Goes to court insisting that boy endure dangerous course of medication
By Bob Urich
In what is being seen as a preview of a fully implemented Obamacare, government officials in Michigan are demanding that a 9-year-old child follow standard procedure and take a dangerous course of cancer medications that can cause additional cancer – even though the boy has had three scans indicating an absence of the disease.
The case is being fought on behalf of Ken and Erin Stieler and their son Jacob by attorneys with the Home School Legal Defense Association.
The organization concerns itself with home school rights, responsibilities and restrictions but also intercedes in cases that could have a significant impact on child and parental rights.
The HSLDA’s chairman, Michael P. Farris, confirmed today that the Michigan Department of Human Services has filed suit to force the parents to administer the chemicals to their son even though he’s been clean of cancer on scans over the past year. In addition, lower courts twice have ruled against the demands of state agency officials.
Now the state agency has filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals demanding Jacob be given the chemicals, including ifosfamide, etoposide and doxorubicin, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that for ifosfamide and etoposide, the “safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The warning for doxorubicin is stronger, stating, “Pediatric patients are at increased risk for developing delayed cardiotoxicity.”
Farris told WND that the facts of the case are important, because Jacob underwent treatment for cancer and has been clean on the last three scans over the last year.
Further, the treatment demanded by the state, which insisted that prosecutors bring a medical neglect case against the parents, is not guaranteed to help and not even guaranteed to be safe.
On the HSLDA website, Farris wrote, “If they succeed they will force Jacob to resume chemotherapy despite the fact that the drugs in question are not FDA approved (either for children in general or for this particular cancer). Moreover, these drugs do not promise anything close to a guaranteed cure. And, the FDA requires the drug manufacturers to disclose that these drugs cause new cancers to form, heart disease in children, failure to sexually mature, and many other serious side effects in some cases.”
Farris told WND that there is concern about the outcome of the case, as the state’s argument is that the drugs are demanded in the “national standard of care” for the condition.
That’s the same type of concern that has been raised by many organizations and individuals about Obamacare, which is to face arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court later this month.
Farris told WND that parents have the right to make such medical decisions, not the state.
David Ackerly, director of marketing for the Michigan Department of Human Services, took a message from WND requesting comment on the case but did not respond.
Farris said it would be different if there was a clear and present medical danger, the treatment was proven and the family still refused.
He said the parents have asked for an individual evaluation of their son’s case, only to be reminded about the “standard” that the state intends to follow, which is described as dangerous.
“If we are put in a position where national standards are established, whether by practice or the government, it comes out the same,” he said.
It was in December when a trial judge dismissed a medical neglect case against the family. Now, at issue is “the ability of parents to make medical decisions contrary to the views of doctors.”
“This case may well shape parental rights principles for the long haul. We believe that parents, not doctors, should make tough decisions like this,” Farris said.
The HSLDA earlier reported how Jacob was diagnosed with Ewing Sarcoma, a dangerous bone cancer, and he had surgery to remove a tumor and then chemotherapy to follow up.
“The treatment was incredibly difficult, and Jacob’s mom, Erin, told me that when she looked her son in the eyes, she knew in her heart that he simply could not survive many more rounds of these drugs,” Farris reported.
They tapped into a prayer network and were joined by hundreds to pray for their son’s recovery.
“After all of these rounds of chemotherapy were completed, there was a PET scan done to check on the status of the cancer. There was no evidence of cancer detected in Jacob’s body. Jacob’s family and friends rejoiced in his healing – praising God for this wonderful outcome,” Farris said.
But he said the doctors demanded to continue chemotherapy and radiation, citing their “standard of care.”
Jacob’s parents “begged the doctors to make an individual diagnosis, rather than simply following unbending standards. But the doctors were steadfast. All children with this cancer needed multiple rounds of these drugs – regardless of PET scan results, the doctors contended,” HSLDA reported.
The parents refused, and the doctors contacted Child Protective Services to ask that the parents be charged.
When the local CPS agency and prosecuting attorney refused, the doctors called the state to pressure the agency to file charges.
Farris said key to the case, which was decided in favor of the family before being appealed, is the treating physician.
“‘Have all of these drugs been approved by the FDA as safe and effective for children?’ I asked Jacob’s treating oncologist,” he said. “‘Yes,’ she replied, they have been FDA-approved for children.”
However, according to the official package inserts mandated by the government to describe the drugs contained and their complications, she was “flat wrong,” Farris said.
“In fact, as it turned out, the treating doctor had never even seen, much less read, these official FDA-required package inserts,” he reported.
