and was returned to his tribe.”
On another occasion, an adoptive family watching a television segment on the march happened to see a Native mother who’d lost her parental rights years before carrying a baby picture they recognized. “All excited, the adoptive mother called me and arranged to bring the child to be reunited with the birth mother,” recalled LaMere.
Events surrounding this year’s march—which is also supported by other local groups, including the Community Initiative for Native Children and Families, a coalition of government agencies and nonprofits—begin November 22 with a prayer gathering at 7 p.m. at the Marina Inn, in South Sioux City. The next morning, November 23, at 9 a.m., the marchers progress, rain or shine, into Sioux City, where they stop at the Woodbury County Courthouse and the Department of Human Services. In both places, strangers decide the fate of Native people, according to LaMere.
The reception at each building is expected to be different than it was nine years ago, when a sheriff tried to stop marchers from entering the courthouse, said LaMere. This year, the group will be welcomed and will have an opportunity to read a letter calling for a national investigation into non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. “There are no grey areas in ICWA,” said LaMere. “But racist judges, attorneys, guardians ad litem and more are feeding the system, making money off our kids with their decisions.”
Two special guests during the event will include Cade and Jace Courtright, 14-year-old Rosebud Sioux twins who’ve just been reunited with their mother with the help of LaMere and Four Directions program director, Judy Yellowbank, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. Cade relies on a wheelchair, and Jace is blind, so LaMere suggested the twins meet the march at the Four Directions Community Center dinner that closes the event. However, the boys insisted on making the journey with the other marchers. “We’ll do whatever is necessary to make that happen,” said LaMere. “An elder once told us that the prayers of children are very powerful, more powerful than those of adults. Those boys’ presence during this time is a gift to us.”
Things are changing in Woodbury County, he added. “When it comes to Native child-welfare decisions, we have a place at the table now, along with the Department of Human Services. They even support our parenting and leadership programs. We can hold their feet to the fire on the issues, and no matter how heated the meetings get, we come away from them knowing we are going to move forward together, as collaborators. We in the Woodbury County Native community are winning the battle to keep our families together, one family, one child at a time.”
Recently, LaMere sat in on a meeting concerning an Omaha child. The judge announced that the tribe had intervened, and the child was going home. “Everyone’s jaws dropped, including mine. Hopefully, the good we see growing here will spread, and more of our children nationwide will be going—and staying—home.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/11/20/pre-thanksgiving-march-will-memorialize-iowa%E2%80%99s-lost-children-63914
Sunday, November 6, 2011
High court may revisit grandparents' rights
By STEPHANIE REITZ
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. — Increasingly, a wrenching dispute is playing out in courts nationwide: balancing parents' constitutional rights to raise their children without interference against grandparents' desire to be involved in those youngsters' lives.
Now, a growing number of grandparents are pushing lawmakers around the country to change state standards they say are too restrictive and ignore the unique bonds many grandparents have with their grandchildren.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this winter whether it will revisit the issue, which it addressed 11 years ago in a landmark case out of Washington state that makes competent parents' wishes the guiding principle in most disputes.
Although all state laws must meet that constitutional threshold, their efforts have resulted in a patchwork of state court rulings and legislation. They now impose such a variety of conditions that the parties' home states can affect the cases almost as much as the specifics.
Connecticut, Florida and Arizona are considered among the most parent-friendly based on their laws or court precedents. Others are considered more grandparent-friendly, including Utah, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Connecticut has become a battleground state in the issue for two reasons: its protections for parents are among the nation's strictest and many of its grandparents are very vocal in their push to change it.
A task force will advise the General Assembly this winter on whether to change state law to give grandparents more chance to get into court to argue their cases.
"Right now it's the luck of the draw if you're some poor family stuck in a state that doesn't stand behind that grandparent-grandchild bond and attachment," said Susan Hoffman, 59. She founded Advocates for Grandparent Grandchild Connection after losing her California petition for visitation when her adult son signed away parenting rights to her grandson.
The growing movement among grandparents' groups has alarmed many parents and their advocacy groups nationwide, including organizers and participants on the parentsrights.com website.
Many say they are being pilloried by those who wrongly accept stereotypes that all grandparents are loving and supportive. And they say they're being drained financially to defend parenting rights the Supreme Court has already upheld.
Polly Tavernia, 41, said her New York case cost her family almost $10,000 even though her estranged mother's petition was eventually dismissed.
"It was one of the worst things I've ever been through," she said. "It's honestly just horrible to have to worry about someone else making those decisions for you, especially when they don't know the whole story."
All 50 states have laws governing the conditions for non-parent third parties seeking visitation, but it was only in 2000 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling said none of those laws can infringe on the rights of competent parents.
Source http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/06/2091841/high-court-may-revisit-grandparents.html
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. — Increasingly, a wrenching dispute is playing out in courts nationwide: balancing parents' constitutional rights to raise their children without interference against grandparents' desire to be involved in those youngsters' lives.
Now, a growing number of grandparents are pushing lawmakers around the country to change state standards they say are too restrictive and ignore the unique bonds many grandparents have with their grandchildren.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this winter whether it will revisit the issue, which it addressed 11 years ago in a landmark case out of Washington state that makes competent parents' wishes the guiding principle in most disputes.
Although all state laws must meet that constitutional threshold, their efforts have resulted in a patchwork of state court rulings and legislation. They now impose such a variety of conditions that the parties' home states can affect the cases almost as much as the specifics.
Connecticut, Florida and Arizona are considered among the most parent-friendly based on their laws or court precedents. Others are considered more grandparent-friendly, including Utah, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Connecticut has become a battleground state in the issue for two reasons: its protections for parents are among the nation's strictest and many of its grandparents are very vocal in their push to change it.
A task force will advise the General Assembly this winter on whether to change state law to give grandparents more chance to get into court to argue their cases.
"Right now it's the luck of the draw if you're some poor family stuck in a state that doesn't stand behind that grandparent-grandchild bond and attachment," said Susan Hoffman, 59. She founded Advocates for Grandparent Grandchild Connection after losing her California petition for visitation when her adult son signed away parenting rights to her grandson.
The growing movement among grandparents' groups has alarmed many parents and their advocacy groups nationwide, including organizers and participants on the parentsrights.com website.
Many say they are being pilloried by those who wrongly accept stereotypes that all grandparents are loving and supportive. And they say they're being drained financially to defend parenting rights the Supreme Court has already upheld.
Polly Tavernia, 41, said her New York case cost her family almost $10,000 even though her estranged mother's petition was eventually dismissed.
"It was one of the worst things I've ever been through," she said. "It's honestly just horrible to have to worry about someone else making those decisions for you, especially when they don't know the whole story."
