Article by: JEAN HOPFENSPERGER
The state's visitation programs don't require licensing, training.
Every Thursday night, John drives to a St. Louis Park program that allows him to visit -- with constant one-on-one supervision -- his young daughter. The surveillance is ordered by the courts.
John parks his car on the left side of the building and heads to a "parenting room.'' A half hour later, the child's mother parks on the opposite side of the building and drops off her daughter. Mother and father never meet. Security systems watch for trouble. And the child gets to see a parent she is attached to, regardless of circumstances.
Each year, thousands of children across Minnesota participate in such "supervised visitations," a critical and sometimes controversial component in child protection and domestic violence cases. As counties press for family reunification for children in foster care, the visits play a critical role in a child's transition back home. They're also essential for women fleeing abusive relationships, whose ex-partners and husbands nonetheless have rights to visit their kids.
But there are no state standards for supervision or security for the nonprofits and individuals who oversee the visits. There's no required licensing or training, and each county handles things differently. While many rely on the special child visitation programs run by nonprofits, others enlist foster parents, family relatives or case aides who may oversee visits at city parks, libraries or even McDonald's.
Supervised visitation blasted into the public spotlight last month after a Washington man blew up his house during what was supposed to be a supervised session with his sons. "That story about the father who blew up his house led a lot of people to wonder about supervised visitation,'' said Linda Domholt, a vice president at Perspectives, the family services nonprofit that John goes to each week.
"There's a lot of need but not a lot of funding for this,'' she said. "It's time to shed some light on it.''
Lynn Lewis, human services manager for Hennepin County, said the service is critical.
"The cases that we see going to court, and getting supervised visitation, are some of the toughest,'' she said. "It can be a convergence of issues: drug abuse, domestic violence, poverty, untreated mental illness. You put a combination of any of those together and it could be toxic for a child.''
Minnesota a national leader
Minnesota was among the first states to create visitation centers, starting in the 1980s, said Carl Nordine, interim executive director of the Children's Safety Center/Genesis II for Families in St. Paul.
The St. Paul center, for example, was launched 20 years ago by a mother whose children were beaten with a two-by-four by their father during a visit, Nordine said. It now specializes in court-ordered visits for children hurt by domestic violence.
The center, like others, also can supervise telephone calls and e-mail exchanges between the child and potentially explosive parent, said Nordine, whose agency supervised 1,200 visits and 701 child "exchanges'' -- or child transfers between parents-- last year.
Perspectives offers something more: a pathway for parents to "graduate'' to unsupervised visits. John, who didn't want his real name used, is among parents enrolled in its "Parenting Time'' program.
He arrives a half hour early for each meeting with his daughter, and sits down with the supervisor who will monitor his visit in a room filled with toys, a doll house, a kiddie kitchenette and comfy couch.
He and the supervisor go through a parenting curriculum before the sweet 2-year-old walks in.
For the next two hours, the father-daughter conversations and actions are closely observed by the note-taking supervisor. If John were to attempt to say anything inappropriate to the child, or about her mother, the supervisor would stop him.
But the visit goes without a hitch for John, who declined to say why he was there. Dad and daughter first shared a grilled cheese sandwich and soup dinner he brought. They played with Barbie, explored the doll house.
John says he's grateful to have this place to visit his daughter. He's hopeful he will get unsupervised visitation soon.
While John's story did not involve domestic violence, its victims swell the ranks at many centers.
"From a battered women's perspective, they are critical,'' said Shelley Johnson Cline, executive director of the St. Paul Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. "Having a child in a visitation center means he is not going anywhere. The abusive parent can't make any threats, can't kidnap the child and can't use it as an opportunity to put the mother in greater danger.''
No standards
In spite of their important role in maintaining child safety and child-parent bonds, there are few standards for how or where visitation should be delivered in any state, said Jeff Nullet, executive director of the Supervised Visitation Network, a national network of nonprofits providing visitation services.
"There's nobody minding supervised visitation,'' said Nullet. "It's alarming sometimes, because anyone can provide these services.''
