Associated Press
SOUTH BEND, Ind.— An Indiana law that keeps all child-protection records confidential except in cases of fatality or near fatality is out of date and prevents accountability when a child dies, some judges and lawmakers say.
"I have to make decisions based on the evidence before me," said St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth, "and I'm not always sure that DCS is telling me everything."
The Indiana House has voted to create a legislative committee to review changes in how the state investigates reports of child abuse and neglect. Democratic legislators have questioned the Department of Child Services' spending and a new child abuse hotline that routes all reports to a centralized call center in Indianapolis
Republican legislators have defended the agency's performance, saying DCS has doubled the number of caseworkers and helped reduce the number of child abuse deaths since 2005.
But critics say there is a cloak of secrecy surrounding the agency and worry that failing to provide some information could have tragic consequences.
An Indiana child fatality review team studies and reports on deaths of Indiana children. Its public reports provide a general overview and broad recommendations but don't delve into specifics of what happened or did not happen, the South Bend Tribune reported (http://bit.ly/AirHoB).
Reports from a DCS ombudsman office established in 2010 to investigate complaints involving the department also contain only general trends and non-identifying information about specific cases.
DCS Director James Payne said he supports more openness.
"I'm not opposed to loosening up the confidentiality. I've said for years that `confidential' is really `secret,"' said Payne, a former juvenile court judge who opened his Marion County courtroom to cameras for a "Dateline" television special about the juvenile justice system. "The issue really is the degree of that."
Child protection officials say they worry that more openness could expose parents to unfounded tips and stigmatize children.
But others note that unsubstantiated reports of abuse or neglect are only kept for three months and say that has prevented child welfare workers from having all the information they need in some cases, including the beating death of Tramelle Sturgis, a 10-year-old South Bend boy, in November.
In that case, prosecutors learned that earlier reports to DCS about the boy and his family had been destroyed.
State Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, introduced an amendment this session to change DCS record-keeping rules to store records of unsubstantiated reports for at least three years.
Broden, a former DCS attorney, advocates easing the system's confidentiality requirements so long as names of children and parents remain confidential.
"If the press wants to come and look at various cases and orders, I'd have no problem with that," he said.
Source http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-childservices-con,0,1108594.story
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 federal judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal judge. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Monday, December 5, 2011
Foster fiasco - Boy on run two years after ‘bungle’
By MITCHEL MADDUX
It’s a colossal foster-care nightmare that ended with the disappearance of a 7-year-old boy two years ago — and it didn’t have to happen.
Top-notch lawyers appointed by a judge to represent the interests of missing Patrick Alford claim that the child, who vanished from his Brooklyn foster home, could have been safe today if not for glaring missteps by city child-welfare workers.
The lawyers argue that the employees with the city’s Administration for Children’s Service outrageously misled the Family Court in their bid to prove the child was in danger and even required placement in foster care in the first place.
It’s not clear why the workers did what they did to justify taking the boy. But they failed to disclose to a Family Court judge that, at the time, the child had actually been living at an aunt’s house and not with his mother, who was battling drug-addiction problems, lawyer Jonathan Lerner argued in papers filed in Brooklyn federal court.
Child-welfare workers lied in a sworn affidavit by “falsely representing to the court” there was “an imminent danger to the child’s life” if he was not immediately removed, “when in truth” young Patrick “was in no danger, imminent or otherwise, from continuing in his aunt’s care,” the documents state.
Lerner, a senior attorney at the white-shoe firm of Skadden Arps now serving as pro-bono counsel for the child, said ACS “made no assessment” that the aunt’s temporary custody of the boy “posed any danger” when its workers decided to seize Patrick on Dec. 29, 2009.
When ACS workers met again with the aunt two weeks later, they even deemed her suitable to serve as a temporary guardian for the boy. But for reasons that are unclear, the child nevertheless continued to remain in the foster home until his disappearance, Lerner wrote in the scathing court papers.
Patrick, who would now be 9 years old, was last seen on the night of Jan. 22, 2010, after he apparently slipped off while taking out the trash with his foster mom at her East New York home.