All 50 states have laws governing the conditions for non-parent third parties seeking visitation, but it was only in 2000 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling said none of those laws can infringe on the rights of competent parents.
Source http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/06/2091841/high-court-may-revisit-grandparents.html
Friday, November 4, 2011
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
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Minnesota - High court: State, not tribe, must preside over adoption
Decision reverses two earlier orders favoring White Earth Band of Ojibwe. Parents' rights had been terminated.
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Article by: ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune
Updated: October 26, 2011 - 9:27 PM
Adoption proceedings for an Indian child whose parents' rights were terminated must take place within state courts, not tribal courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
In the 4-2 decision, the court reversed two earlier orders granting the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to handle the child's adoption within its tribal court.
In its order, the Supreme Court reasoned that under the Indian Child Welfare Act, tribal authority is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights -- not adoptive placement.
The child in question, identified in court documents as L.S., is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. The mother is white, and the couple's five older children have all been removed from parental care or have had their parental rights terminated. According to documents, neither parent lived on the White Earth Reservation.
After parental rights were terminated, a Fillmore County judge granted the White Earth Band of Ojibwe permission to transfer pre-adoption proceedings to its tribal court under the rules of the Indian Child Welfare Act. A guardian ad litem for the child objected, but the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the tribe.
In its reversal, the Supreme Court said there is no language in the federal law granting tribes jurisdiction over adoptive placement proceedings for children not living on the reservation. Because the language in the law was ambiguous, the court reasoned that adoptive proceedings should be excluded, not included.
The court also reasoned that the White Earth tribal court also lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights because the mother was not a member of the tribe and the child did not live on the reservation.
The case will now return to Fillmore County District Court, where a guardian ad litem will be re-appointed and pre-adoptive placement will take place under state jurisdiction.
In his dissent, Justice Paul H. Anderson wrote that there is no language in the law that prevents transfer of pre-adoptive and adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court in cases involving Indian children who do not live on or are not from their tribe's reservation. In light of the law, which is meant to favor tribes, the omission should instead be interpreted as granting the tribe permission to preside over the child's adoption.
Source http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=132640213
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Texas Child Wins Protection From State Child Welfare Agency
Texas court is sending an urgent message to child protective services agencies across the country: Stop harming children in the name of "protecting" them, according to a national child advocacy organization.
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform responded Thursday to a decision by a court in Texas ordering the Texas Child Protective Services agency to stay away from a 14-year-old girl.
Such "orders of protection" are common in domestic violence cases. "But we've never heard of such an order protecting a child from a child welfare agency – until now," said NCCPR Executive Director Richard Wexler.
In the Texas case, according to KHOU-TV, a 14-year-old was taken after allegations of neglect, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding. After 18 months during which she was repeatedly abused in a group home, she couldn't take it anymore and ran away. According to the family's lawyer, the caseworker then said something that speaks volumes about whether the child ever needed to be taken:
"The case worker called [her] mom and said she ran away, but you find her, you can keep her," attorney Julie Ketterman told KHOU.
The mother did find her daughter. Then Ketterman went to court and won the family that order of protection. The court ruled that "[CPS] engaged in conduct constituting family violence and good cause exists for issuance of a protective order...in the best interest of the child."
"Sadly the only thing unusual about this case is the outcome," said Wexler. "Tens of thousands of times every year, all across America, children are needlessly taken from everyone they know and love. The emotional trauma is, in itself, devastating. But several studies have found abuse in one-quarter to one-third of foster homes and the record of group homes and institutions is even worse.
"All those cases of children wrongfully removed overload CPS agencies, so workers have less time to find children in real danger who really do need to be taken from their parents.
"We congratulate this family for its courage and we congratulate their lawyer, Ms. Ketterman, for finding an innovative way to protect her client – and send a message across the country," Wexler said.
SOURCE National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Testimony agrees that child welfare system needs reform
Note from blog author:
This article shows that CPS is mostly about removal and money. It is obvious from our experience with CPS that they are not truly worried about the best interest of the child and they do not support families. CPS does it's best to rip families apart. Why? The almighty buck!!
---
By: MAUNETTE LOEKS, Staff Reporter
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:08 PM CDT
The child welfare system needs fixed.
That was the overwhelming message during testimony Tuesday at a hearing as a legislative committee examines the Department of Health and Human Services.
From a Department of Health and Human Services standpoint, few issues were identified as problems within the department itself in local operations.
Nathan Busch, western service area administrator, highlighted the successes of the Department of Health and Human Services in the western service area, which includes the 11 counties of the Panhandle. Since Busch was appointed as western service administrator in October 2007, he said, he believes the area has seen improvements.
Over a four-year-period, the number of children identified as state wards has decreased by 245 children, he said. Busch said the western service area serves 605 state wards, with 73 percent of those children placed out of their home. Seventy-three percent of those children are placed out of their home. Of those children, 41 percent are placed with a relative or someone known to the area. The service area also provides services to 172 children outside the formal court via a non-court involved process.
“Though children aren’t a commodity to be counted, I believe this means children are achieving permanency in an expedient matter,” Busch said.
He said the western service area has also improved in meeting federal benchmarks put into place to measure outcomes to assure protection and safety of children in the child welfare or juvenile services system. In October 2007, he said, the western service area had been meeting only one of the six federal outcomes. However, the western service area is now meeting three of the six guidelines, with strengths in absence of maltreatment in foster care, timeliness of adoption and permanency for children in foster care. He said areas needing improvement include absence of maltreatment recurrence, timeliness and permanency of reunification and placement stability.
The western service agency has put into place efforts to try to improve in those areas, including the formation of a permanency planning committee.
“The challenge is to take an area where good things are happening and make an area where great things are happening,” he said.
However, for all the successes touted by the Health and Human Services, there were also issues presented during testimony. Just some of the issues touched on were:
-- In citing challenges faced by the western service area, Busch cited that there are not enough resources to provide services to children close to their home communities.
As of October 2009, he said, the western service area had 317 foster homes, which has grown slightly to 348 foster homes. Busch said there is a gap in the number of foster homes willing or able to provide for children with severe behaviors, such as mental health issues, infants or teenagers.
Over the last two years, the number of group homes in the district have decreased. Non-payment of services by the Boys and Girls Home had been cited as a problem by some of the providers, though Busch simply said that the reduction “is the result of terminations of contract or (the providers) choosing not to renew contracts.”
The western service area has only one youth shelter within its district, with 12 beds in Scottsbluff.
