By Terrie Morgan-Besecker
WILKES-BARRE – Luzerne County has lost out on potentially thousands of dollars in state reimbursements because an attorney who represented children in abuse cases did not obtain training required by the state.
Frank Castano, executive director of Children and Youth Services, said he cannot seek reimbursement for work attorney John Bellino performed as a guardian ad litem after July 1, 2011 because Bellino did not obtain specialized training mandated by state legislation that went into effect last year.
The revelation comes as the court system faces mounting criticism for failing to monitor payments made to Angela Stevens, a Kingston attorney who admitted she double billed the county for representing parents in Children and Youth cases.
A Times Leader investigation revealed Stevens, who was paid more than $144,000 in 2011, charged the county for each fee petition she delivered to the court, even though many appeared to have been delivered in one trip.
President Judge Thomas Burke on Friday would not comment on why Bellino, who was paid a flat salary of $50,230, was permitted to remain employed if the county could not be reimbursed. Burke said he could not discuss the matter because it is a personnel issue.
Guardian ad litems are attorneys appointed by the court to represent children who are in the custody of Children and Youth Services to ensure their best interests are protected, independent of their parents’ interest.
The state Department of Public Welfare reimburses Luzerne County Children and Youth 50 percent for guardian services. As of July 1, the department no longer provided that funding for a guardian who did not obtain the training, which was mandated under an amendment to the state’s Adoption Act that went into effect last April.
Bellino, who had served as guardian for 11 years, was among the 59 county employees who were laid off Thursday.
It’s not known how much of Bellino’s salary from 2011 and 2012 might have been reimbursed by the state because the court system did not submit any invoices to Children and Youth detailing the number of hours he worked on cases, Castano said.
In the 2010-11 fiscal year, Castano said he sought 50 percent reimbursement for $48,208 in invoices submitted by court administration for work Bellino performed. The court had to submit invoices, even though Bellino was paid a flat salary, because DPW required documentation of the number of hours and cases on which he worked, Castano said.
Bellino said Friday he did not obtain the training because he did not know he was required to take it.
“I thought I was exempt from it because I’ve been doing this so long. I thought it was for new guardians,” Bellino said.
Bellino said was told by Castano of one training session held last year, but he did not learn about it until the last minute and could not attend due to a conflict. He said he assumed he could take it this year.
“When (Castano) told me that was a requirement for reimbursement, I believed at that point I could get it this coming year,” he said.
Children and Youth also has a contract with North Penn Legal Services to provide two attorneys as guardian ad litems. Castano said he was able to seek reimbursement for their work because both of those attorneys had received the training.
To date DPW has reimbursed the county $17,833 for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011-2012, according to deputy press secretary Ann Bale. The county spent a total of $66,252 with North Penn in the second quarter, which will be eligible for 50 percent reimbursement. That request has not yet been processed, Bale said.
Source http://www.timesleader.com/news/Child_abuse_attorney_not_trained_03-03-2012.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label guardian ad litem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guardian ad litem. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sunlight May Not Be Enough To Disinfect A Corrupt Missouri Judiciary
Posted by CultureVigilante on December 20, 2011
Better Courts for Missouri released a statement, today, outlining a judge’s dereliction of duty as reported by the St Louis Post Dispatch. In the Post’s investigation, they found that Judge, Barbara T. Peebles took a two-week vacation to China, without reassigning her docket, and left her clerks in charge to make judicial decisions. Apparently, this was not the first time something like this has happened in Judge Peebles’ court, and the St. Louis Public Defender was quoted as saying that it was common knowledge the Peebles’ clerks acted on her behalf in the past. At least 350 cases were handled by court clerks in her most recent two-week absence.
What is even more disturbing is that no one, lawyers, clerks, officers of the court system felt the need to report this behavior to the proper authorities of the Missouri Bar Association. It is obvious there is a brotherhood among the judicial network that covers for its own.