Adding to the debacle, ACS put him with a foster mother who spoke only Spanish, even though Patrick spoke only English.
The child, who had documented emotional and educational issues, was so unhappy that he began to experience psychiatric problems and tried to run away on several occasions.
Despite a psychologist’s assessment that the boy urgently needed medication and psychiatric care, ACS failed to take immediate action to help the boy, Lerner charged.
This chain of events prompted a federal judge overseeing the lawsuit about the child’s disappearance to suggest that — if proven — the city could be liable for damages.
Lawyers for the city strongly dispute the claim that ACS workers deliberately misled a Family Court judge and contend that facts arose that led them to believe that leaving Patrick with relatives was not a good option.
Source http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/foster_fiasco_2t4PoiyY60swRmOCmHCVXN
It’s a colossal foster-care nightmare that ended with the disappearance of a 7-year-old boy two years ago — and it didn’t have to happen.
Top-notch lawyers appointed by a judge to represent the interests of missing Patrick Alford claim that the child, who vanished from his Brooklyn foster home, could have been safe today if not for glaring missteps by city child-welfare workers.
The lawyers argue that the employees with the city’s Administration for Children’s Service outrageously misled the Family Court in their bid to prove the child was in danger and even required placement in foster care in the first place.
It’s not clear why the workers did what they did to justify taking the boy. But they failed to disclose to a Family Court judge that, at the time, the child had actually been living at an aunt’s house and not with his mother, who was battling drug-addiction problems, lawyer Jonathan Lerner argued in papers filed in Brooklyn federal court.
Child-welfare workers lied in a sworn affidavit by “falsely representing to the court” there was “an imminent danger to the child’s life” if he was not immediately removed, “when in truth” young Patrick “was in no danger, imminent or otherwise, from continuing in his aunt’s care,” the documents state.
Lerner, a senior attorney at the white-shoe firm of Skadden Arps now serving as pro-bono counsel for the child, said ACS “made no assessment” that the aunt’s temporary custody of the boy “posed any danger” when its workers decided to seize Patrick on Dec. 29, 2009.
When ACS workers met again with the aunt two weeks later, they even deemed her suitable to serve as a temporary guardian for the boy. But for reasons that are unclear, the child nevertheless continued to remain in the foster home until his disappearance, Lerner wrote in the scathing court papers.
Patrick, who would now be 9 years old, was last seen on the night of Jan. 22, 2010, after he apparently slipped off while taking out the trash with his foster mom at her East New York home.
Adding to the debacle, ACS put him with a foster mother who spoke only Spanish, even though Patrick spoke only English.
The child, who had documented emotional and educational issues, was so unhappy that he began to experience psychiatric problems and tried to run away on several occasions.
Despite a psychologist’s assessment that the boy urgently needed medication and psychiatric care, ACS failed to take immediate action to help the boy, Lerner charged.
This chain of events prompted a federal judge overseeing the lawsuit about the child’s disappearance to suggest that — if proven — the city could be liable for damages.
Lawyers for the city strongly dispute the claim that ACS workers deliberately misled a Family Court judge and contend that facts arose that led them to believe that leaving Patrick with relatives was not a good option.
Source http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/foster_fiasco_2t4PoiyY60swRmOCmHCVXN
Friday, December 2, 2011
Judge rules two of three civil rights claims lacking in foster care case - Oklahoma
By DAVID HARPER
A Tulsa federal judge threw out two of three civil rights claims on Thursday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in Oklahoma's foster-care system.
The plaintiffs, however, claimed to be happy with the decision because their "core claim" is still alive.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell allowed a cause of action dealing with foster children's due process rights to be free from harm - and risk of harm - to survive, but he granted the defense's motions for summary judgment on two other constitutional claims.
The lawsuit was filed against various Oklahoma Department of Human Services officials in February 2008 by Children's Rights, a national child-advocacy group based in New York, and five law firms.
The original plaintiffs were nine children who allegedly had suffered in DHS placements. The case has since become a class-action lawsuit, with thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.
