Blogger Note:
This sounds all too familiar! It seems that every family that CPS touches, tells the same story. The only difference is in the names. The only good that ever comes of CPS involvement with a family is that they soon learn the truth about kangaroo courts and how our country is truly run. ? What Constitution ?
---
Family dispute gone wrong leads to girls taken from home.
ELKHART — Victor Marquis remembers Sept. 13, 2007, as the day his disillusionment with his country began.
Marquis, a 47-year-old engineer whose two teenage daughters live with him, recalls that night in 2007 when they were taken away and mired in what he calls an unconstitutional system.
That night, Marquis says, the family was planning to attend an event that required wearing clothes that his older daughter, Victoria, resisted putting on.
Tensions between him and his now-ex-wife were already heading toward divorce, he says, and when 13-year-old Victoria refused to wear the outfit, Marquis became so angry he decided to spank the girl. His wife stepped in front of him to block him, he says, so he spanked his wife instead.
His then-wife ran downstairs and Marquis followed, he says, accidentally running into the girls’ stepmother and knocking her down some stairs.
Marquis says the woman was not injured and things calmed down, so he left to pick up his younger daughter. But when he returned, police were there.
The father was ultimately charged with felony domestic battery in front of a minor, which was reduced to a misdemeanor and led to a year’s probation.
But the incident also led to the girls being declared wards of the state, who spent almost 18 months in foster homes.
Marquis’ first attorney told him to agree with Child Protective Services that the children were in need of services and things would move more quickly; instead, he says, the situation became even more complicated.
Victoria, who is now 18, says one foster home had such a bad lice infestation that the girls suffered with the nits for six months. The other home, she says, housed other foster children who ate most of the available food, forcing the girls to appeal to a neighbor for sustenance.
Marquis says he attended individual and family therapy sessions, trying his best to comply with Department of Child Services wishes.
He attended anger management classes, he says, but they insisted that he admit to beating his wife.
“They wanted me to say, ‘I’m Victor Marquis, and I’m a batterer,’” he says. “I wasn’t a wife abuser. ... There were men in there who had beat their wives and still had their kids.”
The man running the program eventually testified that Marquis was in denial about what had happened, he says.
Even after he had hired a different attorney, Marquis says he wasn’t allowed to call his own witnesses, such as the girls’ mother, Sharon Marquis, to defend his parenting skills. Sharon had given him full custody long before the incident, she says, because of issues of her own.
Sharon Marquis and both girls say Victor has rarely lost his temper. But “I could have handled it differently, I admit,” he says now.
The judge stressed that it was against the law for him to tell anyone else about the case, he says, which added to the helplessness.
“They were feeling good about taking my kids away from me based on incorrect information, which I was never able to refute,” Marquis says.
“There’s no oversight,” he says, “and parents are minimized.”
Meanwhile, Victoria says that when she’d meet with her Court Appointed Special Advocate, what she told her was reported out of context in court.
She told the woman, “‘I miss my family,’” Victoria says. “‘My dad is a little crazy, but isn’t everybody a little crazy?’ She told the judge I said, ‘My dad is crazy.’ It was ridiculous. They didn’t really listen.”
The girls had to switch schools twice while living in the foster homes. Victoria says she’s less trusting — and more possessive of her things — than she used to be.
Her father is more bitter.
“This is not the country I grew up in,” Marquis says. “This is not the country I thought it was.”
Source http://www.wsbt.com/news/sbt-father-describes-hard-lessons-20120226,0,5201592.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 foster homes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foster homes. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
The High Cost of Foster Care Abuse
FLUSHING, NY, February 09, 2012
More than 500,000 children in the U.S. reside in some form of foster care. Within one year of their initial placement, at least 15 percent of them will experience neglect, abuse, or other harmful conditions. Six times as many children die in foster care than in the general population. Children in placement are also far more likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse than other children. In group homes, where many of the residents abuse each other, there is more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and 28 times the rate of sexual abuse as in the general population. And these are just the reported cases. Since foster care agencies cannot always be relied upon to police themselves, the actual rates are likely to be much higher.
Lawsuits are a necessary consequence of foster care abuse. Often, they provide the only means for victims to seek monetary compensation for grievous harm. They are also instrumental in publicizing these tragedies, forcing state and private foster care providers to account for their actions and, hopefully, rectify them. Here is a sampling of recent foster care abuse lawsuits:
A Florida mother accused state and local child care providers of failing to protect her son from sexual abuse. Placed at age 10, the child was moved to 11 different foster homes in an 18 month period and twice attempted suicide.
Three young Maryland men filed suit against an agency that had notice of a sexually abusing foster father but failed to take action. The agency specialized in placements for children and adolescents with mental disabilities as well as brain and spinal cord injuries.
A lawsuit on behalf of a young girl repeatedly raped in foster care over a period of ten months was filed in Philadelphia. The rapist, who was not supposed to be residing in the home, was the foster mother's teen-aged son.
Lawyers in Colorado sued agency social workers on behalf of three boys placed in an adoptive home. Although the adoptive parents knew the boys had been abused in their biological home, social workers failed to warn them of just how heinous and extensive the abuse had been. The children engaged in incestuous acts with each other, necessitating strenuous efforts on the part of the adoptive parents to prevent the abuse. Ultimately, the strain of caring for the children caused the adoptive parents to divorce.
The payout for such lawsuits can be quite substantial. New Jersey has spent $51.7 million in 317 lawsuits brought on behalf of abused foster children dating as far back as 1996. Since 2005, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) has paid out more than $3.4 million in civil lawsuit settlements. In a recently settled class action lawsuit involving foster care abuse, Oklahoma DHS spent $7 million in outside attorney fees in defense of the lawsuit, with $2 million more set aside for future costs. Additional class action lawsuits are pending on behalf of thousands of foster children in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Texas. Even when such cases do not result in monetary awards to the original plaintiffs, attorney fees can run well into the millions.
Foster care abuse exacts an enormous toll in emotional, psychological and physical damage. Lawsuits filed on behalf of these injured children, while essential, are prohibitively expensive for state and local governments. In a better world, all those tens of millions would be spent on preventing the very problems that put children in foster care in the first place. Sometimes, the price for the harm that results from the remedy is just too high.
Written by Ruth C. Stern on behalf of Orlow, Orlow & Orlow, New York Personal Injury Lawyers located at 7118 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 212-203-4053
http://www.orlowlaw.com
More than 500,000 children in the U.S. reside in some form of foster care. Within one year of their initial placement, at least 15 percent of them will experience neglect, abuse, or other harmful conditions. Six times as many children die in foster care than in the general population. Children in placement are also far more likely to suffer physical and sexual abuse than other children. In group homes, where many of the residents abuse each other, there is more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and 28 times the rate of sexual abuse as in the general population. And these are just the reported cases. Since foster care agencies cannot always be relied upon to police themselves, the actual rates are likely to be much higher.
Lawsuits are a necessary consequence of foster care abuse. Often, they provide the only means for victims to seek monetary compensation for grievous harm. They are also instrumental in publicizing these tragedies, forcing state and private foster care providers to account for their actions and, hopefully, rectify them. Here is a sampling of recent foster care abuse lawsuits:
A Florida mother accused state and local child care providers of failing to protect her son from sexual abuse. Placed at age 10, the child was moved to 11 different foster homes in an 18 month period and twice attempted suicide.
Three young Maryland men filed suit against an agency that had notice of a sexually abusing foster father but failed to take action. The agency specialized in placements for children and adolescents with mental disabilities as well as brain and spinal cord injuries.
A lawsuit on behalf of a young girl repeatedly raped in foster care over a period of ten months was filed in Philadelphia. The rapist, who was not supposed to be residing in the home, was the foster mother's teen-aged son.
Lawyers in Colorado sued agency social workers on behalf of three boys placed in an adoptive home. Although the adoptive parents knew the boys had been abused in their biological home, social workers failed to warn them of just how heinous and extensive the abuse had been. The children engaged in incestuous acts with each other, necessitating strenuous efforts on the part of the adoptive parents to prevent the abuse. Ultimately, the strain of caring for the children caused the adoptive parents to divorce.
The payout for such lawsuits can be quite substantial. New Jersey has spent $51.7 million in 317 lawsuits brought on behalf of abused foster children dating as far back as 1996. Since 2005, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) has paid out more than $3.4 million in civil lawsuit settlements. In a recently settled class action lawsuit involving foster care abuse, Oklahoma DHS spent $7 million in outside attorney fees in defense of the lawsuit, with $2 million more set aside for future costs. Additional class action lawsuits are pending on behalf of thousands of foster children in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Texas. Even when such cases do not result in monetary awards to the original plaintiffs, attorney fees can run well into the millions.
Foster care abuse exacts an enormous toll in emotional, psychological and physical damage. Lawsuits filed on behalf of these injured children, while essential, are prohibitively expensive for state and local governments. In a better world, all those tens of millions would be spent on preventing the very problems that put children in foster care in the first place. Sometimes, the price for the harm that results from the remedy is just too high.
Written by Ruth C. Stern on behalf of Orlow, Orlow & Orlow, New York Personal Injury Lawyers located at 7118 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 212-203-4053
http://www.orlowlaw.com
Friday, January 6, 2012
OKDHS reaches settlement on foster care suit
Click here to read the settlement agreement.
Late Wednesday, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services commission reached a settlement agreement with Children's Rights, a group that filed a class action lawsuit in 2008 alleging OKDHS did not do enough to protect Oklahoma's foster care children from abuse and neglect.