Some of the reduction in providers is a direct result of strained relations after the Boys and Girls Home had been contracted to provide services. Non-payment of services, a reduction in payment or non-referral of services to specific providers resulted in a loss of providers within the district. One provider said that the Boys and Girls Home situation has presented a distrust between providers and DHHS.
Foster families have also seen a decrease in payment and services, including the loss of respite and clothing payments for children. Foster parents and providers have said they have had to fight for services that were needed for children. In some cases, parents or providers give up. In other cases, they continue lobbying for the services or children have had to be placed into emergency protective custody situations for lengthy periods of times.
-- With a lack of services, children are being placed out of state. In one instance, cited by Busch, a child has been placed in Ohio because he said adequate services were unable to be obtained. Judge James Worden, who testified regarding observations seen in the juvenile justice system, said he has had to have at least three children placed outside of state because placement for the children had not been found within a 60-90 day time frame. He said he knew that placement for two children, placed in Colorado, and is in excess of $1,200 a month. Services could be provided within communities, if funded, he said.
Both Busch and Worden, as well as other people testifying throughout the hearing, said that reunification with parents is made more difficult when children have to be placed in other areas of the state or out-of-state. Access to familiar services, schools and visitation with parents becomes problematic.
-- Testimony cited needs for improvement in transparency and communication. Busch testified that local officials were notified by e-mail, at 5 p.m., on a Friday, that the Boys and Girls Home would be discontinuing services and had to rush to make placements. Other agencies cited that parents, workers and other officials partnering with DHHS initially didn’t have questions answered about the Boys and Girls Home coming into the community. This also resulted in questions and then problems. Problems have continued with other companies that functions have been outsourced since the Boys and Girls Home ended its contract.
While DHHS represents itself as transparent – “It does not benefit the children, the families, to play hide the ball” — families with cases involved in the system, foster families and other cooperating agencies named a need to improve transparency most often when commenting on improvements that needed to be made within the system.
-- Though the DHHS is tasked by law with focusing on reunification, some of the people testifying stated that they believed that the system focuses on foster services and adoption. Often, comments were made that the DHHS had failed to focus on children and families in providing services. Suggestions were made to help families by establishing early intervention programs, such as parenting classes, and continuing to provide support to families after children have been re-united with parents or adopted.
-- Current policies and procedures do not allow for flexibility within the system. Repeatedly, testifiers cited a difference in being able to provide services in rural areas. Some regulations do not allow multiple providers. Some regulations do not allow for flexible options, such as a proposal by Worden to have day treatment or reporting centers where children could receive services during the day, but return to home in the evenings. Routinely, the need to allow innovative programs was identified as a need of child welfare reform services.
-- Some problems were identified with the people working within the system. In three incidents cited during the hearing, prosecutors made decisions to remove children and at least one person cited that it was felt that the removal of children had been done as punishment to a parent for not testifying in a case. All three individuals testified that they believed more than one individual should be responsible for determining if a child is removed from a home to avoid conflicts.
One of those individuals testified about being involved in a case in Keith County, called the “collaboration” between agencies “collusion,” saying that officials within different agencies conspired to create falsehoods to remove children from home and keep them from homes. Two of those individuals testified that caseworkers had committed perjury in court hearings and that they had evidence from law enforcement and school officials proving such.
Cases where guardian ad litems or caseworkers had little knowledge of cases, having not met with children or families, were noted. Visitation issues were cited by Worden, CASA workers and families with cases in the court system were cited as problems because providers were not showing up or were canceling pre-scheduled appointments. Meetings designed to discuss and examine cases also had similar complaints, with case workers or others canceling appointments and not notifying parents or other persons working on the cases in a timely fashion.
-- Lack of training and low wages.
Everyone from foster parents to persons within agencies that partner with DHHS testified that training for caseworkers to foster parents is needed. People also testified that low wages to people working with children, such as visitation aids, were low and resulted in unqualified individuals supervising children and cases.
Caseworkers were also cited as being overworked, with too few caseworkers and too many cases assigned to workers.
Support services for families, and for foster children and children returned to homes, were also cited as needs.
-- More oversight, both fiscal and in operations. Waste and redundancy within the system where identified throughout the hearing. One testifier noted that she and her daughter had received 12 letters regarding a reduction in services. Other examples of waste and redundancy were also cited.
Testimony during Tuesday’s hearings came during open and closed sessions.
“We came out here to get your stories and what you would like to convey,” Sen. Kathy Campbell told the crowd attending the hearing. She regularly encouraged people testifying or attending the hearings to contact local representative Sen. John Harms with follow up testimony or information or to contact members of the committees overseeing the legislative study process
Source http://www.starherald.com/articles/2011/09/14/news/doc4e701a0aa84d9420064313.txt
This article shows that CPS is mostly about removal and money. It is obvious from our experience with CPS that they are not truly worried about the best interest of the child and they do not support families. CPS does it's best to rip families apart. Why? The almighty buck!!
---
By: MAUNETTE LOEKS, Staff Reporter
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:08 PM CDT
The child welfare system needs fixed.
That was the overwhelming message during testimony Tuesday at a hearing as a legislative committee examines the Department of Health and Human Services.
From a Department of Health and Human Services standpoint, few issues were identified as problems within the department itself in local operations.
Nathan Busch, western service area administrator, highlighted the successes of the Department of Health and Human Services in the western service area, which includes the 11 counties of the Panhandle. Since Busch was appointed as western service administrator in October 2007, he said, he believes the area has seen improvements.
Over a four-year-period, the number of children identified as state wards has decreased by 245 children, he said. Busch said the western service area serves 605 state wards, with 73 percent of those children placed out of their home. Seventy-three percent of those children are placed out of their home. Of those children, 41 percent are placed with a relative or someone known to the area. The service area also provides services to 172 children outside the formal court via a non-court involved process.
“Though children aren’t a commodity to be counted, I believe this means children are achieving permanency in an expedient matter,” Busch said.
He said the western service area has also improved in meeting federal benchmarks put into place to measure outcomes to assure protection and safety of children in the child welfare or juvenile services system. In October 2007, he said, the western service area had been meeting only one of the six federal outcomes. However, the western service area is now meeting three of the six guidelines, with strengths in absence of maltreatment in foster care, timeliness of adoption and permanency for children in foster care. He said areas needing improvement include absence of maltreatment recurrence, timeliness and permanency of reunification and placement stability.
The western service agency has put into place efforts to try to improve in those areas, including the formation of a permanency planning committee.
“The challenge is to take an area where good things are happening and make an area where great things are happening,” he said.
However, for all the successes touted by the Health and Human Services, there were also issues presented during testimony. Just some of the issues touched on were:
-- In citing challenges faced by the western service area, Busch cited that there are not enough resources to provide services to children close to their home communities.