"This decision is a huge victory for Children's Rights as well as the abused and neglected children in Oklahoma's DHS," Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights, said Thursday evening. "The federal court in Oklahoma has sustained our core claim in today's decision, that children are either being subject to harm or at risk of harm while in state custody."
However, Donald Bingham, an attorney for the defense, said it is important to note that Frizzell did not rule on the merits of the case, finding only that the plaintiffs' side had introduced enough evidence that will "entitle it to its day in court" in February.
Frizzell wrote: "The court concludes plaintiffs have presented proof sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact whether defendants' policies, practices and procedures violate plaintiffs' substantive due process right to be reasonably safe from harm."
Frizzell found that the "plaintiffs have presented evidence - albeit disputed - that defendants' oversight of the DHS foster program is so inadequate as to give rise to a question of material fact whether defendants have abdicated their professional judgment."
Also, the judge wrote that experts on both sides of the case, as well as senior DHS managers, "all agree that excessive caseloads, missed visits between case workers and children and inadequate investigations of abuse and neglect pose a threat to the safety of foster children and that inadequate placement options, excessive use of shelters and frequent placement moves threaten the psychological and emotional health of children."
Frizzell wrote that plaintiffs had presented evidence that from 2002 through 2008, the reported rate of abuse or neglect of Oklahoma foster children has been 1.54 to 3.97 times greater than the national rate.
Oklahoma had one of the five highest reported rates in the country during that time, Frizzell wrote.
The judge threw out the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants' policies, practices and procedures interfere with the children's First, Ninth and 14th Amendment liberty and privacy rights.
The plaintiffs asserted that, while DHS policy requires visits between parents and children as well as placement of siblings together whenever possible, the agency's records from 2008 to 2010 reflected that less than 15 percent of visits due between foster children and their biological parents were completed. The plaintiffs also alleged that DHS has a routine practice of separating siblings in custody.
Frizzell wrote that granting the defense's motion for summary judgment on the claim was appropriate because, while individual children can establish acts by DHS workers that have violated their right of familial association, a class-wide deprivation cannot be proven.
The judge noted that the DHS officials sued in the case do not deal with foster children directly. He wrote that, at most, the evidence might support a conclusion that the defendants failed to adequately supervise workers who were charged with the responsibility of ensuring that parent-child visitation occurred.
Frizzell also ruled for the defense on a claim alleging violations of Oklahoma statutes pertaining to the procedural rights of foster children.
The judge wrote that it is impossible for the class as a whole to establish a key element of such a claim because most children's procedural due process rights have not been violated.
Frizzell noted that while the plaintiffs argue that all members are "at risk," they cited no legal authority that such a status meets the requirements for establishing a violation of relevant Fifth and 14th Amendment rights.
The trial, which won't involve a jury, is set for Feb. 21 and is expected to last about four weeks.
Neither side plans to appeal Thursday's mixed ruling.
Source http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20111202_14_A1_CUTLIN528313
A Tulsa federal judge threw out two of three civil rights claims on Thursday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in Oklahoma's foster-care system.
The plaintiffs, however, claimed to be happy with the decision because their "core claim" is still alive.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell allowed a cause of action dealing with foster children's due process rights to be free from harm - and risk of harm - to survive, but he granted the defense's motions for summary judgment on two other constitutional claims.
The lawsuit was filed against various Oklahoma Department of Human Services officials in February 2008 by Children's Rights, a national child-advocacy group based in New York, and five law firms.
The original plaintiffs were nine children who allegedly had suffered in DHS placements. The case has since become a class-action lawsuit, with thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.
"This decision is a huge victory for Children's Rights as well as the abused and neglected children in Oklahoma's DHS," Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights, said Thursday evening. "The federal court in Oklahoma has sustained our core claim in today's decision, that children are either being subject to harm or at risk of harm while in state custody."
However, Donald Bingham, an attorney for the defense, said it is important to note that Frizzell did not rule on the merits of the case, finding only that the plaintiffs' side had introduced enough evidence that will "entitle it to its day in court" in February.