Supreme Court rules state: A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
It looks as if the passing of the buck now begins in the St. Louis Circuit Courts. While its presiding judge blamed Peebles and her lack of management over her own court, what of his own decision to sweep any disciplinary action, in this case, under the rug? While cases such as this should be reported to the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline for investigation, it appears that Ohmer will just reassigned Peebles to another court. Apparently because discipline of this type, not having been administered to another judge in over 30 years, was deemed as too harsh a punishment to do so in this case.
St. Louis Circuit Court Presiding Judge Steven Ohmer called the conduct of both Peebles and her clerks “wrong.” He blamed an “overall lack of management and supervision.” …
… Ohmer said he considered — but decided against — removing Peebles from that division after the full scale of the problem was revealed. It would be the kind of action he said has not happened in 30 years. Next month, she will move to a civil trial division as planned.
Better Courts for Missouri, ”a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected.” as described on their web page, was formed to bring “Openness, Accountability, Independence and Excellence in our Judiciary,” and has worked to inform citizens of the dishonor and corruption in the Missouri Plan, which is the method now used in Missouri to select judges.
At the end of BCfM’s Get Involved page, they state:
The judiciary is too important to leave in the control of unaccountable special interests who stand to gain from picking judges in secret. Please join us as we fight to protect the rule of law.
The work of BCfM has been to promote openness and accountability in the selection process, which is absent from the current plan. However, there seems to be no mention, on their website, of the provision in the Missouri Constitution, that provides the power and authority of the State Legislature to impeach judges who are derelict in their responsibilities. While sunlight would certainly provide the public with ability to identify the corruption that has been allowed to mutate in the judiciary over the decades, there still seems to be no catalyst to provide discipline to those who have abused their power and authority.
Article 7: Section 1. All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.
Article 7: Section 2. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried before the supreme court, except that the governor or a member of the supreme court shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate. The supreme court or special commission shall take an oath to try impartially the person impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of five-sevenths of the court or special commission.
It would appear that the brotherhood among the judicial network has extended to the legislature since there has been no judge impeached, in Missouri, since the civil war according to the Missouri Court’s website:
Before the commission was created in 1972, an impeachment trial was the only means by which a judge could be removed from office. Since the Civil War era, however, the House has impeached only two Missouri judges – both St. Louis County circuit judges and both in the 1960s. In both cases, the judges resigned from office before the Supreme Court held their trials. While the impeachment mechanism is still available, the commission serves as a more efficient method of ensuring judges adhere to the code of conduct and remain subject to disciplinary review even for ethical lapses that may not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Would this be the same commission that is charged with oversight of the St. Louis Circuit Courts? It would also appear that the commission, and any other form of authority, from the circuit court to the legislature, has worked very hard to cover for their own since we all know there is much corruption in the judicial branch of government, and there has been very little, if nothing at all, done to stop its escalation of corruption.
Source http://guardianadlitemreform.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/sunlight-may-not-be-enough-to-disinfect-a-corrupt-missouri-judiciary/
Better Courts for Missouri released a statement, today, outlining a judge’s dereliction of duty as reported by the St Louis Post Dispatch. In the Post’s investigation, they found that Judge, Barbara T. Peebles took a two-week vacation to China, without reassigning her docket, and left her clerks in charge to make judicial decisions. Apparently, this was not the first time something like this has happened in Judge Peebles’ court, and the St. Louis Public Defender was quoted as saying that it was common knowledge the Peebles’ clerks acted on her behalf in the past. At least 350 cases were handled by court clerks in her most recent two-week absence.
What is even more disturbing is that no one, lawyers, clerks, officers of the court system felt the need to report this behavior to the proper authorities of the Missouri Bar Association. It is obvious there is a brotherhood among the judicial network that covers for its own.