The monetary terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed. However, DHS agreed to meet standards in fifteen areas. Among those standards, documentation of alleged abuse and neglect, number of available foster homes, number of times children can be placed in different foster homes, and the number of cases welfare workers can carry.
The agreement would dissolve in four years provided DHS meets the requirements fully for two consecutive years prior.
DHS has already spent close to $7 million fighting the lawsuit.
The agency says it will have a working plan in the next 55 days.
“We are all committed to continuous quality improvement and we have consistently identified and made improvements. We will continue to make improvements even after compliance with the future plan has been completed,” said OKDHS director Howard Hendrick. “The strengths and list of child welfare achievements are many, including an adoption rate that is more than twice the national average per capita over the last five years. Nevertheless, we need to recruit and expand the number of non-kinship homes for children coming into foster care. We need a broader array of therapeutic homes for children experiencing trauma and dealing with behavioral challenges. We also want to reimburse foster parents at better rates for their dedication to caring for Oklahoma’s abused and neglected children.
“Some of these improvements, particularly those involving recruitment and retention of child welfare workers and foster parents, will require additional state dollars," said Hendrick. "We will need the support of the Governor, the legislature, and the judicial system to commit the resources needed to ensure that Oklahoma’s child welfare system can meet these demands.”
"Now the real work begins," said House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee. "The legislature must be involved in this planning process and I'm pleased it will be. DHS belongs to the public and serves the public, so it is critical for the public's representatives to have meaningful input."
Source http://www.fox23.com/media/lib/13/0/a/1/0a184eb1-2f3c-4ec6-834a-418df6c6e415/Key_Provisions_of_the_Settlement_Agreement.doc
Late Wednesday, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services commission reached a settlement agreement with Children's Rights, a group that filed a class action lawsuit in 2008 alleging OKDHS did not do enough to protect Oklahoma's foster care children from abuse and neglect.
The monetary terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed. However, DHS agreed to meet standards in fifteen areas. Among those standards, documentation of alleged abuse and neglect, number of available foster homes, number of times children can be placed in different foster homes, and the number of cases welfare workers can carry.
The agreement would dissolve in four years provided DHS meets the requirements fully for two consecutive years prior.
DHS has already spent close to $7 million fighting the lawsuit.
The agency says it will have a working plan in the next 55 days.
“We are all committed to continuous quality improvement and we have consistently identified and made improvements. We will continue to make improvements even after compliance with the future plan has been completed,” said OKDHS director Howard Hendrick. “The strengths and list of child welfare achievements are many, including an adoption rate that is more than twice the national average per capita over the last five years. Nevertheless, we need to recruit and expand the number of non-kinship homes for children coming into foster care. We need a broader array of therapeutic homes for children experiencing trauma and dealing with behavioral challenges. We also want to reimburse foster parents at better rates for their dedication to caring for Oklahoma’s abused and neglected children.
“Some of these improvements, particularly those involving recruitment and retention of child welfare workers and foster parents, will require additional state dollars," said Hendrick. "We will need the support of the Governor, the legislature, and the judicial system to commit the resources needed to ensure that Oklahoma’s child welfare system can meet these demands.”
"Now the real work begins," said House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee. "The legislature must be involved in this planning process and I'm pleased it will be. DHS belongs to the public and serves the public, so it is critical for the public's representatives to have meaningful input."
Source http://www.fox23.com/media/lib/13/0/a/1/0a184eb1-2f3c-4ec6-834a-418df6c6e415/Key_Provisions_of_the_Settlement_Agreement.doc
Friday, December 16, 2011
US officials plan South Dakota summit on Indian foster care
CHET BROKAW Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Federal officials are planning a summit in South Dakota in the wake of allegations that the state has violated federal law by removing too many American Indian children from their homes and placing them in foster care with non-Indian families.
Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Office of Indian Affairs, told The Associated Press that the agency has created a committee to plan the summit, the date of which has not yet been set.
"We hope it will open up a dialogue between tribes and federal and state agencies," Darling said.
The summit is in response to a National Public Radio series in October that said the state routinely broke the Indian Child Welfare Act and disrupted the lives of hundreds of Native American families each year. Federal law requires that Native American children removed from homes be placed with relatives or put in foster care with other Native American families except in unusual circumstances.
The three-part NPR report said 90 percent of the Native American children removed from their homes in South Dakota each year are sent to foster care in non-Indian homes or group homes. It reported that Native American children are placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate because only 15 percent of the state's child population is Native American, but half of the children in foster care are Native American.
State officials have criticized the NPR report as inaccurate, unfair and biased.
Kim Malsam-Rysdon, secretary of the state Department of Social Services, said the Interior Department has not notified state officials about the planned summit, but that the state has nothing to hide.
"We are very confident that South Dakota is in compliance with federal law in this area, and we really do welcome the opportunity for the federal government and others to understand just how that federal law is being implemented in our state," Malsam-Rysdon said.
The summit suggestion surfaced in a letter to members of Congress who had called for an investigation. The meeting is meant to give state, federal and tribal officials a way to work together so that all involved agencies comply with the law and make sure American Indian children and their families are protected, wrote Larry Echo Hawk, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for Indian Affairs.
The Interior Department also is considering sending lawyers to South Dakota to help tribes enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act, Echo Hawk wrote.
Malsam-Rysdon, whose agency oversees South Dakota's child welfare system, said people need to understand that the system involves her department, tribes, courts, law-enforcement officers and others. Federal officials should not take any action based on the NPR report, but instead should get the facts about what is happening in South Dakota, she said.
"We're glad the Department of Interior is taking it seriously, that they're evidently interested into looking into and ensuring the federal law is being implemented," she said.
Malsam-Rysdon said it's true that a disproportionate number of Native American children are involved in the child welfare system. The state receives more referrals for alleged abuse and neglect involving Native American children, and that leads to more investigations and removals from homes for those children, she said.
"What really permeates our involvement with the child welfare system is safety of the child," Malsam-Rysdon said. "We're involved in homes where there are proven or foreseeable safety concerns regarding a child."
In a written response to the NPR series, the state has said it uses all available Native American foster placement homes.
The series said the state's motive for removing Native American children from their homes might be financial because the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. The report said the state gets almost $100 million a year to subsidize foster care programs, but state officials said the budget for the entire Division of Child Protection Services last year was only $59 million, and spending specifically on foster care and foster-care support was just $8 million.
The series also said there was a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bids.
The governor's office responded that Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
State officials also have said the Department of Social Services cannot remove children from homes and place them in protective custody. Only law officers and judges have the legal authority to do so, the state officials said.
Source http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/mobile/article_e1ed29d6-1b91-59ab-bfe6-26801493047a.html
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Federal officials are planning a summit in South Dakota in the wake of allegations that the state has violated federal law by removing too many American Indian children from their homes and placing them in foster care with non-Indian families.
Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Office of Indian Affairs, told The Associated Press that the agency has created a committee to plan the summit, the date of which has not yet been set.
"We hope it will open up a dialogue between tribes and federal and state agencies," Darling said.
The summit is in response to a National Public Radio series in October that said the state routinely broke the Indian Child Welfare Act and disrupted the lives of hundreds of Native American families each year. Federal law requires that Native American children removed from homes be placed with relatives or put in foster care with other Native American families except in unusual circumstances.
The three-part NPR report said 90 percent of the Native American children removed from their homes in South Dakota each year are sent to foster care in non-Indian homes or group homes. It reported that Native American children are placed in South Dakota's foster care system at a disproportionate rate because only 15 percent of the state's child population is Native American, but half of the children in foster care are Native American.
State officials have criticized the NPR report as inaccurate, unfair and biased.
Kim Malsam-Rysdon, secretary of the state Department of Social Services, said the Interior Department has not notified state officials about the planned summit, but that the state has nothing to hide.
"We are very confident that South Dakota is in compliance with federal law in this area, and we really do welcome the opportunity for the federal government and others to understand just how that federal law is being implemented in our state," Malsam-Rysdon said.
The summit suggestion surfaced in a letter to members of Congress who had called for an investigation. The meeting is meant to give state, federal and tribal officials a way to work together so that all involved agencies comply with the law and make sure American Indian children and their families are protected, wrote Larry Echo Hawk, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for Indian Affairs.
The Interior Department also is considering sending lawyers to South Dakota to help tribes enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act, Echo Hawk wrote.
Malsam-Rysdon, whose agency oversees South Dakota's child welfare system, said people need to understand that the system involves her department, tribes, courts, law-enforcement officers and others. Federal officials should not take any action based on the NPR report, but instead should get the facts about what is happening in South Dakota, she said.
"We're glad the Department of Interior is taking it seriously, that they're evidently interested into looking into and ensuring the federal law is being implemented," she said.
Malsam-Rysdon said it's true that a disproportionate number of Native American children are involved in the child welfare system. The state receives more referrals for alleged abuse and neglect involving Native American children, and that leads to more investigations and removals from homes for those children, she said.
"What really permeates our involvement with the child welfare system is safety of the child," Malsam-Rysdon said. "We're involved in homes where there are proven or foreseeable safety concerns regarding a child."
In a written response to the NPR series, the state has said it uses all available Native American foster placement homes.
The series said the state's motive for removing Native American children from their homes might be financial because the state gets federal financial assistance for each child removed from his or her home. The report said the state gets almost $100 million a year to subsidize foster care programs, but state officials said the budget for the entire Division of Child Protection Services last year was only $59 million, and spending specifically on foster care and foster-care support was just $8 million.
The series also said there was a conflict of interest in Gov. Dennis Daugaard's work for Children's Home Society of South Dakota when he was lieutenant governor. That organization received millions of dollars for housing Native American children under contracts the state awarded without competitive bids.