A growing number of private individuals oversee supervised visitation, said Michelle Basham, executive director of Genesis II for Families, which supervises about 300 to 400 visits a month in the Minneapolis area. She and Nullet are concerned about the lack of training requirements, safety procedures and other standards for individual supervisors.
County budget strains also are hitting visitation programs, said Basham. Ramsey County, for example, stopped using visitation centers for most of its child protection cases several years ago because of budget cuts. It relies on foster parents and relatives to supervise most visits, said Janine Moore, director of the county's family and children's services.
In high-risk cases, the visits can take place in a county building, supervised by county staff with law enforcement on hand to intervene if needed, she said. But having a neutral, third party overseeing the visits in a more relaxed environment could benefit both the parent and child, she said.
Said Moore: The centers "are something we would love to have.''
Source http://www.startribune.com/local/144169325.html?page=1&c=y
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 order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court order. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, December 19, 2011
Iraq War Veteran, Fit Father Has Parental Rights Terminated
by Robert Franklin, Esq.
A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or its mother. Read about it here (Booneville Democrat, 12/8/11).
The facts of the case are straightforward. Edward Glover served in the U.S. armed services. He was deployed to Iraq. His wife, Michelle gave birth to a child, E.G. in November of 2008. While Edward was serving abroad, Michelle took up with one Maliki Raheem who had a history of domestic violence. In April, 2009, it came to the attention of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that E.G. had been severely abused by Raheem. Here is how the dissenting judge of the Arkansas Court of Appeals described the child’s injuries.
The abuse was severe: E.G. had scalding on his chest and abdomen, bruising, blood inside his eyes, head injuries, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, three rib fractures, bilateral retinal hemorrhages, bruising around the eyes and scalp consistent with trauma, a possible lung contusion, and burns to the abdomen, shoulder, right thigh, and left scrotum.
Edward Glover obtained emergency leave and returned home, but was sent back to Iraq 10 days later. Glover remained deployed oversees while legal proceedings played out. The ADHS of course took his son into foster care and eventually succeeded in terminating Michelle’s parental rights. At all but two hearings, Glover was neither present in person nor represented by counsel.
Irrespective of the fact that Glover had done nothing wrong and was never accused of any form of wrongdoing toward anyone, the trial court, at the request of ADHS, terminated Glover’s parental rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Indeed, if there was a claim by anyone at any time that Glover had ever in his life done anything to indicate unfitness as a parent, neither the trial nor the appellate court mentioned it.
So how is it possible for a father, who has not a single black mark by his name, to entirely lose his rights to a child, born during his marriage and therefore presumptively his? The cogent dissent from the Appellate Court’s decision says he can’t, but more about that in a bit.
Apparently the reason the trial judge terminated Glover’s rights is that he didn’t follow the court’s orders to avail himself of certain “services” of the ADHS. Now, remember, that ADHS is an agency of the State of Arkansas, but during most of the court proceedings, Glover was nowhere near Arkansas and therefore could not be ”served” by ADHS. More importantly, the “services” ordered are transparently aimed at a parent who has abused his/her child. Here they are:
-provide complete medical history for juvenile
-parenting classes
-anger management classes
-forensic psychological evaluation – follow recommendations
-random drug screens
-remain drug free
-remain alcohol free
-provide vital info for fetal alcohol syndrome assessment
-drug and alcohol assessment – follow recommendations
-medication assessment and follow recommendations
-maintain stable and suitable housing
-attend staffings at DHS
-cooperate with Department
-maintain contact with Department
-attend visitation with juvenile
-demonstrate improved parenting
-maintain reliable transportation or seek reasonable assistance from DHS
-complete affidavit of Financial Means
-refrain from criminal or illegal activity
So what we have is a state agency and four separate judges who couldn’t quite grasp the fact that, although there was an abused child and although there was a father in court, the father hadn’t abused the child. Glover didn’t need any of the “services” ADHS said he needed.
Likewise, the fact that he was out of the country most of the time and in the hospital part of the time when he returned from abroad and was honorably discharged from military service, and therefore unable to avail himself of the “services” never sank in on the judges or ADHS.