As of October 2009, he said, the western service area had 317 foster homes, which has grown slightly to 348 foster homes. Busch said there is a gap in the number of foster homes willing or able to provide for children with severe behaviors, such as mental health issues, infants or teenagers.
Over the last two years, the number of group homes in the district have decreased. Non-payment of services by the Boys and Girls Home had been cited as a problem by some of the providers, though Busch simply said that the reduction “is the result of terminations of contract or (the providers) choosing not to renew contracts.”
The western service area has only one youth shelter within its district, with 12 beds in Scottsbluff.
Some of the reduction in providers is a direct result of strained relations after the Boys and Girls Home had been contracted to provide services. Non-payment of services, a reduction in payment or non-referral of services to specific providers resulted in a loss of providers within the district. One provider said that the Boys and Girls Home situation has presented a distrust between providers and DHHS.
Foster families have also seen a decrease in payment and services, including the loss of respite and clothing payments for children. Foster parents and providers have said they have had to fight for services that were needed for children. In some cases, parents or providers give up. In other cases, they continue lobbying for the services or children have had to be placed into emergency protective custody situations for lengthy periods of times.
-- With a lack of services, children are being placed out of state. In one instance, cited by Busch, a child has been placed in Ohio because he said adequate services were unable to be obtained. Judge James Worden, who testified regarding observations seen in the juvenile justice system, said he has had to have at least three children placed outside of state because placement for the children had not been found within a 60-90 day time frame. He said he knew that placement for two children, placed in Colorado, and is in excess of $1,200 a month. Services could be provided within communities, if funded, he said.
Both Busch and Worden, as well as other people testifying throughout the hearing, said that reunification with parents is made more difficult when children have to be placed in other areas of the state or out-of-state. Access to familiar services, schools and visitation with parents becomes problematic.
-- Testimony cited needs for improvement in transparency and communication. Busch testified that local officials were notified by e-mail, at 5 p.m., on a Friday, that the Boys and Girls Home would be discontinuing services and had to rush to make placements. Other agencies cited that parents, workers and other officials partnering with DHHS initially didn’t have questions answered about the Boys and Girls Home coming into the community. This also resulted in questions and then problems. Problems have continued with other companies that functions have been outsourced since the Boys and Girls Home ended its contract.
While DHHS represents itself as transparent – “It does not benefit the children, the families, to play hide the ball” — families with cases involved in the system, foster families and other cooperating agencies named a need to improve transparency most often when commenting on improvements that needed to be made within the system.
-- Though the DHHS is tasked by law with focusing on reunification, some of the people testifying stated that they believed that the system focuses on foster services and adoption. Often, comments were made that the DHHS had failed to focus on children and families in providing services. Suggestions were made to help families by establishing early intervention programs, such as parenting classes, and continuing to provide support to families after children have been re-united with parents or adopted.
-- Current policies and procedures do not allow for flexibility within the system. Repeatedly, testifiers cited a difference in being able to provide services in rural areas. Some regulations do not allow multiple providers. Some regulations do not allow for flexible options, such as a proposal by Worden to have day treatment or reporting centers where children could receive services during the day, but return to home in the evenings. Routinely, the need to allow innovative programs was identified as a need of child welfare reform services.
-- Some problems were identified with the people working within the system. In three incidents cited during the hearing, prosecutors made decisions to remove children and at least one person cited that it was felt that the removal of children had been done as punishment to a parent for not testifying in a case. All three individuals testified that they believed more than one individual should be responsible for determining if a child is removed from a home to avoid conflicts.
One of those individuals testified about being involved in a case in Keith County, called the “collaboration” between agencies “collusion,” saying that officials within different agencies conspired to create falsehoods to remove children from home and keep them from homes. Two of those individuals testified that caseworkers had committed perjury in court hearings and that they had evidence from law enforcement and school officials proving such.
Cases where guardian ad litems or caseworkers had little knowledge of cases, having not met with children or families, were noted. Visitation issues were cited by Worden, CASA workers and families with cases in the court system were cited as problems because providers were not showing up or were canceling pre-scheduled appointments. Meetings designed to discuss and examine cases also had similar complaints, with case workers or others canceling appointments and not notifying parents or other persons working on the cases in a timely fashion.
-- Lack of training and low wages.
Everyone from foster parents to persons within agencies that partner with DHHS testified that training for caseworkers to foster parents is needed. People also testified that low wages to people working with children, such as visitation aids, were low and resulted in unqualified individuals supervising children and cases.
Caseworkers were also cited as being overworked, with too few caseworkers and too many cases assigned to workers.
Support services for families, and for foster children and children returned to homes, were also cited as needs.
-- More oversight, both fiscal and in operations. Waste and redundancy within the system where identified throughout the hearing. One testifier noted that she and her daughter had received 12 letters regarding a reduction in services. Other examples of waste and redundancy were also cited.
Testimony during Tuesday’s hearings came during open and closed sessions.
“We came out here to get your stories and what you would like to convey,” Sen. Kathy Campbell told the crowd attending the hearing. She regularly encouraged people testifying or attending the hearings to contact local representative Sen. John Harms with follow up testimony or information or to contact members of the committees overseeing the legislative study process
Source http://www.starherald.com/articles/2011/09/14/news/doc4e701a0aa84d9420064313.txt
Fla. court says 1 spank isn't domestic violence
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A single spank doesn't qualify as domestic violence, an appellate court ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal unanimously reversed an injunction for protection against domestic violence.
It cited common law and a 2002 Florida Supreme Court ruling that says reasonable or non-excessive corporal punishment can be used as a defense against child abuse charges.
Circuit Judge Karen Gievers of Tallahassee had issued the injunction against a father identified in the ruling only as "G.C."
He had been accused by his former wife of spanking their 14-year-old daughter once on the buttocks with his hand.
The father said the teen had been disrespectful and defiant. The girl said she was only being sarcastic.
"We hold that under established Florida law this single spank constituted reasonable and non-excessive parental corporal discipline and, as a matter of law, was not domestic violence," the appeal judges wrote in an unsigned opinion.
That's even though the domestic violence law doesn't explicitly say so.
The judges, though, wrote "neither does it exclude the common law defense" that parents can administer reasonable and non-excessive corporal punishment.
Source http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/16/2410229/fla-court-says-1-spank-isnt-domestic.html
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal unanimously reversed an injunction for protection against domestic violence.
It cited common law and a 2002 Florida Supreme Court ruling that says reasonable or non-excessive corporal punishment can be used as a defense against child abuse charges.