The governor's office responded that Children's Home Society has had contracts with the state since 1978, long before Daugaard became its chief operating officer in 2002.
State officials also have said the Department of Social Services cannot remove children from homes and place them in protective custody. Only law officers and judges have the legal authority to do so, the state officials said.
Source http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/mobile/article_e1ed29d6-1b91-59ab-bfe6-26801493047a.html
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Thousands of Kids Taken From Parents In U.S. Deportation System
by Seth Freed Wessler
Clara’s eldest kid was 6 years old and her youngest just a year old when it happened. Josefina’s baby was 9 months. All three children were ripped from their mothers and sent to live in foster homes with strangers. Clara and Josefina, sisters in their early 30s who lived together in a small northern New Mexico town, had done nothing to harm their children or to elicit the attention of the child welfare department. Yet one morning last year, their family was shattered when federal immigration authorities detained both sisters. Clara and Josefina were deported four months later. For a year, they had no contact with their children.
The sun was rising on a late summer morning in Farmington. Clara (all parents’ names in this story have been changed) was asleep inside the trailer that she shared with the children and Josefina, who was finishing a night shift at the local restaurant where both sisters worked. Clara says she was jolted awake by the sound of banging and yelling. A group of uniformed officers, some marked with ICE, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and others DEA, for Drug Enforcement Administration, burst through the door.
The agents put Clara in handcuffs, while two of the officers began walking and carrying the children out of the trailer. Clara pleaded with them, asking what they would do with her children. “We’re taking them where we take all the kids,” Clara remembers one of the agents saying. She begged them to let her call a friend who could come pick up the children. The agents refused.
When Josefina arrived home from work several hours later, ICE officers were waiting. The sisters were locked up in the San Juan County jail, where they stayed for several weeks until ICE transported them to an immigration detention center in Albuquerque, three hours to the south. Their children remained in foster care.
This family is one among thousands who’ve been through the same ordeal. In a yearlong investigation, the Applied Research Center, which publishes Colorlines.com, found that at least 5,100 children whose parents are detained or deported are currently in foster care around the United States. That number represents a conservative estimate of the total, based on extensive surveys of child welfare case workers and attorneys and analysis of national immigration and child welfare trends. Many of the kids may never see their parents again.
These children, many of whom should never have been separated from their parents in the first place, face often insurmountable obstacles to reunifying with their mothers and fathers. Though child welfare departments are required by federal law to reunify children with any parents who are able to provide for the basic safety of their children, detention makes this all but impossible. Then, once parents are deported, families are often separated for long periods. Ultimately, child welfare departments and juvenile courts too often move to terminate the parental rights of deportees and put children up for adoption, rather than attempt to unify the family as they would in other circumstances.
While anecdotal reports have circulated about children lingering in foster care because of a parent’s detention or deportation, our investigation provides the first evidence that the problem occurs on a large scale. If these cases continue mounting at the same pace over the next five years, 15,000 children of detained and deported mothers and fathers will likely be separated from their parents and languish in U.S. foster homes.
Citizen Kids Caught in the Deportation Dragnet
Josefina and Clara’s children are among the hidden victims of an expanding immigration detention and deportation system that now expels nearly 400,000 people each year.
According to Clara and Josefina, the ICE and DEA agents came to their home looking for drugs, but found none. Clara believes a neighbor called in the false report to ICE. A criminal background check confirms that charges against the sisters were dropped and that neither had ever been convicted of any crime. ICE nonetheless detained them because of their undocumented immigration status, moving them from the county jail to the immigration detention center where they were held for three months. They were deported to Mexico in December 2010.
According to over 100 child welfare caseworkers and attorneys we interviewed around the country, as rates of deportations increase, so do the numbers of children from immigrant families in foster care. Indeed, federal data released to the Applied Research Center through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that almost one in four people deported in the last year was the mother or father of a United States citizen. (Next week, Colorlines.com will publish a follow-up story further detailing and explaining this startling data.)
Roberta is one such parent. Almost a year ago, she was arrested on a drunken driving charge that would likely have triggered only a short interruption in her child custody, if she were a citizen. Instead, it threatens to result in the termination of the 35-year-old’s parental rights, because she is an undocumented immigrant and was deported after being charged. Her five young children are now in two different foster homes in Phoenix. Separated from them by the U.S.-Mexico border, Roberta cannot make the journey back to fight for her kids.
ICE detained Roberta after the Phoenix police stopped her one evening as she drove three of her children home from a family party, where Roberta acknowledges she had one beer too many. Police administered a breathalyzer and charged her with driving under the influence and with child endangerment.
“I know I’ve made a mistake, but I’ve never before had a problem and I’ve paid,” Roberta told me in late January 2011, while still at the Eloy Detention Center, a 1,600-bed facility run by the for-profit Corrections Corporation of America. A criminal background check confirms that this was Roberta’s first conviction in her 15 years living in the United States.
Phoenix is one of almost 70 jurisdictions around the country where local police have signed agreements with the federal government to act as immigration agents. The “287(g)” agreement, as the program is called, turns a simple traffic stop into a path to deportation by deputizing local cops as immigration enforcement agents.
Our research found that children in areas where local cops aggressively engage in immigration enforcement are more likely to be separated from their parents and face barriers to reunification. In the counties we surveyed where local police have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, children in foster care were 29 percent more likely to have a detained or deported parent than in other counties. That disparity remained statistically significant when controlling for the size of the foreign-born population.
In Roberta’s case, as the police officer arrested her, he called the county Child Protective Services, which came quickly to the side of the road and took the children away. The agency placed them in what were supposed to be temporary foster homes, until Roberta could get out of jail.
But she was not released—not until she was deported, without her children.
A Morally Corrupted System
Local immigration enforcement is metastasizing through initiatives like the 287(g) agreements and, most significantly, through a controversial program called Secure Communities, which allows ICE access to data on every person booked into a county jail. As the federal government shifts its deportation tactics away from high-profile workplace raids and toward enforcement that’s silently tied to the day-to-day functions of local police departments, a growing number of long-time residents with families and deep ties to the U.S. are deported. The program is turning jurisdictions around the country into deportation hotspots. We have identified at least 22 states where children in foster care face barriers to reunifying with their detained or deported mothers and fathers.
Whatever the state of the debate, or rancor, over who should and should not be allowed to live in the U.S., the moral and bureaucratic fallout of deporting 400,000 people a year are accumulating to toxic levels. Child welfare caseworkers say that in the face of an opaque detention system, they are helpless to reunify families. And although federal law requires child welfare departments to make diligent efforts toward family reunification, when parents are detained that’s basically impossible.
In Los Angeles, where according to our research, the mother or father of approximately one in every 16 children in foster care has been detained or deported, a caseworker for the country described the frustration. “Ultimately, as social workers our role is to reunify families. I’m not saying that ICE is right or wrong; what I’m saying is, let us do our job, let us reunify families.”
An immigration enforcement system that operates anything like the one we have will run roughshod over most everything.
Some of the most unsettling cases that our research has uncovered involve children who entered foster care when local police arrested non-citizen mothers after they or neighbors called 911 to report domestic violence.
Hilaria, of Phoenix, was arrested because she tried to defend herself against her abusive husband. One day in October 2010, he began berating her and threatening her. In minutes, the words escalated into hitting and choking. Hilaria fought back, freeing herself from the man and running to the kitchen, where she says she picked up a screwdriver and threw it at him, drawing blood.
A neighbor heard screaming and called the police. When the cops arrived, Hilaria’s husband told them that she attacked him and, as is too often the case in domestic violence reports, the officers arrested Hilaria for assault. Because their children were home at the time, the police called Child Protective Services. But when the officers and Hilaria’s abuser told the CPS worker that Hilaria had been the assailant, the caseworker left the children with him. Two weeks later, the child welfare department returned to check on the children. The caseworker now suspected that Hilaria’s husband was using drugs and removed the children from him, placing them in foster care.
Two months later, Hilaria sat on a plastic chair in a small detention center visitation room, speaking through tears. “I’ve had domestic violence before, but I took it for my kids,” she said. “Now they’ve robbed me. I did what I did to defend myself and my kids.”
Hilaria is now applying for a reprieve from deportation, which is available to some victims of domestic violence. But because of the charge of assault against her, it’s not clear the government will grant her a visa—she violates a zero-tolerance policy against “criminal” immigrants. The Obama administration recently announced that it would review the deportation cases of all 300,000 people slated for removal. The policy change, which is designed to stop the deportations of people brought to the U.S. as children and other target populations, does not appear to have helped even those like Hilaria. One year after her arrest, Hilaria is still detained. Her children are still in foster care.
The Abyss of Detention
Four months after Roberta lost her children, she also sat in detention center visitation room, sifting through crinkled papers in a bulging folder to find a photo of two of her children. “It has been four months since I’ve talked to my kids,” she said, looking at the photo of her then 7-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter. The children stood shoulder to shoulder, smiling at the camera in front of a graffiti-scrawled wall near the family’s Phoenix apartment. The boy wore camouflage pants and the girl a pink shirt.
“I would rather die than lose my kids,” Roberta said, tears running down her round face.
“They treat us like animals here,” she complained of the barbed-wire ridged jail in Arizona’s basin cotton fields. According to Roberta, women inmates were given unwashed underwear and detainees were fed stale bread and dirty vegetables for their two meals a day. “But the worst,” said Roberta, echoing the sentiments of other detained parents, “is that I can’t see my kids.”
Three weeks after ICE detained Roberta, the juvenile court held a hearing about her family. Roberta, however, did not know about it. Neither her court appointed attorney nor the child welfare caseworkers or attorneys contacted her.