Late in the game, the court appointed counsel to “represent” Glover. I use quotation marks around the word “represent” because the dissenting justice at the appellate court described that representation this way:
The quality of the appointed counsel’s representation at this late stage of the case supports an inference that the purpose of the appointment was not to assist Mr. Glover in negotiating his way through the juvenile courts to gain custody of E.G., but rather to facilitate his exit by terminating his parental rights.
The dissent’s description is given considerably more weight by the fact that Glover’s lawyer made no effort to assert at trial any of the very obvious legal issues presented by the termination of a fit father’s parental rights. Having failed to assert them at trial, they couldn’t be asserted on appeal. To make her malpractice still more obvious, Glover’s attorney filed his appeal but under a “no-merit” procedure. That’s one in which the lawyer files the appeal because her client demands it, but tells the court it has no merit. This was “zealous representation” by an attorney? It’s more like a bad joke.
In short, the lawyer worked hand-in-glove with ADHS and the judges to cut the father out of his child’s life. My strong belief is that ADHS wanted that all along. That’s why its counsel convinced the judges to order the long list of “services” for Glover to comply with. ADHS hoped that Glover wouldn’t comply due to his deployment overseas and failure to comply would lose him his parental rights. And that’s just what happened. Some people may call that justice. I call it a conspiracy.
Not surprisingly, Glover lost his appeal. The appellate majority said he hadn’t raised any of his issues on appeal, so there was no way he could win. Fair enough. Or was it?
On the contrary, the dissenting judge, Josephine Hart, completely destroyed the majority’s summary dismissal of Glover’s appeal. She points out that, due to a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court (the Mahone case) during the pendency of Glover’s case, the state cannot interfere with the parenting rights of a fit parent.
The Mahone court overruled Judkins and held that custody of a child taken from a custodial parent should result in first shifting custody to the nonoffending, noncustodial parent.
Importantly, the Mahone court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in so ruling.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental right to parent a child without interference by the state. Accordingly, there first must be a showing of unfitness before the state may intervene. The fact that one parent is unfit does not alter the state’s burden to prove that the other parent is also unable to care for the child before it may interfere in the family… Without a finding of unfitness, the state has no constitutional authority to exercise that power. Under current Supreme Court authority, the existence of a single fit parent, regardless of the acts of the other parent, negates the state’s ability to interfere in the family unit.
Those are, once again, Judge Josephine Hart’s. She was writing at the appellate level in Mahone and, when the case got to it, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed.
More importantly still, the trial court in Glover’s case had no jurisdiction. In order to exercise any authority over his rights, it had to first find that he was unfit. It didn’t because he wasn’t. Therefore, the matter could be raised for the first time on appeal.
It can therefore be raised before the Arkansas Supreme Court. From here, it looks like a slam-dunk win.
To date, however, the lesson Edward Glover’s case teaches us is just how determined child welfare agencies are to cut fathers out of the lives of their children and how willing courts are to comply.
Source http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=22391
A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or its mother. Read about it here (Booneville Democrat, 12/8/11).
The facts of the case are straightforward. Edward Glover served in the U.S. armed services. He was deployed to Iraq. His wife, Michelle gave birth to a child, E.G. in November of 2008. While Edward was serving abroad, Michelle took up with one Maliki Raheem who had a history of domestic violence. In April, 2009, it came to the attention of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that E.G. had been severely abused by Raheem. Here is how the dissenting judge of the Arkansas Court of Appeals described the child’s injuries.
The abuse was severe: E.G. had scalding on his chest and abdomen, bruising, blood inside his eyes, head injuries, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, three rib fractures, bilateral retinal hemorrhages, bruising around the eyes and scalp consistent with trauma, a possible lung contusion, and burns to the abdomen, shoulder, right thigh, and left scrotum.
Edward Glover obtained emergency leave and returned home, but was sent back to Iraq 10 days later. Glover remained deployed oversees while legal proceedings played out. The ADHS of course took his son into foster care and eventually succeeded in terminating Michelle’s parental rights. At all but two hearings, Glover was neither present in person nor represented by counsel.