Supreme Court rules state: A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
It looks as if the passing of the buck now begins in the St. Louis Circuit Courts. While its presiding judge blamed Peebles and her lack of management over her own court, what of his own decision to sweep any disciplinary action, in this case, under the rug? While cases such as this should be reported to the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline for investigation, it appears that Ohmer will just reassigned Peebles to another court. Apparently because discipline of this type, not having been administered to another judge in over 30 years, was deemed as too harsh a punishment to do so in this case.
St. Louis Circuit Court Presiding Judge Steven Ohmer called the conduct of both Peebles and her clerks “wrong.” He blamed an “overall lack of management and supervision.” …
… Ohmer said he considered — but decided against — removing Peebles from that division after the full scale of the problem was revealed. It would be the kind of action he said has not happened in 30 years. Next month, she will move to a civil trial division as planned.
Better Courts for Missouri, ”a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected.” as described on their web page, was formed to bring “Openness, Accountability, Independence and Excellence in our Judiciary,” and has worked to inform citizens of the dishonor and corruption in the Missouri Plan, which is the method now used in Missouri to select judges.
At the end of BCfM’s Get Involved page, they state:
The judiciary is too important to leave in the control of unaccountable special interests who stand to gain from picking judges in secret. Please join us as we fight to protect the rule of law.
The work of BCfM has been to promote openness and accountability in the selection process, which is absent from the current plan. However, there seems to be no mention, on their website, of the provision in the Missouri Constitution, that provides the power and authority of the State Legislature to impeach judges who are derelict in their responsibilities. While sunlight would certainly provide the public with ability to identify the corruption that has been allowed to mutate in the judiciary over the decades, there still seems to be no catalyst to provide discipline to those who have abused their power and authority.
Article 7: Section 1. All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.
Article 7: Section 2. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried before the supreme court, except that the governor or a member of the supreme court shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate. The supreme court or special commission shall take an oath to try impartially the person impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of five-sevenths of the court or special commission.
It would appear that the brotherhood among the judicial network has extended to the legislature since there has been no judge impeached, in Missouri, since the civil war according to the Missouri Court’s website:
Before the commission was created in 1972, an impeachment trial was the only means by which a judge could be removed from office. Since the Civil War era, however, the House has impeached only two Missouri judges – both St. Louis County circuit judges and both in the 1960s. In both cases, the judges resigned from office before the Supreme Court held their trials. While the impeachment mechanism is still available, the commission serves as a more efficient method of ensuring judges adhere to the code of conduct and remain subject to disciplinary review even for ethical lapses that may not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Would this be the same commission that is charged with oversight of the St. Louis Circuit Courts? It would also appear that the commission, and any other form of authority, from the circuit court to the legislature, has worked very hard to cover for their own since we all know there is much corruption in the judicial branch of government, and there has been very little, if nothing at all, done to stop its escalation of corruption.
Source http://guardianadlitemreform.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/sunlight-may-not-be-enough-to-disinfect-a-corrupt-missouri-judiciary/
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Number of American Indian children in foster care worries tribal leaders - Minnesota
by Sasha Aslanian
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.
In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.
Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.
That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.
"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.
Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.
High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.
The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.
Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."
Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.
Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.
"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"
Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.
White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.
Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.
"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."
Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.
The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.
Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.
Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.
"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."
A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.
A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.
Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.
"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.
Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.
Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.
"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.
For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.
Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.
"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.
White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.
Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/
Panel: Lack of trained investigators at Office of Guardian ad Litem a concern - Utah
By brooke adams
A legislative panel on Tuesday declined to approve the Office of Guardian ad Litem’s request for more money to hire an additional attorney and increase wages, saying it was more concerned the office has no trained investigators to assist staff in reviewing child welfare cases.
Director Rick Smith told the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Panel that the office’s 41 attorneys, appointed by judges to represent the best interests of children in court proceedings, are currently averaging about 200 clients — twice as many as recommended by national standards. The lone attorney assigned to Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett counties currently has nearly 400 clients, Smith said.
"The concern at this point is we have an attorney out there who may be committing malpractice simply because he has too many clients to represent in an appropriate way," Smith told the lawmakers.