Circuit Judge Karen Gievers of Tallahassee had issued the injunction against a father identified in the ruling only as "G.C."
He had been accused by his former wife of spanking their 14-year-old daughter once on the buttocks with his hand.
The father said the teen had been disrespectful and defiant. The girl said she was only being sarcastic.
"We hold that under established Florida law this single spank constituted reasonable and non-excessive parental corporal discipline and, as a matter of law, was not domestic violence," the appeal judges wrote in an unsigned opinion.
That's even though the domestic violence law doesn't explicitly say so.
The judges, though, wrote "neither does it exclude the common law defense" that parents can administer reasonable and non-excessive corporal punishment.
Source http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/16/2410229/fla-court-says-1-spank-isnt-domestic.html
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Safety of group homes hard to check
Why wasn't CPS called in on this situation? Why are these "homes" allowed to take children if they are abusing them? Why aren't they more closely monitored (even for the adults) when many of these patients can not defend themselves? Why....? Why..? Why???
---
By JULIE MURPHY, Staff writer
August 28, 2011 12:30 AM
GLENWOOD -- Chris Nicoles sits and draws at the kitchen table while Louise Harwin watches television in the family room.
It's a familiar scenario in homes everywhere, except that Nicoles and Harwin live in a group home for adults with disabilities.
"These houses are supposed to look like any other house in the neighborhood," said Ed DeBardeleben, area administrator for the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities. "These (group homes) are their homes."
Outside of making frequent personal visits, there's little parents or guardians can do to ensure the safety and well-being of loved ones who live in such group homes. Most are left to trust that the system and its safeguards are working.
But are they?
Reviews and violations found on a state website for 57 licensed group homes in Volusia and Flagler counties, as well as for other group homes statewide, are often outdated, with the most recent reports in many cases being more than 3 years old. State inspection reports are often vague, providing few, if any, details about a particular home's overall condition or employees' qualifications.
A recent case of criminal abuse of a disabled Palm Coast teen living in a Palatka group home run by O'Carroll Homes illustrates that sometimes problems slip through cracks.
O'Carroll Homes, which runs several facilities in Palatka and one in Hastings, had its Medicaid waiver agreements pulled by the state after four workers and a former employee accused of burning the 17-year-old girl with a clothes iron were arrested and charged in January.
One of the workers was sentenced to four years in prison earlier this month for his role in the abuse case. Four others have September court dates, according to the State Attorney's Office.
NO EASY FIXES
Many group home providers are paid through Medicaid waiver agreements, according to Agency for Persons with Disabilities spokeswoman Melanie Etters. The waivers pay for care and supplies for adults diagnosed with certain disabilities before the age of 18.
While pulling Medicaid waivers doesn't technically close a home, its residents or their families would have to pay for their care privately. Costs vary widely based on behavioral issues, daily living and medical needs, but can run between $35,000 and $150,000 per year, Etters said.
"In general, APD typically closes about two group homes a month statewide," Etters said. "Generally, there are two main reasons why this occurs. First would be some major incident occurs at the group home endangering the health and safety of one or more individuals. Second would be when a home is continually cited for issues during monthly monitoring and has not corrected any of the issues within a reasonable amount of time, and the agency is concerned for the health and safety of the people living in the home."
After her daughter was burned in January, Jeanette Roscoe moved her to another group home in North Florida and thought she had found an ideal site -- just as she had when she took her daughter to the O'Carroll Homes facility in Palatka 11 years ago.
"The first time I did research, (O'Carroll Homes) were long-standing and had all the credentials," Roscoe said. "I looked at the cleanliness, that she'd have her own room and the ratio of staff to patients."
Roscoe also closely inspected the North Florida facility where she decided to move her daughter, who she said has the mind of a 2- or 3-year-old. Again, Roscoe studied employee folders and resumes, scrutinizing who administered medications and where they were kept.
But again, her daughter suffered serious injuries. This time, she jumped through a window at 5:30 a.m. Aug. 10 and wound up needing more than 100 stitches and staples to close her wounds, Roscoe said.
"It was a 5- to 6-foot drop out the window," Roscoe wrote in an email to The News-Journal that included images of her daughter's injuries. "I thought she had one-on-one supervision, but she didn't. At least she didn't then."
LONG WAIT FOR CARE
The group homes overseen by DeBardeleben's office, which covers Volusia and Flagler counties, include small family-run operations as well as homes owned by large businesses such as Duvall Home, LifeShare, Sunrise Community and National Mentor.
Group home workers are expected to undergo criminal background checks through the FBI, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and local agencies. They must also sign an affidavit that they are of good moral character, DeBardeleben said. "Zero tolerance" training is also required and employees are instructed to treat residents with dignity and respect, as well as to look for signs of abuse or neglect and to report it to law enforcement.
But researching group homes is complicated, said Jim King, executive director for The Arc of Volusia, which provides programs to increase independence and quality of life for adults with developmental disabilities.
"It's not an easy situation," King said. "There (is) a waiting list of people not getting any services. Funding has always been limited and it keeps getting cut. These are all independent businesses -- some big, some small."
DeBardeleben said more than 20,000 people are on the waiting list for Medicaid waivers statewide.
Martin Favis, president of the Duvall Home -- among the largest care providers for the developmentally disabled in the country -- said the challenge is to provide a homey setting for its 160 residents who live in 10 group homes and one larger congregate-living facility. Some pay privately while others have Medicaid waivers.
"Not every individual has a vested parent or guardian," Favis said as he walked through the home where Nicoles and Harwin live. "We want to have compatible homes where people have things in common. This is their home and it should feel that way."
Favis admits things weren't picture-perfect at Duvall before his arrival three years ago.
"We've come a long way in three years," he said. "APD (Agency for Persons with Disabilities) wasn't happy with us. There were funding cuts and financial problems. We had to really mend our relationship."
Group homes are monitored monthly, typically by a two-person team from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. The exception is "respite homes," those that only take people who need temporary care -- for instance, if a family goes on vacation. They are not inspected if they have no residents during a given month.
"Group homes have their own niche," DeBardeleben said. "We want clients to have a choice so they integrate into the community, and different clients have different needs."
FINDING A NICHE
Some homes have nurses on staff. Others are "intensive behavioral residential habitation group homes," which handle patients who may be a danger to themselves or others.
One Duvall Home niche is that it is an adult-only facility.
"I'm hoping to get (my daughter) placed in Duvall," Roscoe said. "She turns 18 on Sept. 9 and hopefully we'll be able to transfer her that day."
Roscoe, her daughter, her daughter's case manager -- officially referred to as a waiver support coordinator -- and other officials from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, as well as Favis, are working together to help Roscoe's daughter make the transition.