Frizzell wrote: "The court concludes plaintiffs have presented proof sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact whether defendants' policies, practices and procedures violate plaintiffs' substantive due process right to be reasonably safe from harm."
Frizzell found that the "plaintiffs have presented evidence - albeit disputed - that defendants' oversight of the DHS foster program is so inadequate as to give rise to a question of material fact whether defendants have abdicated their professional judgment."
Also, the judge wrote that experts on both sides of the case, as well as senior DHS managers, "all agree that excessive caseloads, missed visits between case workers and children and inadequate investigations of abuse and neglect pose a threat to the safety of foster children and that inadequate placement options, excessive use of shelters and frequent placement moves threaten the psychological and emotional health of children."
Frizzell wrote that plaintiffs had presented evidence that from 2002 through 2008, the reported rate of abuse or neglect of Oklahoma foster children has been 1.54 to 3.97 times greater than the national rate.
Oklahoma had one of the five highest reported rates in the country during that time, Frizzell wrote.
The judge threw out the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants' policies, practices and procedures interfere with the children's First, Ninth and 14th Amendment liberty and privacy rights.
The plaintiffs asserted that, while DHS policy requires visits between parents and children as well as placement of siblings together whenever possible, the agency's records from 2008 to 2010 reflected that less than 15 percent of visits due between foster children and their biological parents were completed. The plaintiffs also alleged that DHS has a routine practice of separating siblings in custody.
Frizzell wrote that granting the defense's motion for summary judgment on the claim was appropriate because, while individual children can establish acts by DHS workers that have violated their right of familial association, a class-wide deprivation cannot be proven.
The judge noted that the DHS officials sued in the case do not deal with foster children directly. He wrote that, at most, the evidence might support a conclusion that the defendants failed to adequately supervise workers who were charged with the responsibility of ensuring that parent-child visitation occurred.
Frizzell also ruled for the defense on a claim alleging violations of Oklahoma statutes pertaining to the procedural rights of foster children.
The judge wrote that it is impossible for the class as a whole to establish a key element of such a claim because most children's procedural due process rights have not been violated.
Frizzell noted that while the plaintiffs argue that all members are "at risk," they cited no legal authority that such a status meets the requirements for establishing a violation of relevant Fifth and 14th Amendment rights.
The trial, which won't involve a jury, is set for Feb. 21 and is expected to last about four weeks.
Neither side plans to appeal Thursday's mixed ruling.
Source http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20111202_14_A1_CUTLIN528313
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
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Federal judge should hear Arlington CPS case
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
One of the most disturbing stories I've ever written for The Washington Examiner was about a 3-week-old baby girl who was snatched from her mother's arms and placed in foster care by Arlington County Child Protective Services because she lost 10 ounces after birth. Baby Sabrina's story hit me hard in the gut because that could have been me; my youngest daughter lost a whole pound postpartum.
Newborn weight loss is normal, Sabrina was under a doctor's care and had even regained all of her lost birth weight when she was taken. Kit Slitor, a freelance video editor, and his wife, Nancy Hey, a federal employee, were never charged with or convicted of child abuse or neglect, and the Virginia Department of Social Services exonerated them of any wrongdoing. It didn't matter.
After doing everything social workers and the Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court, or DJR, demanded of them -- including home inspections, supervised visitation, and psychological testing -- their parental rights were terminated and Sabrina was put up for adoption. They spent more than $250,000 fighting for her, all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which declined to hear their case.
Four years later, their story still haunts me.
On Sept. 16, a class-action lawsuit modeled after a similar pleading in Massachusetts was filed in federal court in Alexandria on behalf of eight children -- including Sabrina -- who have been placed in foster care by Arlington County.
The list of serious accusations contained in the lawsuit against DJR Judges George Varoutsos and Esther Wiggins, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jason McCandless, and various Arlington CPS officials is long: perjury, RICO violations of civil rights, fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice, unconstitutional "ex parte" hearings, court orders that were never served, depriving parents of their due process rights, "missing" court orders, illegal searches and seizures, and felony removal of documents from court files, to name just a few.