He asked the panel to approve $202,000 in ongoing funds to add an attorney and a support staff member. He also asked the panel to consider addressing inadequate staff wages in next year’s budget. Smith said staff turnover was 21 percent last year, but has been as high as 25 percent in recent years as staff seek higher salaries elsewhere — including the Utah Attorney General’s Office.
"Our attorneys are paid 34 percent less than other attorneys in state government," Smith said. "That’s a problem."
The panel was particularly disturbed, however, that the office has no investigators, as required by statute, to do independent casework.
"We’ve never had funding to hire those investigators," Smith said. "Our attorneys do a lot of it; our support staff do a lot."
As a result, the office uses a lot of investigative work done by the Division of Child and Family Services, he said.
That, combined with heavy case loads, means the office’s attorneys work "a minimum of 40 hours a week," Smith said. But because the state is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, "we can work them a lot of hours and they don’t get paid overtime for it, so that is a very common practice."
A motion to approve the office’s budget request was withdrawn after one lawmaker requested more information and two others expressed concerns with the office’s operations.
"I have some real concerns about what the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to do and not supposed to do. So when you’re asking for more money, I’m not too sympathetic," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price.
Watkins said her view stemmed from conversations with constituents and first-hand observations of cases in which she felt a Guardian ad Litem stepped "out of what I would consider normal boundaries." She described one attorney who told a child’s parent she had a personality disorder. There was no such diagnosis in the mother’s case, she added.
Watkins said that highlighted the need for trained investigators because "you’re relying on people who shouldn’t be investigating."
Rep. Merlynn T. Newbold, R-South Jordan and the panel’s co-chairwoman, said the Guardian ad Litem’s role is to "advocate for the child and not for the state, and if you’re relying on information from [DCFS] and haven’t done anything on your own, that gives me concern."
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53014054-78/office-smith-panel-attorney.html.csp
A legislative panel on Tuesday declined to approve the Office of Guardian ad Litem’s request for more money to hire an additional attorney and increase wages, saying it was more concerned the office has no trained investigators to assist staff in reviewing child welfare cases.
Director Rick Smith told the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Panel that the office’s 41 attorneys, appointed by judges to represent the best interests of children in court proceedings, are currently averaging about 200 clients — twice as many as recommended by national standards. The lone attorney assigned to Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett counties currently has nearly 400 clients, Smith said.
"The concern at this point is we have an attorney out there who may be committing malpractice simply because he has too many clients to represent in an appropriate way," Smith told the lawmakers.
He asked the panel to approve $202,000 in ongoing funds to add an attorney and a support staff member. He also asked the panel to consider addressing inadequate staff wages in next year’s budget. Smith said staff turnover was 21 percent last year, but has been as high as 25 percent in recent years as staff seek higher salaries elsewhere — including the Utah Attorney General’s Office.
"Our attorneys are paid 34 percent less than other attorneys in state government," Smith said. "That’s a problem."
The panel was particularly disturbed, however, that the office has no investigators, as required by statute, to do independent casework.
"We’ve never had funding to hire those investigators," Smith said. "Our attorneys do a lot of it; our support staff do a lot."
As a result, the office uses a lot of investigative work done by the Division of Child and Family Services, he said.
That, combined with heavy case loads, means the office’s attorneys work "a minimum of 40 hours a week," Smith said. But because the state is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, "we can work them a lot of hours and they don’t get paid overtime for it, so that is a very common practice."
A motion to approve the office’s budget request was withdrawn after one lawmaker requested more information and two others expressed concerns with the office’s operations.
"I have some real concerns about what the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to do and not supposed to do. So when you’re asking for more money, I’m not too sympathetic," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price.
Watkins said her view stemmed from conversations with constituents and first-hand observations of cases in which she felt a Guardian ad Litem stepped "out of what I would consider normal boundaries." She described one attorney who told a child’s parent she had a personality disorder. There was no such diagnosis in the mother’s case, she added.