All of the parents with children in Child Protective Services custody whom we interviewed inside six detention centers said that they missed at least one of their juvenile court hearings. From detention, they could not access the courts and their attorneys could not find them.
ICE is not by law required to detain many of those it plans to deport, but it keeps non-citizens locked up to prevent them from absconding. A parent whose singular concern is getting her kids back is scarcely a flight risk. ICE nonetheless takes confinement to an extreme. Even when parents know about their juvenile court hearings, ICE categorically refuses to transport them to juvenile court hearings where vital decisions about their families are made. In hundreds of interviews with attorneys and caseworkers, not one had ever seen a detained parent appear in person at a hearing. Some detainees are not even able to arrange to phone into the hearings.
Unsurprisingly for a system in which about 85 percent of detainees lack legal representation and can be held for months, sometimes years, in squalid conditions, ICE functions without any obligation to the legal needs of the people it detains. And juvenile court judges are powerless to compel ICE to do anything.
“Parents [should] have an absolute right to be present in a court hearing,” a juvenile court judge in Pima County, Ariz., told us, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We order that if they are in custody they appear, but these orders are not honored by the detention facilities. We don’t have the authority over the federal centers.”
A month after she was initially detained, Roberta was finally able to contact her court appointed attorney by phone. But the attorney spoke no Spanish and they could not communicate. Roberta still arranged to call in to the next court hearing, but she says that because of a bad phone connection over the detention center phone, she understood nothing uttered in the courtroom.
Without any specific policy for addressing the needs of detained parents, child welfare agencies often treat them as if they’ve abandoned their children. And so, after several months in detention and no contact with her children, Roberta says she got a letter in the mail. “All [the court] sent me was a Spanish sheet with threats,” she said. “If you don’t appear, you’ll lose kids. That’s all it said.”
There was also little chance she could have complied with the child welfare department’s overall plan for family reunification. Detention centers provide parents no access to the services and programs needed to take part in their case plans for reunification, which for her would have consisted of treatment for alcohol abuse, parenting classes and visitation with her children.
Because detainees are often moved to detention centers far away from their homes—an average of 370 miles—they can rarely see their children. Though the Obama administration has said that it plans to overhaul immigration detention practices, including making efforts to detain non-citizens closer to their homes, as of August 2011, this promise did not appear to have taken effect in any significant way.
Parental Rights End at the Border
Josefina and Clara were deported to Mexico after three months in immigration detention. They made their way to Michoacán, 1,000 miles south of the border, to their mother’s home, where they began trying to regain custody of their children.
During a July 2011 phone interview from Michoacán, Josefina spoke quietly about the baby she never got to bid goodbye. “I don’t know where my child is, I have no contact with my baby,” she said. “I didn’t do anything wrong to have my children taken away from me. I didn’t steal, I didn’t do drugs, nothing. Why did they take my children?”
Once parents are deported, the threats to their families grow. While parents are detained, child welfare departments are largely prostrate to reunify families. Once mothers and fathers are deported, however, the agencies often switch gears, actively slowing down the reunification process and sometimes halting those efforts altogether.
Soon after they were deported, the sisters contacted the Mexican consulate in New Mexico to ask for help in regaining their parental rights. The consulate began corresponding with the child welfare department on the sisters’ behalf. For months after their deportation, a staff person at the consulate repeatedly told Clara and Josefina that the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department planned to reunify the family as soon as the sisters could prove that they had stable housing and jobs. Yet, even after they found work and were set up in their mother’s home, the children remained in foster care. Reunification dates cited by the department came and went, but still, no children.
According to the sisters, the New Mexico child welfare department would not let the mothers speak by phone with the youngest two of the three children and Clara spoke only once to her 6 year old. According to Josefina and Clara, they heard word that their children were placed in three different foster homes and the babies were being raised entirely in English. They feared their children would not remember them even if they were reunified and they began to believe they might never see their children again.
“I miss everything about my kids,” said Clara through sobs over the phone. “How I spent Saturday and Sundays with them, how I made my home with them, all of it. Then my children were just gone.”
Many deported parents make the tormented decision to make the bloody desert journey over the U.S.-Mexico border without papers so that they can be present at juvenile court hearings. Caseworkers around the country said that in many cases, when a parent of a foster child is deported, they are back weeks later to appear in a juvenile courtroom to try and reclaim their children.
The risks of crossing are enormous. In addition to growing violence in Mexico against migrants crossing into the U.S., immigrants caught in the country after a previous deportation now face prison time. Until recently, immigrants who were deported before were simply deported again. Now, “illegal reentry” is treated as a federal criminal offense that carries sentences of years. The charge now accounts for nearly half of all federal criminal prosecutions.
Clara and Josefina did not risk crossing back over the border; the fear of violence on the border or of extended incarceration was too great. So for a year, they waited, in fear their parental rights would be terminated.
In late September 2011, their hope dwindling, the Mexican consulate in New Mexico phoned the sisters at their mother’s house in Michoacán. “They told us to go to the airport the next day,” said Clara.
In the morning they drove three hours to the airport. Two employees of the Mexican government escorted the three children off the plane. In the middle of a waiting room at the airport, after 14 months apart, Josefina and Clara took the children into their arms.
The next day, now back at their mother’s home with the sounds of pouring rain in the background, Clara said over the phone, “It hurts me so much to talk about this. I don’t want to remember anymore.” Now the family will try to piece themselves back together.
For many, however, separation is not memory. It is a present horror. In July, after seven months of detention, Roberta was deported to Mexico. She was given no notice before she was loaded onto an ICE bus and dropped at the border. ICE did not give her time to call her children’s caseworker or her court-appointed attorney before her removal and she arrived in Mexico with nothing but $10, given to her by another deportee.
Deportation too often leads to the seamless termination of parental rights. In jurisdictions around the country, child welfare departments and children’s attorneys have successfully argued that it is in a child’s best interest to remain in the U.S. rather than join their parents in another country. Though child welfare departments are required by law to try to reunify children with their parents, and research shows that children fare better with their families than in foster care, the principal is often quashed when a border stands in the way.
Many caseworkers and attorneys noted to us a pervasive bias against placing children in another country. “When you break down the cases, placement with parents in Mexico happens very rarely,” an attorney who represents children and parents in El Paso, Texas, told us. “The knee-jerk reaction of almost everyone is that the children are better off in U.S.”
As a parents’ attorney in Takoma, Wash., said in describing several cases like Roberta’s, “They’re deported and they’re treated like they fall off the face of the earth.”
Some jurisdictions, especially those near the U.S.-Mexico border, are working to interrupt this rapid move to sever families. In San Diego County, Calif., and El Paso County, Texas, for example, the child welfare departments have established international liaisons who work with the Mexican consulate and Mexican child welfare department to place children with their families in Mexico. Without the consulate, Clara and Josefina would still be without their children.
Yet most countries lack any formal policy for deported parents and ultimately, when parents are detained and deported, families are shattered.
In the detention center, before she was deported, Roberta looked up from the photo of her children and stated a policy that many would think is common sense. “If you send the mom to Mexico,” she said, “let her take her kids with her.” It has now been one year since she lost custody of her children. Her family’s status remains in limbo.
Esther Portillo-Gonzales joined Seth Freed-Wessler in the year-long investigation that produced this story. Their research is ongoing.
Source http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/11/thousands_of_kids_lost_in_foster_homes_after_parents_deportation.html
Clara’s eldest kid was 6 years old and her youngest just a year old when it happened. Josefina’s baby was 9 months. All three children were ripped from their mothers and sent to live in foster homes with strangers. Clara and Josefina, sisters in their early 30s who lived together in a small northern New Mexico town, had done nothing to harm their children or to elicit the attention of the child welfare department. Yet one morning last year, their family was shattered when federal immigration authorities detained both sisters. Clara and Josefina were deported four months later. For a year, they had no contact with their children.
The sun was rising on a late summer morning in Farmington. Clara (all parents’ names in this story have been changed) was asleep inside the trailer that she shared with the children and Josefina, who was finishing a night shift at the local restaurant where both sisters worked. Clara says she was jolted awake by the sound of banging and yelling. A group of uniformed officers, some marked with ICE, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and others DEA, for Drug Enforcement Administration, burst through the door.
The agents put Clara in handcuffs, while two of the officers began walking and carrying the children out of the trailer. Clara pleaded with them, asking what they would do with her children. “We’re taking them where we take all the kids,” Clara remembers one of the agents saying. She begged them to let her call a friend who could come pick up the children. The agents refused.
When Josefina arrived home from work several hours later, ICE officers were waiting. The sisters were locked up in the San Juan County jail, where they stayed for several weeks until ICE transported them to an immigration detention center in Albuquerque, three hours to the south. Their children remained in foster care.
This family is one among thousands who’ve been through the same ordeal. In a yearlong investigation, the Applied Research Center, which publishes Colorlines.com, found that at least 5,100 children whose parents are detained or deported are currently in foster care around the United States. That number represents a conservative estimate of the total, based on extensive surveys of child welfare case workers and attorneys and analysis of national immigration and child welfare trends. Many of the kids may never see their parents again.
These children, many of whom should never have been separated from their parents in the first place, face often insurmountable obstacles to reunifying with their mothers and fathers. Though child welfare departments are required by federal law to reunify children with any parents who are able to provide for the basic safety of their children, detention makes this all but impossible. Then, once parents are deported, families are often separated for long periods. Ultimately, child welfare departments and juvenile courts too often move to terminate the parental rights of deportees and put children up for adoption, rather than attempt to unify the family as they would in other circumstances.