"I'm waiting for this to all settle down," Roscoe said before breaking into tears.
Roscoe believes her daughter should have been reassessed in January after she was burned. A reassessment is usually done once every three years, with exceptions made for crises.
"That was a crisis," Roscoe said. "I think she was in shock immediately afterward, but I can only guess that because of her limited verbal communication. She wets the bed now and has been self-mutilating. It's post-traumatic stress. And I'm tired. I'm trying to protect her. I'm trying to protect her from other people. I'm trying to protect other people."
Source
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/08/28/safety-of-group-homes-hard-to-check.html
---
By JULIE MURPHY, Staff writer
August 28, 2011 12:30 AM
GLENWOOD -- Chris Nicoles sits and draws at the kitchen table while Louise Harwin watches television in the family room.
It's a familiar scenario in homes everywhere, except that Nicoles and Harwin live in a group home for adults with disabilities.
"These houses are supposed to look like any other house in the neighborhood," said Ed DeBardeleben, area administrator for the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities. "These (group homes) are their homes."
Outside of making frequent personal visits, there's little parents or guardians can do to ensure the safety and well-being of loved ones who live in such group homes. Most are left to trust that the system and its safeguards are working.
But are they?
Reviews and violations found on a state website for 57 licensed group homes in Volusia and Flagler counties, as well as for other group homes statewide, are often outdated, with the most recent reports in many cases being more than 3 years old. State inspection reports are often vague, providing few, if any, details about a particular home's overall condition or employees' qualifications.
A recent case of criminal abuse of a disabled Palm Coast teen living in a Palatka group home run by O'Carroll Homes illustrates that sometimes problems slip through cracks.
O'Carroll Homes, which runs several facilities in Palatka and one in Hastings, had its Medicaid waiver agreements pulled by the state after four workers and a former employee accused of burning the 17-year-old girl with a clothes iron were arrested and charged in January.
One of the workers was sentenced to four years in prison earlier this month for his role in the abuse case. Four others have September court dates, according to the State Attorney's Office.
NO EASY FIXES
Many group home providers are paid through Medicaid waiver agreements, according to Agency for Persons with Disabilities spokeswoman Melanie Etters. The waivers pay for care and supplies for adults diagnosed with certain disabilities before the age of 18.
While pulling Medicaid waivers doesn't technically close a home, its residents or their families would have to pay for their care privately. Costs vary widely based on behavioral issues, daily living and medical needs, but can run between $35,000 and $150,000 per year, Etters said.
"In general, APD typically closes about two group homes a month statewide," Etters said. "Generally, there are two main reasons why this occurs. First would be some major incident occurs at the group home endangering the health and safety of one or more individuals. Second would be when a home is continually cited for issues during monthly monitoring and has not corrected any of the issues within a reasonable amount of time, and the agency is concerned for the health and safety of the people living in the home."
After her daughter was burned in January, Jeanette Roscoe moved her to another group home in North Florida and thought she had found an ideal site -- just as she had when she took her daughter to the O'Carroll Homes facility in Palatka 11 years ago.
"The first time I did research, (O'Carroll Homes) were long-standing and had all the credentials," Roscoe said. "I looked at the cleanliness, that she'd have her own room and the ratio of staff to patients."
Roscoe also closely inspected the North Florida facility where she decided to move her daughter, who she said has the mind of a 2- or 3-year-old. Again, Roscoe studied employee folders and resumes, scrutinizing who administered medications and where they were kept.
But again, her daughter suffered serious injuries. This time, she jumped through a window at 5:30 a.m. Aug. 10 and wound up needing more than 100 stitches and staples to close her wounds, Roscoe said.
"It was a 5- to 6-foot drop out the window," Roscoe wrote in an email to The News-Journal that included images of her daughter's injuries. "I thought she had one-on-one supervision, but she didn't. At least she didn't then."
LONG WAIT FOR CARE
The group homes overseen by DeBardeleben's office, which covers Volusia and Flagler counties, include small family-run operations as well as homes owned by large businesses such as Duvall Home, LifeShare, Sunrise Community and National Mentor.
Group home workers are expected to undergo criminal background checks through the FBI, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and local agencies. They must also sign an affidavit that they are of good moral character, DeBardeleben said. "Zero tolerance" training is also required and employees are instructed to treat residents with dignity and respect, as well as to look for signs of abuse or neglect and to report it to law enforcement.
But researching group homes is complicated, said Jim King, executive director for The Arc of Volusia, which provides programs to increase independence and quality of life for adults with developmental disabilities.
"It's not an easy situation," King said. "There (is) a waiting list of people not getting any services. Funding has always been limited and it keeps getting cut. These are all independent businesses -- some big, some small."
DeBardeleben said more than 20,000 people are on the waiting list for Medicaid waivers statewide.
Martin Favis, president of the Duvall Home -- among the largest care providers for the developmentally disabled in the country -- said the challenge is to provide a homey setting for its 160 residents who live in 10 group homes and one larger congregate-living facility. Some pay privately while others have Medicaid waivers.
"Not every individual has a vested parent or guardian," Favis said as he walked through the home where Nicoles and Harwin live. "We want to have compatible homes where people have things in common. This is their home and it should feel that way."
Favis admits things weren't picture-perfect at Duvall before his arrival three years ago.
"We've come a long way in three years," he said. "APD (Agency for Persons with Disabilities) wasn't happy with us. There were funding cuts and financial problems. We had to really mend our relationship."
Group homes are monitored monthly, typically by a two-person team from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. The exception is "respite homes," those that only take people who need temporary care -- for instance, if a family goes on vacation. They are not inspected if they have no residents during a given month.
"Group homes have their own niche," DeBardeleben said. "We want clients to have a choice so they integrate into the community, and different clients have different needs."
FINDING A NICHE
Some homes have nurses on staff. Others are "intensive behavioral residential habitation group homes," which handle patients who may be a danger to themselves or others.
One Duvall Home niche is that it is an adult-only facility.
"I'm hoping to get (my daughter) placed in Duvall," Roscoe said. "She turns 18 on Sept. 9 and hopefully we'll be able to transfer her that day."
Roscoe, her daughter, her daughter's case manager -- officially referred to as a waiver support coordinator -- and other officials from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, as well as Favis, are working together to help Roscoe's daughter make the transition.
"I'm waiting for this to all settle down," Roscoe said before breaking into tears.
Roscoe believes her daughter should have been reassessed in January after she was burned. A reassessment is usually done once every three years, with exceptions made for crises.