Arlington CPS "has not implemented the reforms necessary to remedy the severe and persistent legal violations within its foster care system, despite its longstanding knowledge of these systemic ills," the lawsuit alleges. The allegations are so grave that if the judicial system were working properly, an emergency restraining order against DJR would be issued immediately.
Don't hold your breath. The "next friend" lawsuit was filed by nonlawyer James Renwick Manship, a disabled Navy cryptologist and court-appointed special advocate, on behalf of foster children and their impoverished parents. It's the longest of long shots aimed directly at a corrupt, unaccountable system that holds every card in the deck.
Or almost every card. Judge James Cacheris caused quite a legal stir in May when he cited the landmark Supreme Court Citizens United ruling to strike down a ban on corporate political donations. Campaign finance is an important issue, but it pales in comparison with judicial kidnapping, which strikes at the very heart of Americans' God-given rights.
If social workers and judges can take your child away without due process, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper the powerful can continue to ignore with impunity.
There's still a chance that Cacheris, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan, will search his conscience, rise to the occasion, and allow this David vs. Goliath case to proceed to trial despite tremendous pressure from the legal establishment to ignore the compelling evidence of official misconduct and continue covering up this rot.
Source http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/federal-judge-should-hear-arlington-cps-case
One of the most disturbing stories I've ever written for The Washington Examiner was about a 3-week-old baby girl who was snatched from her mother's arms and placed in foster care by Arlington County Child Protective Services because she lost 10 ounces after birth. Baby Sabrina's story hit me hard in the gut because that could have been me; my youngest daughter lost a whole pound postpartum.
Newborn weight loss is normal, Sabrina was under a doctor's care and had even regained all of her lost birth weight when she was taken. Kit Slitor, a freelance video editor, and his wife, Nancy Hey, a federal employee, were never charged with or convicted of child abuse or neglect, and the Virginia Department of Social Services exonerated them of any wrongdoing. It didn't matter.
After doing everything social workers and the Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court, or DJR, demanded of them -- including home inspections, supervised visitation, and psychological testing -- their parental rights were terminated and Sabrina was put up for adoption. They spent more than $250,000 fighting for her, all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which declined to hear their case.
Four years later, their story still haunts me.
On Sept. 16, a class-action lawsuit modeled after a similar pleading in Massachusetts was filed in federal court in Alexandria on behalf of eight children -- including Sabrina -- who have been placed in foster care by Arlington County.
The list of serious accusations contained in the lawsuit against DJR Judges George Varoutsos and Esther Wiggins, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jason McCandless, and various Arlington CPS officials is long: perjury, RICO violations of civil rights, fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice, unconstitutional "ex parte" hearings, court orders that were never served, depriving parents of their due process rights, "missing" court orders, illegal searches and seizures, and felony removal of documents from court files, to name just a few.
Arlington CPS "has not implemented the reforms necessary to remedy the severe and persistent legal violations within its foster care system, despite its longstanding knowledge of these systemic ills," the lawsuit alleges. The allegations are so grave that if the judicial system were working properly, an emergency restraining order against DJR would be issued immediately.
Don't hold your breath. The "next friend" lawsuit was filed by nonlawyer James Renwick Manship, a disabled Navy cryptologist and court-appointed special advocate, on behalf of foster children and their impoverished parents. It's the longest of long shots aimed directly at a corrupt, unaccountable system that holds every card in the deck.
Or almost every card. Judge James Cacheris caused quite a legal stir in May when he cited the landmark Supreme Court Citizens United ruling to strike down a ban on corporate political donations. Campaign finance is an important issue, but it pales in comparison with judicial kidnapping, which strikes at the very heart of Americans' God-given rights.
If social workers and judges can take your child away without due process, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper the powerful can continue to ignore with impunity.
There's still a chance that Cacheris, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan, will search his conscience, rise to the occasion, and allow this David vs. Goliath case to proceed to trial despite tremendous pressure from the legal establishment to ignore the compelling evidence of official misconduct and continue covering up this rot.
Source http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/federal-judge-should-hear-arlington-cps-case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)