While anecdotal reports have circulated about children lingering in foster care because of a parent’s detention or deportation, our investigation provides the first evidence that the problem occurs on a large scale. If these cases continue mounting at the same pace over the next five years, 15,000 children of detained and deported mothers and fathers will likely be separated from their parents and languish in U.S. foster homes.
Citizen Kids Caught in the Deportation Dragnet
Josefina and Clara’s children are among the hidden victims of an expanding immigration detention and deportation system that now expels nearly 400,000 people each year.
According to Clara and Josefina, the ICE and DEA agents came to their home looking for drugs, but found none. Clara believes a neighbor called in the false report to ICE. A criminal background check confirms that charges against the sisters were dropped and that neither had ever been convicted of any crime. ICE nonetheless detained them because of their undocumented immigration status, moving them from the county jail to the immigration detention center where they were held for three months. They were deported to Mexico in December 2010.
According to over 100 child welfare caseworkers and attorneys we interviewed around the country, as rates of deportations increase, so do the numbers of children from immigrant families in foster care. Indeed, federal data released to the Applied Research Center through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that almost one in four people deported in the last year was the mother or father of a United States citizen. (Next week, Colorlines.com will publish a follow-up story further detailing and explaining this startling data.)
Roberta is one such parent. Almost a year ago, she was arrested on a drunken driving charge that would likely have triggered only a short interruption in her child custody, if she were a citizen. Instead, it threatens to result in the termination of the 35-year-old’s parental rights, because she is an undocumented immigrant and was deported after being charged. Her five young children are now in two different foster homes in Phoenix. Separated from them by the U.S.-Mexico border, Roberta cannot make the journey back to fight for her kids.
ICE detained Roberta after the Phoenix police stopped her one evening as she drove three of her children home from a family party, where Roberta acknowledges she had one beer too many. Police administered a breathalyzer and charged her with driving under the influence and with child endangerment.
“I know I’ve made a mistake, but I’ve never before had a problem and I’ve paid,” Roberta told me in late January 2011, while still at the Eloy Detention Center, a 1,600-bed facility run by the for-profit Corrections Corporation of America. A criminal background check confirms that this was Roberta’s first conviction in her 15 years living in the United States.
Phoenix is one of almost 70 jurisdictions around the country where local police have signed agreements with the federal government to act as immigration agents. The “287(g)” agreement, as the program is called, turns a simple traffic stop into a path to deportation by deputizing local cops as immigration enforcement agents.
Our research found that children in areas where local cops aggressively engage in immigration enforcement are more likely to be separated from their parents and face barriers to reunification. In the counties we surveyed where local police have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, children in foster care were 29 percent more likely to have a detained or deported parent than in other counties. That disparity remained statistically significant when controlling for the size of the foreign-born population.
In Roberta’s case, as the police officer arrested her, he called the county Child Protective Services, which came quickly to the side of the road and took the children away. The agency placed them in what were supposed to be temporary foster homes, until Roberta could get out of jail.
But she was not released—not until she was deported, without her children.
A Morally Corrupted System
Local immigration enforcement is metastasizing through initiatives like the 287(g) agreements and, most significantly, through a controversial program called Secure Communities, which allows ICE access to data on every person booked into a county jail. As the federal government shifts its deportation tactics away from high-profile workplace raids and toward enforcement that’s silently tied to the day-to-day functions of local police departments, a growing number of long-time residents with families and deep ties to the U.S. are deported. The program is turning jurisdictions around the country into deportation hotspots. We have identified at least 22 states where children in foster care face barriers to reunifying with their detained or deported mothers and fathers.
Whatever the state of the debate, or rancor, over who should and should not be allowed to live in the U.S., the moral and bureaucratic fallout of deporting 400,000 people a year are accumulating to toxic levels. Child welfare caseworkers say that in the face of an opaque detention system, they are helpless to reunify families. And although federal law requires child welfare departments to make diligent efforts toward family reunification, when parents are detained that’s basically impossible.
In Los Angeles, where according to our research, the mother or father of approximately one in every 16 children in foster care has been detained or deported, a caseworker for the country described the frustration. “Ultimately, as social workers our role is to reunify families. I’m not saying that ICE is right or wrong; what I’m saying is, let us do our job, let us reunify families.”
An immigration enforcement system that operates anything like the one we have will run roughshod over most everything.
Some of the most unsettling cases that our research has uncovered involve children who entered foster care when local police arrested non-citizen mothers after they or neighbors called 911 to report domestic violence.
Hilaria, of Phoenix, was arrested because she tried to defend herself against her abusive husband. One day in October 2010, he began berating her and threatening her. In minutes, the words escalated into hitting and choking. Hilaria fought back, freeing herself from the man and running to the kitchen, where she says she picked up a screwdriver and threw it at him, drawing blood.
A neighbor heard screaming and called the police. When the cops arrived, Hilaria’s husband told them that she attacked him and, as is too often the case in domestic violence reports, the officers arrested Hilaria for assault. Because their children were home at the time, the police called Child Protective Services. But when the officers and Hilaria’s abuser told the CPS worker that Hilaria had been the assailant, the caseworker left the children with him. Two weeks later, the child welfare department returned to check on the children. The caseworker now suspected that Hilaria’s husband was using drugs and removed the children from him, placing them in foster care.
Two months later, Hilaria sat on a plastic chair in a small detention center visitation room, speaking through tears. “I’ve had domestic violence before, but I took it for my kids,” she said. “Now they’ve robbed me. I did what I did to defend myself and my kids.”
Hilaria is now applying for a reprieve from deportation, which is available to some victims of domestic violence. But because of the charge of assault against her, it’s not clear the government will grant her a visa—she violates a zero-tolerance policy against “criminal” immigrants. The Obama administration recently announced that it would review the deportation cases of all 300,000 people slated for removal. The policy change, which is designed to stop the deportations of people brought to the U.S. as children and other target populations, does not appear to have helped even those like Hilaria. One year after her arrest, Hilaria is still detained. Her children are still in foster care.
The Abyss of Detention
Four months after Roberta lost her children, she also sat in detention center visitation room, sifting through crinkled papers in a bulging folder to find a photo of two of her children. “It has been four months since I’ve talked to my kids,” she said, looking at the photo of her then 7-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter. The children stood shoulder to shoulder, smiling at the camera in front of a graffiti-scrawled wall near the family’s Phoenix apartment. The boy wore camouflage pants and the girl a pink shirt.
“I would rather die than lose my kids,” Roberta said, tears running down her round face.
“They treat us like animals here,” she complained of the barbed-wire ridged jail in Arizona’s basin cotton fields. According to Roberta, women inmates were given unwashed underwear and detainees were fed stale bread and dirty vegetables for their two meals a day. “But the worst,” said Roberta, echoing the sentiments of other detained parents, “is that I can’t see my kids.”
Three weeks after ICE detained Roberta, the juvenile court held a hearing about her family. Roberta, however, did not know about it. Neither her court appointed attorney nor the child welfare caseworkers or attorneys contacted her.
All of the parents with children in Child Protective Services custody whom we interviewed inside six detention centers said that they missed at least one of their juvenile court hearings. From detention, they could not access the courts and their attorneys could not find them.
ICE is not by law required to detain many of those it plans to deport, but it keeps non-citizens locked up to prevent them from absconding. A parent whose singular concern is getting her kids back is scarcely a flight risk. ICE nonetheless takes confinement to an extreme. Even when parents know about their juvenile court hearings, ICE categorically refuses to transport them to juvenile court hearings where vital decisions about their families are made. In hundreds of interviews with attorneys and caseworkers, not one had ever seen a detained parent appear in person at a hearing. Some detainees are not even able to arrange to phone into the hearings.
Unsurprisingly for a system in which about 85 percent of detainees lack legal representation and can be held for months, sometimes years, in squalid conditions, ICE functions without any obligation to the legal needs of the people it detains. And juvenile court judges are powerless to compel ICE to do anything.
“Parents [should] have an absolute right to be present in a court hearing,” a juvenile court judge in Pima County, Ariz., told us, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We order that if they are in custody they appear, but these orders are not honored by the detention facilities. We don’t have the authority over the federal centers.”
A month after she was initially detained, Roberta was finally able to contact her court appointed attorney by phone. But the attorney spoke no Spanish and they could not communicate. Roberta still arranged to call in to the next court hearing, but she says that because of a bad phone connection over the detention center phone, she understood nothing uttered in the courtroom.
Without any specific policy for addressing the needs of detained parents, child welfare agencies often treat them as if they’ve abandoned their children. And so, after several months in detention and no contact with her children, Roberta says she got a letter in the mail. “All [the court] sent me was a Spanish sheet with threats,” she said. “If you don’t appear, you’ll lose kids. That’s all it said.”
There was also little chance she could have complied with the child welfare department’s overall plan for family reunification. Detention centers provide parents no access to the services and programs needed to take part in their case plans for reunification, which for her would have consisted of treatment for alcohol abuse, parenting classes and visitation with her children.
Because detainees are often moved to detention centers far away from their homes—an average of 370 miles—they can rarely see their children. Though the Obama administration has said that it plans to overhaul immigration detention practices, including making efforts to detain non-citizens closer to their homes, as of August 2011, this promise did not appear to have taken effect in any significant way.
Parental Rights End at the Border
Josefina and Clara were deported to Mexico after three months in immigration detention. They made their way to Michoacán, 1,000 miles south of the border, to their mother’s home, where they began trying to regain custody of their children.