Irrespective of the fact that Glover had done nothing wrong and was never accused of any form of wrongdoing toward anyone, the trial court, at the request of ADHS, terminated Glover’s parental rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Indeed, if there was a claim by anyone at any time that Glover had ever in his life done anything to indicate unfitness as a parent, neither the trial nor the appellate court mentioned it.
So how is it possible for a father, who has not a single black mark by his name, to entirely lose his rights to a child, born during his marriage and therefore presumptively his? The cogent dissent from the Appellate Court’s decision says he can’t, but more about that in a bit.
Apparently the reason the trial judge terminated Glover’s rights is that he didn’t follow the court’s orders to avail himself of certain “services” of the ADHS. Now, remember, that ADHS is an agency of the State of Arkansas, but during most of the court proceedings, Glover was nowhere near Arkansas and therefore could not be ”served” by ADHS. More importantly, the “services” ordered are transparently aimed at a parent who has abused his/her child. Here they are:
-provide complete medical history for juvenile
-parenting classes
-anger management classes
-forensic psychological evaluation – follow recommendations
-random drug screens
-remain drug free
-remain alcohol free
-provide vital info for fetal alcohol syndrome assessment
-drug and alcohol assessment – follow recommendations
-medication assessment and follow recommendations
-maintain stable and suitable housing
-attend staffings at DHS
-cooperate with Department
-maintain contact with Department
-attend visitation with juvenile
-demonstrate improved parenting
-maintain reliable transportation or seek reasonable assistance from DHS
-complete affidavit of Financial Means
-refrain from criminal or illegal activity
So what we have is a state agency and four separate judges who couldn’t quite grasp the fact that, although there was an abused child and although there was a father in court, the father hadn’t abused the child. Glover didn’t need any of the “services” ADHS said he needed.
Likewise, the fact that he was out of the country most of the time and in the hospital part of the time when he returned from abroad and was honorably discharged from military service, and therefore unable to avail himself of the “services” never sank in on the judges or ADHS.
Late in the game, the court appointed counsel to “represent” Glover. I use quotation marks around the word “represent” because the dissenting justice at the appellate court described that representation this way:
The quality of the appointed counsel’s representation at this late stage of the case supports an inference that the purpose of the appointment was not to assist Mr. Glover in negotiating his way through the juvenile courts to gain custody of E.G., but rather to facilitate his exit by terminating his parental rights.
The dissent’s description is given considerably more weight by the fact that Glover’s lawyer made no effort to assert at trial any of the very obvious legal issues presented by the termination of a fit father’s parental rights. Having failed to assert them at trial, they couldn’t be asserted on appeal. To make her malpractice still more obvious, Glover’s attorney filed his appeal but under a “no-merit” procedure. That’s one in which the lawyer files the appeal because her client demands it, but tells the court it has no merit. This was “zealous representation” by an attorney? It’s more like a bad joke.
In short, the lawyer worked hand-in-glove with ADHS and the judges to cut the father out of his child’s life. My strong belief is that ADHS wanted that all along. That’s why its counsel convinced the judges to order the long list of “services” for Glover to comply with. ADHS hoped that Glover wouldn’t comply due to his deployment overseas and failure to comply would lose him his parental rights. And that’s just what happened. Some people may call that justice. I call it a conspiracy.
Not surprisingly, Glover lost his appeal. The appellate majority said he hadn’t raised any of his issues on appeal, so there was no way he could win. Fair enough. Or was it?
On the contrary, the dissenting judge, Josephine Hart, completely destroyed the majority’s summary dismissal of Glover’s appeal. She points out that, due to a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court (the Mahone case) during the pendency of Glover’s case, the state cannot interfere with the parenting rights of a fit parent.
The Mahone court overruled Judkins and held that custody of a child taken from a custodial parent should result in first shifting custody to the nonoffending, noncustodial parent.
Importantly, the Mahone court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in so ruling.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental right to parent a child without interference by the state. Accordingly, there first must be a showing of unfitness before the state may intervene. The fact that one parent is unfit does not alter the state’s burden to prove that the other parent is also unable to care for the child before it may interfere in the family… Without a finding of unfitness, the state has no constitutional authority to exercise that power. Under current Supreme Court authority, the existence of a single fit parent, regardless of the acts of the other parent, negates the state’s ability to interfere in the family unit.