"That was a crisis," Roscoe said. "I think she was in shock immediately afterward, but I can only guess that because of her limited verbal communication. She wets the bed now and has been self-mutilating. It's post-traumatic stress. And I'm tired. I'm trying to protect her. I'm trying to protect her from other people. I'm trying to protect other people."
Source
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/08/28/safety-of-group-homes-hard-to-check.html
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Michigan CPS and Failure To Prevent Injury
In the trial court, the judge ordered that the rights of the baby’s mother and father be terminated. The parents appealed the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals. They argued that there is no evidence against either of them that they were the perpetrator of any child abuse, and therefore the child should not be taken from them. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, stating that there need be no “definitive evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator, where the evidence does show that the respondent or respondents must either have caused or failed to prevent the child’s injuries.” This ruling is one step closer to strict liability for unexplained infant injuries in Michigan. According to the Court of Appeals, the caretaking parent must have caused the injury, or he or she must have failed to prevent the injury. According to the Court of Appeals, either of these situations offer sufficient grounds for a judge to terminate a parent’s parental rights.
Read the entire story here.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
More Evidence Of Corruption In Family Court - Kentucky
With this kind of stuff going on, how can any parent or family member expect to have a fair and impartial hearing on matters involving their children? It is sickening how the judge speaks to this parent.
Click here to read a PDF file of a court filing in this case.
Click here to read a PDF file of a court filing in this case.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Sacramento judge eviscerates defendant, CPS over girl's death
By Marjie Lundstrom and Sam Stanton
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Aug. 20, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
The court hearing Friday was to sentence 23-year-old Thomas Jerome Martin to prison for beating 3-year-old Valeeya Brazile to death.
But it turned into a public trial of Sacramento County's Child Protective Services, and Superior Court Judge Michael A. Savage found the agency guilty.
In a searing condemnation of CPS, the judge recounted repeated failures to save the little girl from months of beatings that eventually killed her and sent her mother and Martin, the mother's live-in boyfriend, off to prison.
"There is not the slightest evidence in this case that the protection or safety of Valeeya or her brother was ever a priority, or even a significant concern, for the agency or the caseworker charged with their protection," Savage said before he sentenced Martin to prison for the maximum 29 years to life.
Valeeya, a smiling little girl who loved pancakes and was proud of the fact that she could recognize the letter "V," was killed Feb. 5, 2008, in a Fair Oaks apartment. The child had been living with Martin, her 6-year-old brother and her mother, Mia Holmes, who is now serving 12 years.
Martin denies killing Valeeya, and as the judge and three of Valeeya's relatives spoke, he sat quietly at the defense table, yawning, shaking his head and cracking his knuckles.
Savage said the jury that convicted Martin of second-degree murder was the only official body that did anything on Valeeya's behalf.
"The evidence in this case of repeated, systematic, purposeful and brutally inflicted trauma by Mr. Martin on Valeeya is mountainous and undeniable," Savage said. "There is no doubt that this defendant routinely and unmercifully battered this absolutely defenseless 3-year-old, eventually beating her with enough force to end her life.
"And, unlike many others involved in this case, the jury was not fooled, did not shrug and did not shirk their responsibility."
Ann Edwards, director of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees CPS, said in a statement issued Friday that Valeeya's murder "is tragic and we all mourn her loss.
"Although we cannot comment on the specifics of this case due to confidentiality laws, CPS has made significant practice improvements since 2008."
Valeeya's murder was among a series of high-profile deaths involving children whose families had been known to CPS. The mounting death toll, reported in a series of Bee stories, triggered numerous outside reviews.
Lynn Frank, Edwards' predecessor in the top job, resigned in 2009 as a scathing grand jury report was about to be released.
This month, the county announced that CPS Director Laura Coulthard was resigning under unexplained circumstances.
While CPS advocates say the agency has improved, despite budget cuts, Savage said the agency was more concerned with helping the mother than protecting Valeeya and her brother.
Savage said the social worker's "personal policy" to announce all visits contributed to CPS never discovering that Martin was living in the apartment – or using it as a haven for his marijuana-dealing business.
"With that ludicrous practice in place, the worker showed the ultimate disrespect to the one person she should have been duty bound to protect: Valeeya Brazile," Savage said.
The judge noted that in 2006, when Valeeya was 2 and sitting unrestrained in her mother's car, Holmes tried to run over a boyfriend.
"That behavior was so outrageous that CPS was given the responsibility of providing 'protection' for Valeeya and her sibling," Savage said. "At least, that's what the agency title implied.
"Based on that car assault alone, rational adults might have appropriately concluded that Mia had forever forfeited her right to act as a caretaker for Valeeya or any other child, for that manner."
Instead, CPS returned the children to Holmes after only four months. The social worker assigned to the case, Alexis Hince, protected Holmes' interests over that of the children, Savage said.
"How in the world could such a thing happen while CPS watched … ?" he asked.
"The case worker in this case testified, 'My job was to help her to get her children back, not to take her children away from her, so my job was to work with her in that goal so she didn't have to be worried she was going to lose her kids.'
"Heaven forbid that Mia Holmes would have had to have a moment's worry about losing her kids."
A 2009 Bee investigation found Hince was one of at least 68 individuals out of 969 CPS workers at the time with a criminal record. Savage said Hince made it clear that CPS knew of her convictions for welfare fraud – one while she worked at the agency. However, the judge said, Hince testified her convictions did not become a problem for her until they were reported in The Bee.
A CPS spokeswoman said Hince has not worked for the county since May 2009.
"It should go without saying that having criminals monitor criminals, especially when children are involved, begs for calamity," Savage said.
Martin sat impassively as the judge, a no-nonsense former prosecutor becoming known for his withering comments at sentencings, described how Martin had wasted his life serving as a baby sitter for Holmes, who was 20 years his senior.
"The defendant, 19 years old and unemployed, spent every day of his life devoted to playing video games, selling marijuana and becoming intoxicated," he said. "He completely escaped the notice of CPS, even though he lived in Mia's apartment every day for months on end."
Courtroom seats filled quickly Friday as five sheriff's detectives filed in and were seated among relatives for both Martin and Valeeya. Before the judge's calm, systematic deconstruction of CPS, Deputy District Attorney Rick Miller brought forward three of Valeeya's relatives to express their anger at Martin.
On one side of the courtroom, where Martin's grandmother and other family members were seated, rumblings of discontent began, and two of the five bailiffs present to keep the peace escorted two men out into the hallway, one of them shouting.
Olga Smith, the little girl's aunt, told Martin he was a "monster."
"I don't know what that little baby could have done to you to make you want to torture her on a daily basis," she said, "to make you want to throw her, to make you want to throw her in the air, to feel her heartbeat, punch her in the stomach, man, and on top of her little head.