During a July 2011 phone interview from Michoacán, Josefina spoke quietly about the baby she never got to bid goodbye. “I don’t know where my child is, I have no contact with my baby,” she said. “I didn’t do anything wrong to have my children taken away from me. I didn’t steal, I didn’t do drugs, nothing. Why did they take my children?”
Once parents are deported, the threats to their families grow. While parents are detained, child welfare departments are largely prostrate to reunify families. Once mothers and fathers are deported, however, the agencies often switch gears, actively slowing down the reunification process and sometimes halting those efforts altogether.
Soon after they were deported, the sisters contacted the Mexican consulate in New Mexico to ask for help in regaining their parental rights. The consulate began corresponding with the child welfare department on the sisters’ behalf. For months after their deportation, a staff person at the consulate repeatedly told Clara and Josefina that the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department planned to reunify the family as soon as the sisters could prove that they had stable housing and jobs. Yet, even after they found work and were set up in their mother’s home, the children remained in foster care. Reunification dates cited by the department came and went, but still, no children.
According to the sisters, the New Mexico child welfare department would not let the mothers speak by phone with the youngest two of the three children and Clara spoke only once to her 6 year old. According to Josefina and Clara, they heard word that their children were placed in three different foster homes and the babies were being raised entirely in English. They feared their children would not remember them even if they were reunified and they began to believe they might never see their children again.
“I miss everything about my kids,” said Clara through sobs over the phone. “How I spent Saturday and Sundays with them, how I made my home with them, all of it. Then my children were just gone.”
Many deported parents make the tormented decision to make the bloody desert journey over the U.S.-Mexico border without papers so that they can be present at juvenile court hearings. Caseworkers around the country said that in many cases, when a parent of a foster child is deported, they are back weeks later to appear in a juvenile courtroom to try and reclaim their children.
The risks of crossing are enormous. In addition to growing violence in Mexico against migrants crossing into the U.S., immigrants caught in the country after a previous deportation now face prison time. Until recently, immigrants who were deported before were simply deported again. Now, “illegal reentry” is treated as a federal criminal offense that carries sentences of years. The charge now accounts for nearly half of all federal criminal prosecutions.
Clara and Josefina did not risk crossing back over the border; the fear of violence on the border or of extended incarceration was too great. So for a year, they waited, in fear their parental rights would be terminated.
In late September 2011, their hope dwindling, the Mexican consulate in New Mexico phoned the sisters at their mother’s house in Michoacán. “They told us to go to the airport the next day,” said Clara.
In the morning they drove three hours to the airport. Two employees of the Mexican government escorted the three children off the plane. In the middle of a waiting room at the airport, after 14 months apart, Josefina and Clara took the children into their arms.
The next day, now back at their mother’s home with the sounds of pouring rain in the background, Clara said over the phone, “It hurts me so much to talk about this. I don’t want to remember anymore.” Now the family will try to piece themselves back together.
For many, however, separation is not memory. It is a present horror. In July, after seven months of detention, Roberta was deported to Mexico. She was given no notice before she was loaded onto an ICE bus and dropped at the border. ICE did not give her time to call her children’s caseworker or her court-appointed attorney before her removal and she arrived in Mexico with nothing but $10, given to her by another deportee.
Deportation too often leads to the seamless termination of parental rights. In jurisdictions around the country, child welfare departments and children’s attorneys have successfully argued that it is in a child’s best interest to remain in the U.S. rather than join their parents in another country. Though child welfare departments are required by law to try to reunify children with their parents, and research shows that children fare better with their families than in foster care, the principal is often quashed when a border stands in the way.
Many caseworkers and attorneys noted to us a pervasive bias against placing children in another country. “When you break down the cases, placement with parents in Mexico happens very rarely,” an attorney who represents children and parents in El Paso, Texas, told us. “The knee-jerk reaction of almost everyone is that the children are better off in U.S.”
As a parents’ attorney in Takoma, Wash., said in describing several cases like Roberta’s, “They’re deported and they’re treated like they fall off the face of the earth.”
Some jurisdictions, especially those near the U.S.-Mexico border, are working to interrupt this rapid move to sever families. In San Diego County, Calif., and El Paso County, Texas, for example, the child welfare departments have established international liaisons who work with the Mexican consulate and Mexican child welfare department to place children with their families in Mexico. Without the consulate, Clara and Josefina would still be without their children.
Yet most countries lack any formal policy for deported parents and ultimately, when parents are detained and deported, families are shattered.
In the detention center, before she was deported, Roberta looked up from the photo of her children and stated a policy that many would think is common sense. “If you send the mom to Mexico,” she said, “let her take her kids with her.” It has now been one year since she lost custody of her children. Her family’s status remains in limbo.
Esther Portillo-Gonzales joined Seth Freed-Wessler in the year-long investigation that produced this story. Their research is ongoing.
Source http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/11/thousands_of_kids_lost_in_foster_homes_after_parents_deportation.html
Friday, October 28, 2011
California auditor: 1,000 state-licensed facilities match sex offenders' addresses
By Michael Martinez, CNN
Los Angeles (CNN) -- The California state auditor has found that more than 1,000 state-licensed facilities -- including more than 600 for kids -- matched addresses in the sex-offender registry, saying oversight mechanisms lag behind state requirements.
The state Department of Social Services "cites the lack of resources as the primary reason why it has not implemented an automated sex offender address match and why its oversight mechanisms are falling short of requirements," said the state auditor's report, released Thursday.
Specifically, the report said that 677 foster and group homes and other state-licensed facilities for children matched sex offenders' addresses, as well as 385 state-licensed facilities for vulnerable adults.
The auditor found that almost 600 of the 1,000 address matches were "high risk and in need of immediate investigation," the report said. It was not clear from the report how many foster and group homes are in California, in total.
This month, the state social services agency and county child welfare agencies investigated 99% of the matches and began legal actions against eight licensees of facilities, including four license revocations, said the report, titled "Child Welfare Services -- California Can and Must Provide Better Protection and Support for Abused and Neglected Children."
In six of those actions, registered sex offenders were living or present in the child facilities, and counties found 36 sex offenders having "some association" with foster homes -- prompting authorities to remove children from the facilities and ordering the offenders out of the homes, the report said.
State costs for housing foster children have also grown dramatically, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle found.
"The percentage of children placed with private foster family agencies — agencies that recruit and certify foster homes and are compensated at a higher rate than state- or county-licensed foster homes — has dramatically increased over the last 10 years and resulted in an additional $327 million in foster care payments during that time," the report said. "The counties we visited admit to placing children with these agencies out of convenience rather than for elevated treatment needs as originally intended."
The state social services agency "generally agreed" with the auditor's findings and outlined an action plan in response to several recommendations, the auditor said.
In an October 7 response to the report, director Will Lightbourne of the California Department of Social Services wrote he agreed that "address comparison provides an additional protection for vulnerable clients in care, and agrees that prevention should be part of the protection."
"We are concerned, however, that performing matches against every known sex offender address may not be the most effective means of prevention and ensuring protection. The process involved in this audit required CDSS and counties to investigate every known address of sex offenders, including addresses that were years and in some cases, decades, out of date," Lightbourne said.
"The California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) includes effective dates of address and identifies active and inactive addresses, and future processes to compare addresses therefore should focus on information technology solutions to minimize the need for staff to manually search through and verify information," the director continued. "The CDSS is exploring solutions that leverage technology and key partners to create an efficient and effective process to provide this additional protection."
The state auditor also recommended that the social service agency "complete comprehensive reviews of agencies' licensing activities more timely as well as on-site reviews of state-licensed foster homes, foster family agencies, and group homes. Moreover, Social Services should ensure that rates paid to private foster family agencies are appropriate and should monitor placements with these agencies," the auditor said.
In 2010, child welfare agencies in California's 58 counties received 480,000 allegations of child abuse or neglect. Each county maintains its own child welfare service program, and the state Department of Social Services provides oversight, the report said.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/us/california-sex-offenders/
Los Angeles (CNN) -- The California state auditor has found that more than 1,000 state-licensed facilities -- including more than 600 for kids -- matched addresses in the sex-offender registry, saying oversight mechanisms lag behind state requirements.
The state Department of Social Services "cites the lack of resources as the primary reason why it has not implemented an automated sex offender address match and why its oversight mechanisms are falling short of requirements," said the state auditor's report, released Thursday.
Specifically, the report said that 677 foster and group homes and other state-licensed facilities for children matched sex offenders' addresses, as well as 385 state-licensed facilities for vulnerable adults.
The auditor found that almost 600 of the 1,000 address matches were "high risk and in need of immediate investigation," the report said. It was not clear from the report how many foster and group homes are in California, in total.
This month, the state social services agency and county child welfare agencies investigated 99% of the matches and began legal actions against eight licensees of facilities, including four license revocations, said the report, titled "Child Welfare Services -- California Can and Must Provide Better Protection and Support for Abused and Neglected Children."
In six of those actions, registered sex offenders were living or present in the child facilities, and counties found 36 sex offenders having "some association" with foster homes -- prompting authorities to remove children from the facilities and ordering the offenders out of the homes, the report said.
State costs for housing foster children have also grown dramatically, California State Auditor Elaine M. Howle found.
"The percentage of children placed with private foster family agencies — agencies that recruit and certify foster homes and are compensated at a higher rate than state- or county-licensed foster homes — has dramatically increased over the last 10 years and resulted in an additional $327 million in foster care payments during that time," the report said. "The counties we visited admit to placing children with these agencies out of convenience rather than for elevated treatment needs as originally intended."
The state social services agency "generally agreed" with the auditor's findings and outlined an action plan in response to several recommendations, the auditor said.