Those are, once again, Judge Josephine Hart’s. She was writing at the appellate level in Mahone and, when the case got to it, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed.
More importantly still, the trial court in Glover’s case had no jurisdiction. In order to exercise any authority over his rights, it had to first find that he was unfit. It didn’t because he wasn’t. Therefore, the matter could be raised for the first time on appeal.
It can therefore be raised before the Arkansas Supreme Court. From here, it looks like a slam-dunk win.
To date, however, the lesson Edward Glover’s case teaches us is just how determined child welfare agencies are to cut fathers out of the lives of their children and how willing courts are to comply.
Source http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=22391
Friday, December 16, 2011
Lawsuit Claims CPS Removed Kids Out of Spite - Texas
RANDY WALLACE
Investigative Reporter
HOUSTON - If Child Protective Services had its way, 5-year-old Katelynn Allen wouldn't be with her grandmother right now. Neither would her 6-year-old brother Elisha.
CPS wanted them to be adopted by non-relatives.
"I don't even think I can find a word that can summarize what I went through," said the children's grandmother, Houston Minister Teresa Allen.
It was Allen who first contacted CPS back in August of 2009.
She was concerned about her grandkids because of her daughter's alleged drug use.
Three months went by and nothing happened.
In the meantime Allen took the kids to keep them safe.
Then, according to her lawsuit against CPS, a CPS caseworker called.
That case worker stated, "She was in fear of losing her job for missing a deadline to investigate the matter."
Allen complained to the case workers supervisor and anyone else with CPS that would listen.
She wanted action.
"You go all the way to the top and you just can't believe that there was no one in authority that could have stopped, looked and listened and investigated my complaint," Allen said.
"She finally went over the head of the case worker, then over the head of a supervisor to the program director," said Allen's attorney Chris Branson. " She was told in no uncertain terms that that was a bad move on her part and they were going to show her exactly what happens to people who make bad moves."
The next day Branson said CPS took Allen's two young grandkids away from her.
"I did not know what was going on, I did not know why," Allen said.
"The initial taking was illegal," Branson said.
Branson said CPS claimed the kids were in danger that's why they took them with no court order in hand.
"My client did nothing to have CPS take these kids, nothing came out later," Branson said.
For the next 11 months the lawsuit claims CPS workers did everything they could to discredit Allen who was denied access to her grandkids, and was repeatedly told they would be adopted by non relatives and she would never see them again.
"Anger, fear, the rejection, I mean it makes you feel less than a human being," Allen said.
In a hearing the grandmother won the right to get her grandkids back. But she hopes the lawsuit will lead to changes at CPS.
"We believe this is a good case to set a precedent that will send a clear and distinct message to Child Protective Services to clean up their act and do things the right way," Branson said.
Source http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/111216-child-protective-services-dispute
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Another Example Of CPS Neglecting Their Duties (Illinois) - Court order needed for CPS to take custody of abused teen
By Erin Guerra
PORTAGE — Child Protective Services initially refused to take custody of an abused 16-year-old, saying he has “anger problems,” according to a police report from the Sunday incident.
A CPS supervisor wanted Porter County Sheriff’s police to take the boy to a shelter instead of handing him off to CPS. Porter County Superior Court Judge Mary Harper issued a court order instructing the agency to accept responsibility for the teen.
Officers arrested the teen’s legal guardian, Waleed Blair, 49, of Burns Harbor, after witnesses saw him allegedly attack the youth at about 5:30 p.m. Sunday outside a grocery store in the 6000 block of Central Avenue. According to the arrest report, the 16-year-old was sitting on a bench outside when Blair wanted him to walk through the store with him. Blair slapped him in the face, threw him to the ground and choked him, an unnamed shopper told police.
Blair, who is a relative of the victim, was kneeling on top of him with his hand around his throat when police arrived. He refused to get up, was pulled off by an officer and was charged with felony strangulation and misdemeanor battery.
Because the teen has no other local relatives, police called CPS to take care of him but a supervisor at the agency declined and suggested police take him to a Gary shelter for runaway youths, according to the police report.