A warning accompanying another drug demanded by the doctors, vincristine, was typical of those in the case, he said.
That warning said, “Patients who received chemotherapy with vinchristine sulfate in combination with anticancer drugs known to be carcinogenic have developed second malignancies.”
“This is not an easy case. It is not a case where a child has a current illness and the treatment is tested and proven to be safe and effective – those cases are easily resolved. The best evidence is that Jacob no longer has objective evidence of cancer. And not a single drug that the doctors want to give Jacob is FDA-approved for children for his kind of cancer,” Farris said.
He said it is a judgment call, a balancing of risks, and the issue is who makes that decision.
“The doctor told me during the deposition that she thinks that she should make the call – for every child in this situation. And she would give the same answer every time, rather than making an individual judgment,” Farris wrote. “I can’t imagine a more clear case of the need for parental rights.”
He said the project is being supported by the organization’s Homeschool Freedom Fund.
Source http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/state-demands-child-take-cancer-causing-drugs/
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 parental rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parental rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Effort at Parental Rights Amendment in Georgia Stalls
Georgia parents could no longer put their children in time-outs or impose other discipline if the U.S. Senate ratifies an international treaty on children’s rights. Or so says state Rep. Jay Neal (R-LaFayette) and other backers of a proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Neal asked state House colleagues Tuesday to call on Congress to back a constitutional amendment declaring that parents – not the government — have the right to direct their children’s upbringing and education.
But the clock ran out during a time-shortened meeting of the House Children and Youth Committee, and Neal’s resolution was tabled, quite possibly killing it for this year’s legislative session. The motion to table passed on a 9-7 vote.
Parentalrights.org, whose top officers run the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association, is backing the amendment nationally. In Georgia, the group’s leader is Jonathan Crumly, attorney for a non-profit that helps funnel tax-subsidized scholarships to students attending private Christian schools.
Crumly told committee members Tuesday that the treaty — the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child – under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, would become “the law of the land” if ratified. As such, he said, the treaty would override state laws regarding discipline, education and determinations of child neglect or abuse.
The treaty would prevent parents from imposing any discipline that is “unnecessarily embarrassing or confrontational,” he said, “and that can and has included things like simple timeouts.”
Advocates also fear the treaty could prevent parents from instilling religious views in their children, Crumly said.
Democrats on the committee pushed back, saying the amendment is not needed and is based on faulty interpretations of the treaty and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on parental rights.
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, which took effect in 1990.
Source http://jjie.org/measure-georgia/76241
Neal asked state House colleagues Tuesday to call on Congress to back a constitutional amendment declaring that parents – not the government — have the right to direct their children’s upbringing and education.
But the clock ran out during a time-shortened meeting of the House Children and Youth Committee, and Neal’s resolution was tabled, quite possibly killing it for this year’s legislative session. The motion to table passed on a 9-7 vote.
Parentalrights.org, whose top officers run the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association, is backing the amendment nationally. In Georgia, the group’s leader is Jonathan Crumly, attorney for a non-profit that helps funnel tax-subsidized scholarships to students attending private Christian schools.
Crumly told committee members Tuesday that the treaty — the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child – under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, would become “the law of the land” if ratified. As such, he said, the treaty would override state laws regarding discipline, education and determinations of child neglect or abuse.
The treaty would prevent parents from imposing any discipline that is “unnecessarily embarrassing or confrontational,” he said, “and that can and has included things like simple timeouts.”
Advocates also fear the treaty could prevent parents from instilling religious views in their children, Crumly said.
Democrats on the committee pushed back, saying the amendment is not needed and is based on faulty interpretations of the treaty and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on parental rights.
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, which took effect in 1990.
Source http://jjie.org/measure-georgia/76241
Sunday, January 1, 2012
“They were just suspicious of me from the beginning” - Iowa
by Jennifer Hemmingsen
When Victor Rodgers heard that his baby had been born, he headed to the hospital.
Even though he and the child’s mother weren’t together anymore, he planned on being an involved dad.
It was February 2009 — five weeks before her due date — but his ex’s new boyfriend had beaten her so badly that doctors had to deliver the baby. That’s how the Iowa Department of Human Services got involved.
Rodgers wanted to take his daughter home with him, but the DHS worker said he would have to go through the agency. She placed the baby with a foster family.
It took three months for DHS to confirm Rodgers’ paternity. Again, he asked to take his daughter home. Instead, the agency allowed him to visit her. Twice a week. With supervision.
Even though Rodgers had no history of child abuse or neglect, DHS would make him jump through more than two years’ worth of hoops to prove he was good enough to keep her.