Watkins said that highlighted the need for trained investigators because "you’re relying on people who shouldn’t be investigating."
Rep. Merlynn T. Newbold, R-South Jordan and the panel’s co-chairwoman, said the Guardian ad Litem’s role is to "advocate for the child and not for the state, and if you’re relying on information from [DCFS] and haven’t done anything on your own, that gives me concern."
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53014054-78/office-smith-panel-attorney.html.csp
Friday, November 18, 2011
FBI Investigates Lackawanna Family Court - Pa.
Blogger Note:
While this story talks about situations that appear to do with divorce custody cases but we posted it because we would think that the same would hold true in other forms of child welfare cases.
Dave Bohman
Action 16 Investigative Reporter
We know more about why Federal Officials are investigating a program in the Lackawanna County Family Court system.
In September, and again this week, FBI agents confiscated records from Family Court.
Newswatch 16 has learned the Guardian ad Litem is a court appointed lawyer who represents a child while its mother and father try to settle custody cases.
One or both parents are required to pay the fees for the Guardian at Litem's services. Sources tell us Federal agents are looking to see if parents were cheated, and if the fees were pocketed.
A woman who does not want to be identified because she`s testified to law enforcement agents claims she was cheated out of thousands during supervised visits with her young son.
"It broke me," she said. "Paying that amount of money. It broke me."
Her ex has custody of her son.
Lackawanna County records showed that she was supposed to pay $20 an hour for a caseworker to supervise her weekly visits.
Instead, she said she was charged $65 an hour.
"One hour, and the hour would go by so quick," the woman recounted of her visits. "Here`s my money. I see my son for the hour. Goodbye."
She also said the caseworker insisted on taking cash and refused to write receipts.
"I didn`t get any receipts no," the woman said. "I tried very hard. She said the County knows how much you`re paying."
Sources tell Newswatch 16 several non-custodial parents are complaining that they`ve been overcharged for supervised visits and not given receipts. And a recent federal subpoena of the Guardian ad Litem`s office appears to be getting some answers.
Court papers show a Federal Grand Jury directed the Lackawanna County Courts to give investigators every case supervised by Attorney Danielle Ross. She runs the Lackawanna County Guardian ad Litem program, and assigns caseworkers for supervised visits.
This woman said Ross was the guardian ad litem for her son. The woman claims she was overcharged between $1500 and $2000 in the last two-and-a-half years.
"You don`t want to give up," she tells us. "So just keep fighting, because it`s just not fair for people to get away with lies and deceitfulness. And then they work for the County? It`s unexplainable."
We tried to contact Guardian ad Litem Administrator Danielle Ross. Her secretary said Ross was busy with clients when we visited, and Ross did not return our phone calls.
There have been no criminal charges filed in the case.
Meantime, the woman you heard from is now paying just $20 and not $65 dollars an hour for visitation, after telling her story to law enforcement.
Source http://www.wnep.com/wnep-fbi-investigates-lackawanna-family-court-20111117,0,3181517.story
While this story talks about situations that appear to do with divorce custody cases but we posted it because we would think that the same would hold true in other forms of child welfare cases.
Dave Bohman
Action 16 Investigative Reporter
We know more about why Federal Officials are investigating a program in the Lackawanna County Family Court system.
In September, and again this week, FBI agents confiscated records from Family Court.
Newswatch 16 has learned the Guardian ad Litem is a court appointed lawyer who represents a child while its mother and father try to settle custody cases.
One or both parents are required to pay the fees for the Guardian at Litem's services. Sources tell us Federal agents are looking to see if parents were cheated, and if the fees were pocketed.
A woman who does not want to be identified because she`s testified to law enforcement agents claims she was cheated out of thousands during supervised visits with her young son.
"It broke me," she said. "Paying that amount of money. It broke me."
Her ex has custody of her son.
Lackawanna County records showed that she was supposed to pay $20 an hour for a caseworker to supervise her weekly visits.