Police then obtained a judge’s order to place the boy with CPS.
Source http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/porter/8985629-418/court-order-needed-for-cps-to-take-custody-of-abused-teen.html
PORTAGE — Child Protective Services initially refused to take custody of an abused 16-year-old, saying he has “anger problems,” according to a police report from the Sunday incident.
A CPS supervisor wanted Porter County Sheriff’s police to take the boy to a shelter instead of handing him off to CPS. Porter County Superior Court Judge Mary Harper issued a court order instructing the agency to accept responsibility for the teen.
Officers arrested the teen’s legal guardian, Waleed Blair, 49, of Burns Harbor, after witnesses saw him allegedly attack the youth at about 5:30 p.m. Sunday outside a grocery store in the 6000 block of Central Avenue. According to the arrest report, the 16-year-old was sitting on a bench outside when Blair wanted him to walk through the store with him. Blair slapped him in the face, threw him to the ground and choked him, an unnamed shopper told police.
Blair, who is a relative of the victim, was kneeling on top of him with his hand around his throat when police arrived. He refused to get up, was pulled off by an officer and was charged with felony strangulation and misdemeanor battery.
Because the teen has no other local relatives, police called CPS to take care of him but a supervisor at the agency declined and suggested police take him to a Gary shelter for runaway youths, according to the police report.
Police then obtained a judge’s order to place the boy with CPS.
Source http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/porter/8985629-418/court-order-needed-for-cps-to-take-custody-of-abused-teen.html
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Parents of ‘Adolf Hitler’ Lose Custody of Newborn - New Jersey
By Alyssa Newcomb
Heath and Deborah Campbell, the New Jersey parents of three children with Nazi-inspired names, lost custody of their fourth child 17 hours after he was born, the Express-Times of Lehigh Valley, Pa., reported.
Hons Campbell was taken into custody by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services late Thursday night after the doctor who delivered the baby called the agency, the paper reported.
“There’s no legal binding court order. It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” Heath Campbell told the Express-Times.
The Campbell family stepped into the spotlight in December 2008 when a ShopRite grovery store declined to decorate a birthday cake for their son Adolf Hitler Campbell’s third birthday.
The state took custody of Adolf, along with his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Himler Jeannie Campbell, in January of 2009. The three children have remained in foster care ever since.
A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.
Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”
The couple’s attorney, Pasquale Giannetta, told The Associated Press that a court a hearing has been scheduled for Monday to determine the custody status of the newborn.
ABC News’ Russell Goldman contributed to this report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/parents-of-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-of-newborn/
Heath and Deborah Campbell, the New Jersey parents of three children with Nazi-inspired names, lost custody of their fourth child 17 hours after he was born, the Express-Times of Lehigh Valley, Pa., reported.
Hons Campbell was taken into custody by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services late Thursday night after the doctor who delivered the baby called the agency, the paper reported.
“There’s no legal binding court order. It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” Heath Campbell told the Express-Times.
The Campbell family stepped into the spotlight in December 2008 when a ShopRite grovery store declined to decorate a birthday cake for their son Adolf Hitler Campbell’s third birthday.
The state took custody of Adolf, along with his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Himler Jeannie Campbell, in January of 2009. The three children have remained in foster care ever since.
A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.
Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”
The couple’s attorney, Pasquale Giannetta, told The Associated Press that a court a hearing has been scheduled for Monday to determine the custody status of the newborn.
ABC News’ Russell Goldman contributed to this report.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/parents-of-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-of-newborn/
Thursday, October 6, 2011
D.C. child welfare agency often acts too quickly to remove children, study says
By Teresa Tomassoni, Published: October 5
The number of children removed from their homes by child abuse investigators in the District has fallen in the past year, but a recent review of some cases concluded that children are still regularly separated from their parents without adequate justification.
The study, conducted by a federally mandated panel of volunteer monitors, examined 27 cases involving 41 children over several years. In many of the instances examined by the panel, children who were placed briefly in foster care should have stayed with their families, the report concluded.
The Citizens Review Panel said the District’s Child and Family Services Agency has not done enough to keep families together and urged the agency to do better.