In an October 7 response to the report, director Will Lightbourne of the California Department of Social Services wrote he agreed that "address comparison provides an additional protection for vulnerable clients in care, and agrees that prevention should be part of the protection."
"We are concerned, however, that performing matches against every known sex offender address may not be the most effective means of prevention and ensuring protection. The process involved in this audit required CDSS and counties to investigate every known address of sex offenders, including addresses that were years and in some cases, decades, out of date," Lightbourne said.
"The California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) includes effective dates of address and identifies active and inactive addresses, and future processes to compare addresses therefore should focus on information technology solutions to minimize the need for staff to manually search through and verify information," the director continued. "The CDSS is exploring solutions that leverage technology and key partners to create an efficient and effective process to provide this additional protection."
The state auditor also recommended that the social service agency "complete comprehensive reviews of agencies' licensing activities more timely as well as on-site reviews of state-licensed foster homes, foster family agencies, and group homes. Moreover, Social Services should ensure that rates paid to private foster family agencies are appropriate and should monitor placements with these agencies," the auditor said.
In 2010, child welfare agencies in California's 58 counties received 480,000 allegations of child abuse or neglect. Each county maintains its own child welfare service program, and the state Department of Social Services provides oversight, the report said.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/us/california-sex-offenders/
Monday, October 24, 2011
Grandma: Boy in four foster homes in 14 months
By Rita Price
The Columbus Dispatch Monday October 24, 2011 6:01 AM
The weekly phone conversations are eagerly awaited but rarely make her feel better.
“I hear a defeated little boy,” Mary Ann O’Garro said.
Her grandson often says he wishes he were there, in Washington state, instead of at another new place, O’Garro said. The 8-year-old’s calls have come from many phone numbers.
Franklin County Children Services brought the troubled boy back to Franklin County last year after denying Lenford and Mary Ann O’Garro’s request for in-patient treatment near their home in the Seattle area, where they could visit and work with the child’s doctors.
Their grandson had been placed with them in 2008, a little less than a year after police discovered him beaten, burned and tortured while living with his mother — Mr. O’Garro’s daughter — in a suspected house of prostitution on Columbus’ North Side.
Months of love and therapy hadn’t managed to curb his bizarre and dangerous behavior, the O'Garros and Washington therapists said, so they wanted to try hospitalization.
Children Services disagreed. The agency’s former chief said he thought the boy could be better served, and stabilized, in a foster home here with people trained to support his therapy. But after 14 months back in Franklin County, the boy has lived in four foster homes in three school districts, his grandparents say.
Add in those who provide periodic respite for the foster parents, and the child probably has been in at least 10 homes, Mrs. O’Garro said. “In our minds, there’s no way this could not have damaged him further. He was already traumatized, then he was ripped from our house, and now he’s just bouncing around.”
Because the boy might have been sexually abused, The Dispatch is not naming him.
Chip Spinning, who recently took over as Children Services executive director after Eric Fenner’s retirement, said in an email that no one wants the boy to experience more trauma. But officials still think he should be cared for in a specially trained foster home instead of at an institution. He said the child is making progress and will receive “all recommended services to enable continued progress.”
The moves are unfortunate but happen for a variety of reasons in the child-welfare system, Spinning said. He said he couldn’t share the specifics.
Mrs. O’Garro said it’s hard to be hopeful. She said she has heard various reasons for the boy’s change of placement, including foster parents’ moving, an allegation of abuse against a foster provider, and the child’s intensive needs.
“I have not, to date, ever seen a single document that says he’s been stabilized,” she said. "His level of care has continued to increase. He’s been up to six psychotropic drugs.”
Children Services has acknowledged numerous mistakes in the case, starting with a failure to inform the O’Garros of the extent of the child’s abuse — and his likely need for psychological help — after he was placed with them.
The grandparents say they needed an attorney to get the agency to pay for the child’s initial treatment in Washington. The O’Garros have health insurance, but it isn’t sufficient to cover the expensive mental-health services.
After a review in late 2009, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services cited the agency for its handling of the case and ordered a plan for preventing future violations. Two employees were disciplined as a result of the agency’s internal investigation.
Mrs. O’Garro said she doesn’t know whether Children Services wants the child to return to his mother, to them or to be adopted.
Agency attorneys, a therapist and the child’s court-appointed guardian agreed last week that the boy’s mother, who has been released from prison, could have at least one supervised visit.
“He hasn’t seen her in nearly four years, since she was put in the police car and he was taken in an ambulance,” Mrs. O’Garro said. “That’s his last memory of her.”
The grandparents still struggle with their decision to surrender custody, a move that ultimately allowed Children Services to bring their grandson to Columbus last year. Their attorney, Susan Eisenman, has said the O’Garros made that difficult choice because they couldn’t pay for the treatment he needed and because they hoped the agency would approve a nearby Washington facility.
Instead, they had to put him on a plane.
Mrs. O’Garro cries when she thinks about all the boy has been through. Had he gone to a treatment center, “We think he’d be home with us,” she said. “All we can do now is just hope something positive happens.”
Source http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/24/grandma-boy-in-four-fosterhomes-in14months.html
The Columbus Dispatch Monday October 24, 2011 6:01 AM
The weekly phone conversations are eagerly awaited but rarely make her feel better.
“I hear a defeated little boy,” Mary Ann O’Garro said.
Her grandson often says he wishes he were there, in Washington state, instead of at another new place, O’Garro said. The 8-year-old’s calls have come from many phone numbers.
Franklin County Children Services brought the troubled boy back to Franklin County last year after denying Lenford and Mary Ann O’Garro’s request for in-patient treatment near their home in the Seattle area, where they could visit and work with the child’s doctors.
Their grandson had been placed with them in 2008, a little less than a year after police discovered him beaten, burned and tortured while living with his mother — Mr. O’Garro’s daughter — in a suspected house of prostitution on Columbus’ North Side.
Months of love and therapy hadn’t managed to curb his bizarre and dangerous behavior, the O'Garros and Washington therapists said, so they wanted to try hospitalization.
Children Services disagreed. The agency’s former chief said he thought the boy could be better served, and stabilized, in a foster home here with people trained to support his therapy. But after 14 months back in Franklin County, the boy has lived in four foster homes in three school districts, his grandparents say.
Add in those who provide periodic respite for the foster parents, and the child probably has been in at least 10 homes, Mrs. O’Garro said. “In our minds, there’s no way this could not have damaged him further. He was already traumatized, then he was ripped from our house, and now he’s just bouncing around.”
Because the boy might have been sexually abused, The Dispatch is not naming him.
Chip Spinning, who recently took over as Children Services executive director after Eric Fenner’s retirement, said in an email that no one wants the boy to experience more trauma. But officials still think he should be cared for in a specially trained foster home instead of at an institution. He said the child is making progress and will receive “all recommended services to enable continued progress.”
The moves are unfortunate but happen for a variety of reasons in the child-welfare system, Spinning said. He said he couldn’t share the specifics.
Mrs. O’Garro said it’s hard to be hopeful. She said she has heard various reasons for the boy’s change of placement, including foster parents’ moving, an allegation of abuse against a foster provider, and the child’s intensive needs.
“I have not, to date, ever seen a single document that says he’s been stabilized,” she said. "His level of care has continued to increase. He’s been up to six psychotropic drugs.”
Children Services has acknowledged numerous mistakes in the case, starting with a failure to inform the O’Garros of the extent of the child’s abuse — and his likely need for psychological help — after he was placed with them.
The grandparents say they needed an attorney to get the agency to pay for the child’s initial treatment in Washington. The O’Garros have health insurance, but it isn’t sufficient to cover the expensive mental-health services.
After a review in late 2009, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services cited the agency for its handling of the case and ordered a plan for preventing future violations. Two employees were disciplined as a result of the agency’s internal investigation.
Mrs. O’Garro said she doesn’t know whether Children Services wants the child to return to his mother, to them or to be adopted.
Agency attorneys, a therapist and the child’s court-appointed guardian agreed last week that the boy’s mother, who has been released from prison, could have at least one supervised visit.
“He hasn’t seen her in nearly four years, since she was put in the police car and he was taken in an ambulance,” Mrs. O’Garro said. “That’s his last memory of her.”
The grandparents still struggle with their decision to surrender custody, a move that ultimately allowed Children Services to bring their grandson to Columbus last year. Their attorney, Susan Eisenman, has said the O’Garros made that difficult choice because they couldn’t pay for the treatment he needed and because they hoped the agency would approve a nearby Washington facility.
Instead, they had to put him on a plane.
Mrs. O’Garro cries when she thinks about all the boy has been through. Had he gone to a treatment center, “We think he’d be home with us,” she said. “All we can do now is just hope something positive happens.”
Source http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/24/grandma-boy-in-four-fosterhomes-in14months.html
Friday, October 21, 2011
Panel won’t delve deeper into Arizona CPS woes
by Mary K. Reinhart on Oct. 21, 2011
An Arizona legislative committee, apparently satisfied that the state’s child-welfare agency has adequately responded to problems raised by three state audits since 2009, declined to delve deeper Thursday into broader troubles within the system.
Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, co-chair of the committee, said after the hearing that she wanted to see what comes from a child-safety task force before deciding whether to hold additional hearings on Child Protective Services. Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to name members of the task force in the next few days. Brewer wants recommendations from the task force by Dec. 31.
But during public testimony, several people said critical problems within the CPS need urgent attention.
“I think the system is struggling greatly – all aspects of the system,” said Dana Wolfe Naimark, CEO of Children’s Action Alliance. “What we’ve heard today really doesn’t tell you the story of CPS.”