"I don't know what would make you want do that. What could she have done to you?"
Eventually, Smith's emotions boiled over and she shouted profanities at Martin, something that often will result in expulsion from court.
The judge did not move to stop her, and Martin feigned boredom.
"It makes you angry," prosecutor Miller told The Bee. "Anybody who looks at this just gets angry."
The entire hearing took just over 30 minutes, and bailiffs escorted the emotional relatives out in groups.
Smith stopped one bailiff and told him, "Go hug that judge for me."
As she left the courtroom, with Martin still seated at the defense table, Smith called out one last message:
"Bye, monster."
Source http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/20/3849750/sacramento-judge-eviscerates-defendant.html
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Aug. 20, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
The court hearing Friday was to sentence 23-year-old Thomas Jerome Martin to prison for beating 3-year-old Valeeya Brazile to death.
But it turned into a public trial of Sacramento County's Child Protective Services, and Superior Court Judge Michael A. Savage found the agency guilty.
In a searing condemnation of CPS, the judge recounted repeated failures to save the little girl from months of beatings that eventually killed her and sent her mother and Martin, the mother's live-in boyfriend, off to prison.
"There is not the slightest evidence in this case that the protection or safety of Valeeya or her brother was ever a priority, or even a significant concern, for the agency or the caseworker charged with their protection," Savage said before he sentenced Martin to prison for the maximum 29 years to life.
Valeeya, a smiling little girl who loved pancakes and was proud of the fact that she could recognize the letter "V," was killed Feb. 5, 2008, in a Fair Oaks apartment. The child had been living with Martin, her 6-year-old brother and her mother, Mia Holmes, who is now serving 12 years.
Martin denies killing Valeeya, and as the judge and three of Valeeya's relatives spoke, he sat quietly at the defense table, yawning, shaking his head and cracking his knuckles.
Savage said the jury that convicted Martin of second-degree murder was the only official body that did anything on Valeeya's behalf.
"The evidence in this case of repeated, systematic, purposeful and brutally inflicted trauma by Mr. Martin on Valeeya is mountainous and undeniable," Savage said. "There is no doubt that this defendant routinely and unmercifully battered this absolutely defenseless 3-year-old, eventually beating her with enough force to end her life.
"And, unlike many others involved in this case, the jury was not fooled, did not shrug and did not shirk their responsibility."
Ann Edwards, director of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees CPS, said in a statement issued Friday that Valeeya's murder "is tragic and we all mourn her loss.
"Although we cannot comment on the specifics of this case due to confidentiality laws, CPS has made significant practice improvements since 2008."
Valeeya's murder was among a series of high-profile deaths involving children whose families had been known to CPS. The mounting death toll, reported in a series of Bee stories, triggered numerous outside reviews.
Lynn Frank, Edwards' predecessor in the top job, resigned in 2009 as a scathing grand jury report was about to be released.
This month, the county announced that CPS Director Laura Coulthard was resigning under unexplained circumstances.
While CPS advocates say the agency has improved, despite budget cuts, Savage said the agency was more concerned with helping the mother than protecting Valeeya and her brother.
Savage said the social worker's "personal policy" to announce all visits contributed to CPS never discovering that Martin was living in the apartment – or using it as a haven for his marijuana-dealing business.
"With that ludicrous practice in place, the worker showed the ultimate disrespect to the one person she should have been duty bound to protect: Valeeya Brazile," Savage said.
The judge noted that in 2006, when Valeeya was 2 and sitting unrestrained in her mother's car, Holmes tried to run over a boyfriend.
"That behavior was so outrageous that CPS was given the responsibility of providing 'protection' for Valeeya and her sibling," Savage said. "At least, that's what the agency title implied.
"Based on that car assault alone, rational adults might have appropriately concluded that Mia had forever forfeited her right to act as a caretaker for Valeeya or any other child, for that manner."
Instead, CPS returned the children to Holmes after only four months. The social worker assigned to the case, Alexis Hince, protected Holmes' interests over that of the children, Savage said.
"How in the world could such a thing happen while CPS watched … ?" he asked.
"The case worker in this case testified, 'My job was to help her to get her children back, not to take her children away from her, so my job was to work with her in that goal so she didn't have to be worried she was going to lose her kids.'
"Heaven forbid that Mia Holmes would have had to have a moment's worry about losing her kids."
A 2009 Bee investigation found Hince was one of at least 68 individuals out of 969 CPS workers at the time with a criminal record. Savage said Hince made it clear that CPS knew of her convictions for welfare fraud – one while she worked at the agency. However, the judge said, Hince testified her convictions did not become a problem for her until they were reported in The Bee.
A CPS spokeswoman said Hince has not worked for the county since May 2009.
"It should go without saying that having criminals monitor criminals, especially when children are involved, begs for calamity," Savage said.
Martin sat impassively as the judge, a no-nonsense former prosecutor becoming known for his withering comments at sentencings, described how Martin had wasted his life serving as a baby sitter for Holmes, who was 20 years his senior.
"The defendant, 19 years old and unemployed, spent every day of his life devoted to playing video games, selling marijuana and becoming intoxicated," he said. "He completely escaped the notice of CPS, even though he lived in Mia's apartment every day for months on end."
Courtroom seats filled quickly Friday as five sheriff's detectives filed in and were seated among relatives for both Martin and Valeeya. Before the judge's calm, systematic deconstruction of CPS, Deputy District Attorney Rick Miller brought forward three of Valeeya's relatives to express their anger at Martin.
On one side of the courtroom, where Martin's grandmother and other family members were seated, rumblings of discontent began, and two of the five bailiffs present to keep the peace escorted two men out into the hallway, one of them shouting.
Olga Smith, the little girl's aunt, told Martin he was a "monster."
"I don't know what that little baby could have done to you to make you want to torture her on a daily basis," she said, "to make you want to throw her, to make you want to throw her in the air, to feel her heartbeat, punch her in the stomach, man, and on top of her little head.
"I don't know what would make you want do that. What could she have done to you?"
Eventually, Smith's emotions boiled over and she shouted profanities at Martin, something that often will result in expulsion from court.
The judge did not move to stop her, and Martin feigned boredom.
"It makes you angry," prosecutor Miller told The Bee. "Anybody who looks at this just gets angry."
The entire hearing took just over 30 minutes, and bailiffs escorted the emotional relatives out in groups.
Smith stopped one bailiff and told him, "Go hug that judge for me."
As she left the courtroom, with Martin still seated at the defense table, Smith called out one last message:
"Bye, monster."
Source http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/20/3849750/sacramento-judge-eviscerates-defendant.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)