“CFSA’s child removal decisions must balance the need to protect children from serious abuse or neglect with the need to protect children from the significant emotional trauma that comes from the government separating them from their families,” the report, released last week, stated.
The review, released last week, is the latest examination of the challenges that CFSA, like other child welfare agencies, faces in balancing the inclination to remove children when neglect or abuse is suspected and the imperative to leave them in the home unless they are in imminent danger.
In more than half of the reviews conducted, panel members found that the case record did not justify removal.
In one case cited in the report, a social worker removed a child upon discovering suspicious marks on the child’s body, most likely from being whipped with a cord. The social worker placed him and his three siblings, who did not show signs of abuse, into foster care without obtaining a family court order.
After the removal, the social worker met with the mother to work out a strategy, known as a safety plan, for addressing the problems in the home. Less than a week later, the children were back at home. The report said that if this conversation had taken place before the children were taken, foster care would not have been necessary.
CFSA’s statistics show that even as the number of removals are on pace to be their lowest in years, the percentage of children who are being returned home within four months is at 35 percent, roughly the same rate as last year and a higher rate than in any of the previous three years.
Debra Porchia-Usher, the child welfare agency’s interim director, said how quickly children are removed from their families and how quickly they are returned is an issue the CFSA continues to monitor. “We all agree fewer removals are better,” she said. But she does not agree that the problem is as prevalent as the report suggests.
In an effort to make better decisions about removals, the agency recently launched a pilot program of a strategy known as differential response, which acknowledges that not every abuse or neglect report is an indicator of imminent danger.
Earlier this year, the agency also completed a policy manual on conducting investigations. All social workers, supervisors and program managers have been trained using this new resource, Porchia-Usher said.
Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-child-welfare-agency-often-acts-too-quickly-to-remove-children-study-says/2011/09/29/gIQAIGweOL_story.html
The number of children removed from their homes by child abuse investigators in the District has fallen in the past year, but a recent review of some cases concluded that children are still regularly separated from their parents without adequate justification.
The study, conducted by a federally mandated panel of volunteer monitors, examined 27 cases involving 41 children over several years. In many of the instances examined by the panel, children who were placed briefly in foster care should have stayed with their families, the report concluded.
The Citizens Review Panel said the District’s Child and Family Services Agency has not done enough to keep families together and urged the agency to do better.
“CFSA’s child removal decisions must balance the need to protect children from serious abuse or neglect with the need to protect children from the significant emotional trauma that comes from the government separating them from their families,” the report, released last week, stated.
The review, released last week, is the latest examination of the challenges that CFSA, like other child welfare agencies, faces in balancing the inclination to remove children when neglect or abuse is suspected and the imperative to leave them in the home unless they are in imminent danger.
In more than half of the reviews conducted, panel members found that the case record did not justify removal.
In one case cited in the report, a social worker removed a child upon discovering suspicious marks on the child’s body, most likely from being whipped with a cord. The social worker placed him and his three siblings, who did not show signs of abuse, into foster care without obtaining a family court order.
After the removal, the social worker met with the mother to work out a strategy, known as a safety plan, for addressing the problems in the home. Less than a week later, the children were back at home. The report said that if this conversation had taken place before the children were taken, foster care would not have been necessary.
CFSA’s statistics show that even as the number of removals are on pace to be their lowest in years, the percentage of children who are being returned home within four months is at 35 percent, roughly the same rate as last year and a higher rate than in any of the previous three years.
Debra Porchia-Usher, the child welfare agency’s interim director, said how quickly children are removed from their families and how quickly they are returned is an issue the CFSA continues to monitor. “We all agree fewer removals are better,” she said. But she does not agree that the problem is as prevalent as the report suggests.
In an effort to make better decisions about removals, the agency recently launched a pilot program of a strategy known as differential response, which acknowledges that not every abuse or neglect report is an indicator of imminent danger.
Earlier this year, the agency also completed a policy manual on conducting investigations. All social workers, supervisors and program managers have been trained using this new resource, Porchia-Usher said.
Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-child-welfare-agency-often-acts-too-quickly-to-remove-children-study-says/2011/09/29/gIQAIGweOL_story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)