One of the audits, from September 2009, said the agency inconsistently reviewed relatives willing to take temporary custody of children and failed to properly document efforts to place children with relatives. The agency has since implemented specific guidelines for workers to assess the fitness of relatives and is still working on getting staff to better document efforts to find relatives.
About one-third of Arizona’s foster children live with relatives.
Clarence Carter, director of the Department of Economic Security, which oversees CPS, said in response to a question that grandparents and other relatives who take in foster children have access to all the services that unrelated foster families and shelter operators do.
“The fact that a child is placed with a relative doesn’t change the needs of that child,” Carter told Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix.
But Suzanne Schunk, director of family services for Southwest Human Development, told the committee that grandparents and other relatives don’t get the same support as foster parents. They aren’t paid to care for the kids, and they often can’t find services that the children need or can’t afford to pay for them, she said.
Landrum Taylor agreed.
“A lot of times they’re unable to do it, so it just doesn’t happen,” she said.
And Brenda Gloria of Phoenix, who cares for two grandchildren, said CPS caseworkers gave their parents too many chances. She said it was heartbreaking to have the children sent back home year after year, only to be removed and returned to her.
CPS supervisors also are reviewing a backlog of nearly 10,000 inactive abuse and neglect cases and trying out a streamlined investigation process that could shave weeks off the average case, which now takes five to six months to complete.
Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/10/21/panel-wont-delve-deeper-into-cps-woes/
An Arizona legislative committee, apparently satisfied that the state’s child-welfare agency has adequately responded to problems raised by three state audits since 2009, declined to delve deeper Thursday into broader troubles within the system.
Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, co-chair of the committee, said after the hearing that she wanted to see what comes from a child-safety task force before deciding whether to hold additional hearings on Child Protective Services. Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to name members of the task force in the next few days. Brewer wants recommendations from the task force by Dec. 31.
But during public testimony, several people said critical problems within the CPS need urgent attention.
“I think the system is struggling greatly – all aspects of the system,” said Dana Wolfe Naimark, CEO of Children’s Action Alliance. “What we’ve heard today really doesn’t tell you the story of CPS.”
One of the audits, from September 2009, said the agency inconsistently reviewed relatives willing to take temporary custody of children and failed to properly document efforts to place children with relatives. The agency has since implemented specific guidelines for workers to assess the fitness of relatives and is still working on getting staff to better document efforts to find relatives.
About one-third of Arizona’s foster children live with relatives.
Clarence Carter, director of the Department of Economic Security, which oversees CPS, said in response to a question that grandparents and other relatives who take in foster children have access to all the services that unrelated foster families and shelter operators do.
“The fact that a child is placed with a relative doesn’t change the needs of that child,” Carter told Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix.
But Suzanne Schunk, director of family services for Southwest Human Development, told the committee that grandparents and other relatives don’t get the same support as foster parents. They aren’t paid to care for the kids, and they often can’t find services that the children need or can’t afford to pay for them, she said.
Landrum Taylor agreed.
“A lot of times they’re unable to do it, so it just doesn’t happen,” she said.
And Brenda Gloria of Phoenix, who cares for two grandchildren, said CPS caseworkers gave their parents too many chances. She said it was heartbreaking to have the children sent back home year after year, only to be removed and returned to her.
CPS supervisors also are reviewing a backlog of nearly 10,000 inactive abuse and neglect cases and trying out a streamlined investigation process that could shave weeks off the average case, which now takes five to six months to complete.
Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/10/21/panel-wont-delve-deeper-into-cps-woes/
Friday, October 14, 2011
NY parents charged with kidnapping 8 children from foster care; bail set at $75,000 each
Associated Press
NEW YORK — A husband and wife were charged Thursday with kidnapping their eight children from foster care last month and fleeing New York, in part because they believed the children were being abused by their caregivers, prosecutors and their attorney said.
Mother Shanel Nadal and father Nephra Payne were arrested in Harrisburg, Pa., last month, waived extradition and were arraigned in criminal court in Queens, where the charges also included custodial interference and child endangerment. They were being held on $75,000 bail each.
Nadal, 28, slipped out of a supervised visited at a Queens foster care agency with her sevens sons and infant daughter, and then left town with her 34-year-old husband, prosecutors said. The family was found a week later safe in their van in Pennsylvania. The children were unharmed.
“This mother and father sadly risked the relationships they were building with their children during supervised visits when they allegedly kidnaped them,” said Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown. “This is a serious matter.”
Their attorney, Norman Steiner, said the couple vanished because they could no longer wait for the slow-moving Family Court system to give back the children. Steiner said one boy was molested in foster care and his siblings “suffered horrendous abuse” during two years in foster care.
“They are loving, caring parents, who made a choice — the lesser of two evils — to take their children and make them safe,” Steiner said.
The children — seven boys named Nephra, who have different middle names, and an infant daughter, Nefertiti — range in age from 11 months to 12 years, according to the police complaint in Harrisburg. They were returned to New York City and are again under the care of the Administration for Children’s Services. It’s not clear if they were placed in the same homes.
The couple lost custody of their seven sons in 2009, after allegations of abuse. Steiner said one of the boys had bruising on his eyes and was taken to the doctor by his father. The boy later went to school, and authorities had the father arrested on abuse charges, Steiner said. Steiner said there had possibly been a fight at home with other siblings. The criminal abuse allegations against the father were later dropped, he said. A Family Court hearing was scheduled for Oct. 19 in Manhattan.
The parents were working toward regaining custody, Steiner said: They went to parenting classes, attended supervised visits and kept their home immaculate. They regularly attended Family Court hearings and cooperated with authorities.
But Shanel Nadal had an eighth child, Nefertiti, born last year, and did not mention it to authorities. They also lost custody of her, and the birth led to even more problems with Family Court, Steiner said.
“To me that’s atrocious that the city steps in and tells you how many children to have,” Steiner said.
Child welfare officials do not comment on specific cases. But in order to remove a child from a home, there must be a determination of serious safety or risk concerns for a child to remain there.
The agency said it was aware of the parents’ abuse allegations and takes such allegations very seriously. The agency also is investigating how the children were abducted during a supervised visit, a spokesman said.
Nadal disappeared from the 3-acre campus of Forestdale, a nonprofit, privately run foster care center, on Sept. 19. She went there for a scheduled group visit with the children, who were living with three different foster caregivers. Despite the presence of both Forestdale staff and at least some of the foster parents, she slipped away unnoticed with the children during a trip to a vending machine, police said.
Police thought they may have gone to North Carolina, but they ended up in Pennsylvania where they had relatives. The children showed no signs of physical abuse when discovered, and it looked like the family had planned to spend the night in the vehicle.
NEW YORK — A husband and wife were charged Thursday with kidnapping their eight children from foster care last month and fleeing New York, in part because they believed the children were being abused by their caregivers, prosecutors and their attorney said.
Mother Shanel Nadal and father Nephra Payne were arrested in Harrisburg, Pa., last month, waived extradition and were arraigned in criminal court in Queens, where the charges also included custodial interference and child endangerment. They were being held on $75,000 bail each.
Nadal, 28, slipped out of a supervised visited at a Queens foster care agency with her sevens sons and infant daughter, and then left town with her 34-year-old husband, prosecutors said. The family was found a week later safe in their van in Pennsylvania. The children were unharmed.
“This mother and father sadly risked the relationships they were building with their children during supervised visits when they allegedly kidnaped them,” said Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown. “This is a serious matter.”
Their attorney, Norman Steiner, said the couple vanished because they could no longer wait for the slow-moving Family Court system to give back the children. Steiner said one boy was molested in foster care and his siblings “suffered horrendous abuse” during two years in foster care.
“They are loving, caring parents, who made a choice — the lesser of two evils — to take their children and make them safe,” Steiner said.
The children — seven boys named Nephra, who have different middle names, and an infant daughter, Nefertiti — range in age from 11 months to 12 years, according to the police complaint in Harrisburg. They were returned to New York City and are again under the care of the Administration for Children’s Services. It’s not clear if they were placed in the same homes.
The couple lost custody of their seven sons in 2009, after allegations of abuse. Steiner said one of the boys had bruising on his eyes and was taken to the doctor by his father. The boy later went to school, and authorities had the father arrested on abuse charges, Steiner said. Steiner said there had possibly been a fight at home with other siblings. The criminal abuse allegations against the father were later dropped, he said. A Family Court hearing was scheduled for Oct. 19 in Manhattan.
The parents were working toward regaining custody, Steiner said: They went to parenting classes, attended supervised visits and kept their home immaculate. They regularly attended Family Court hearings and cooperated with authorities.
But Shanel Nadal had an eighth child, Nefertiti, born last year, and did not mention it to authorities. They also lost custody of her, and the birth led to even more problems with Family Court, Steiner said.
“To me that’s atrocious that the city steps in and tells you how many children to have,” Steiner said.
Child welfare officials do not comment on specific cases. But in order to remove a child from a home, there must be a determination of serious safety or risk concerns for a child to remain there.
The agency said it was aware of the parents’ abuse allegations and takes such allegations very seriously. The agency also is investigating how the children were abducted during a supervised visit, a spokesman said.
Nadal disappeared from the 3-acre campus of Forestdale, a nonprofit, privately run foster care center, on Sept. 19. She went there for a scheduled group visit with the children, who were living with three different foster caregivers. Despite the presence of both Forestdale staff and at least some of the foster parents, she slipped away unnoticed with the children during a trip to a vending machine, police said.
Police thought they may have gone to North Carolina, but they ended up in Pennsylvania where they had relatives. The children showed no signs of physical abuse when discovered, and it looked like the family had planned to spend the night in the vehicle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)