Instead, she said she was charged $65 an hour.
"One hour, and the hour would go by so quick," the woman recounted of her visits. "Here`s my money. I see my son for the hour. Goodbye."
She also said the caseworker insisted on taking cash and refused to write receipts.
"I didn`t get any receipts no," the woman said. "I tried very hard. She said the County knows how much you`re paying."
Sources tell Newswatch 16 several non-custodial parents are complaining that they`ve been overcharged for supervised visits and not given receipts. And a recent federal subpoena of the Guardian ad Litem`s office appears to be getting some answers.
Court papers show a Federal Grand Jury directed the Lackawanna County Courts to give investigators every case supervised by Attorney Danielle Ross. She runs the Lackawanna County Guardian ad Litem program, and assigns caseworkers for supervised visits.
This woman said Ross was the guardian ad litem for her son. The woman claims she was overcharged between $1500 and $2000 in the last two-and-a-half years.
"You don`t want to give up," she tells us. "So just keep fighting, because it`s just not fair for people to get away with lies and deceitfulness. And then they work for the County? It`s unexplainable."
We tried to contact Guardian ad Litem Administrator Danielle Ross. Her secretary said Ross was busy with clients when we visited, and Ross did not return our phone calls.
There have been no criminal charges filed in the case.
Meantime, the woman you heard from is now paying just $20 and not $65 dollars an hour for visitation, after telling her story to law enforcement.
Source http://www.wnep.com/wnep-fbi-investigates-lackawanna-family-court-20111117,0,3181517.story
Friday, November 4, 2011
Lawmaker: Mom’s struggle to keep her children shows problems with DCFS
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Little to No Trust for Guardian Ad Litems and Attorneys For the Children
We have come to the conclusion through our own experiences, case histories of other people going through the corrupt CPS circus and other reports that anyone who is going through a CPS A&N case should be cautious in regards to any guadian ad litem or child's attorney who has been appointed by the judge in your case.
On the surface, the idea of someone representing your child in a CPS case sounds good. You may even get a false sense of security that they will do the right thing by your child. Don't be fooled, in most every instance, they are in collusion with CPS.
They are a part of the scheme to take children. We have seen time and time again where the guardian ad litem or child's attorney is not only friends with the judge and some of the CPS workers but they also belong to the same "community" organizations and sometimes, they even donate money, services or their time to foster and adoption agencies. That should never be and it is a direct conflict of interest but that is how it often works.
These guardian ad litems or child's attorney spends very little time with the child to even know what would be in the child's best interest. They don't know the child at all. They know very little about anything except what they read in the reports they get from CPS. Can you say - biased reports?
The definition of a guardian ad litem - might be call the child's attorney because they are lawyers in some cases:
A person appointed only for the purposes of prosecuting or defending an action on behalf of another such as a child or mentally-challenged person. Also called ad litem. This right is usually granted to the child’s attorney.
A few things about immunity for guradian ad litems and attorneys for children (borrowed from https://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/tag/guardian-ad-litems-can-be-sued/) :
Guardian ad litems and Appointed Counsel are not protected by immunity. In Wiederholt v Fisher, 485 N.W. 2d 442, 169 Wis. 2d 524 (1992) “In child custody matter, guardian ad litem does not represent child per se; rather, guardian ad litem’s statutory duty is to represent concept of child’s best interest.” When those guardian ad litems don’t bother to meet the minium standards – they become subject to liabilty. (Collins v Tabet, 111 N.M. 391,806 P 2nd 40 (N.M. 1990)
In other words when a Guardian ad litem just goes through the motions and does not really work the case they can and should be held liable. Most Guardians don’t work for the child, they work for Child Protection Services.
According to Bonds, 64, N.M. at 345,328 P. 2nd at 599 the appointment as guardian ad litem of a minor child is in the postion for the highest trust and no attorney should ever blindly enter in an appearance as guardian ad litem and allow a matter to proceed without a full and complete investigation into the facts and law so that his clinets will be fairly and competently represented and their rights fully and adequately protected and preserved….
Bonds proposed that a guardian ad litem holds a position of the highest trust and suggest that he or she is a fiduciary. Judge Donnelly compares the position of Guardian ad litem to that of a general guardian or conservator and is subject to liability to their wards for the harm resulting from ordinary negligence in the discharge of their duties. They are actually charged with a higher standard of care than are other people involved.
In Downs v Sawtelle, 574,F 2d 1 ( 1st Cir.1978) a federal judge in the Court of Appeals ruled that immunity was inappropriate for guardians because they are considered private parties and they are not confronted with the pressures of office, the decision making of the threat of liability facing governors or high level public officials.
According to J.W.F. v Schoolcraft, 763 P.2nd 1217 (Utah, 1987) A guardian ad litems job is to put themselves in the shoes of the child and look at the factors as the child would if he or she were old enough and their judgment was mature enough to make a decision.
On the surface, the idea of someone representing your child in a CPS case sounds good. You may even get a false sense of security that they will do the right thing by your child. Don't be fooled, in most every instance, they are in collusion with CPS.
They are a part of the scheme to take children. We have seen time and time again where the guardian ad litem or child's attorney is not only friends with the judge and some of the CPS workers but they also belong to the same "community" organizations and sometimes, they even donate money, services or their time to foster and adoption agencies. That should never be and it is a direct conflict of interest but that is how it often works.
These guardian ad litems or child's attorney spends very little time with the child to even know what would be in the child's best interest. They don't know the child at all. They know very little about anything except what they read in the reports they get from CPS. Can you say - biased reports?
The definition of a guardian ad litem - might be call the child's attorney because they are lawyers in some cases:
A person appointed only for the purposes of prosecuting or defending an action on behalf of another such as a child or mentally-challenged person. Also called ad litem. This right is usually granted to the child’s attorney.
A few things about immunity for guradian ad litems and attorneys for children (borrowed from https://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/tag/guardian-ad-litems-can-be-sued/) :
Guardian ad litems and Appointed Counsel are not protected by immunity. In Wiederholt v Fisher, 485 N.W. 2d 442, 169 Wis. 2d 524 (1992) “In child custody matter, guardian ad litem does not represent child per se; rather, guardian ad litem’s statutory duty is to represent concept of child’s best interest.” When those guardian ad litems don’t bother to meet the minium standards – they become subject to liabilty. (Collins v Tabet, 111 N.M. 391,806 P 2nd 40 (N.M. 1990)
In other words when a Guardian ad litem just goes through the motions and does not really work the case they can and should be held liable. Most Guardians don’t work for the child, they work for Child Protection Services.
According to Bonds, 64, N.M. at 345,328 P. 2nd at 599 the appointment as guardian ad litem of a minor child is in the postion for the highest trust and no attorney should ever blindly enter in an appearance as guardian ad litem and allow a matter to proceed without a full and complete investigation into the facts and law so that his clinets will be fairly and competently represented and their rights fully and adequately protected and preserved….
Bonds proposed that a guardian ad litem holds a position of the highest trust and suggest that he or she is a fiduciary. Judge Donnelly compares the position of Guardian ad litem to that of a general guardian or conservator and is subject to liability to their wards for the harm resulting from ordinary negligence in the discharge of their duties. They are actually charged with a higher standard of care than are other people involved.
In Downs v Sawtelle, 574,F 2d 1 ( 1st Cir.1978) a federal judge in the Court of Appeals ruled that immunity was inappropriate for guardians because they are considered private parties and they are not confronted with the pressures of office, the decision making of the threat of liability facing governors or high level public officials.
According to J.W.F. v Schoolcraft, 763 P.2nd 1217 (Utah, 1987) A guardian ad litems job is to put themselves in the shoes of the child and look at the factors as the child would if he or she were old enough and their judgment was mature enough to make a decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)