He’s not alone. A recent third-party analysis of Linn County DHS, conducted by the non-profit Center for the Study of Social Policy, cited a concerning, widespread confusion between child safety and the potential risk of future harm among Cedar Rapids child welfare workers. The confusion was further compounded by “stigma, labeling and negative inferences drawn based on a family’s history.”
The analysis noted a “culture of caution” that leads to excessive intervention, coercion and monitoring of families, particularly black families. It found “the child protection system and its partners intervened with some African-American families in extensive ways with no clear reason or rationale.”
As Rodgers, now 48, tells it: “They were just suspicious of me from the beginning.”
Over the next few months, DHS records show, Rodgers worked his way up from supervised to unsupervised visits, meeting every personal and parenting goal the agency laid out for him. In October 2009, he even had his girlfriend, Molly, who had an extensive history with DHS, move out of his apartment because his caseworker told him to.
Rodgers agreed to take his daughter, Karee, to a safe place and call police, if Molly or Karee’s mother showed up at his apartment. By December 2009, he was consistently having weekend-long visits with his child. Social workers would drop in unannounced twice a day just to monitor his care. Things were going fine.
By Jan. 13, 2010, DHS gave him full-time custody of Karee on a trial basis — the last step toward reunification.
That month, when Molly showed up at Rodgers’ place, he took Karee to his cousin’s house, in accordance with the safety plan.
Yet when police arrived, Molly told them she lived there, and it was Rodgers who was forced to leave. When he returned later that night, Molly stabbed him in the shoulder. The next day, a DHS worker showed up at Rodgers’ home with police, demanding Karee.
Rodgers refused to hand over the child without a court order. Instead, police stunned him with a Taser and took Karee. DHS moved him back to fully supervised visits.
Still, caseworkers were positive about his progress, noting that Rodgers had maintained stable housing, employment and school throughout the case. He had everything needed to care for Karee and was showing good parenting skills.
“Victor has been able to do what DHS wanted done and progress to getting Karee home,” a February 2010 note reads. “Victor is very conscientious in moving forward in his life for himself and Karee.
“Victor did a lot of things right in the incident with Molly in attempts to keep Karee safe, including removing her from the situation,” the caseworker wrote. “She was kept safe.”
Perplexingly, though, just a few lines later: “Victor needs to be able to show he can protect Karee.”
Rodgers had planned on moving back to Illinois to be close to his sister once he got custody of Karee. He never got the chance.
On May 10, 2010, police again found Molly at Rodgers’ apartment. The state filed a petition to terminate Rodgers’ rights.
Rodgers continued to visit his daughter, under supervision. The worker’s notes are poignant: “Victor was very appropriate.” … “Victor was calm and relaxed during the visit, but did seem to be sad when this worker took Karee to his vehicle and drove off.” … “Karee never wanted her dad to let go of her.” … “Karee was very content sleeping in her dad’s arms for the majority of the visit.”
At Rodgers’ termination hearing that August, the social worker testified she didn’t believe Rodgers ever would harm his child. She was just worried he wouldn’t be able to keep her safe.
On Nov. 16, 2010, Rodgers’ parental rights were terminated. He appealed. He lost.
Karee would later be adopted by an unrelated family.
“Still to this day, I don’t have an allegation of child abuse or child neglect or anything,” he said. “I’m a good parent. They said I did a great job.”
That wasn’t good enough for a system that demands parents not only prove they’ve kept their children safe but judges their fitness to parent and rights to their children based on a theoretical future harm.
Source http://thegazette.com/2011/12/31/they-were-just-suspicious-of-me-from-the-beginning/
When Victor Rodgers heard that his baby had been born, he headed to the hospital.
Even though he and the child’s mother weren’t together anymore, he planned on being an involved dad.
It was February 2009 — five weeks before her due date — but his ex’s new boyfriend had beaten her so badly that doctors had to deliver the baby. That’s how the Iowa Department of Human Services got involved.
Rodgers wanted to take his daughter home with him, but the DHS worker said he would have to go through the agency. She placed the baby with a foster family.
It took three months for DHS to confirm Rodgers’ paternity. Again, he asked to take his daughter home. Instead, the agency allowed him to visit her. Twice a week. With supervision.
Even though Rodgers had no history of child abuse or neglect, DHS would make him jump through more than two years’ worth of hoops to prove he was good enough to keep her.
He’s not alone. A recent third-party analysis of Linn County DHS, conducted by the non-profit Center for the Study of Social Policy, cited a concerning, widespread confusion between child safety and the potential risk of future harm among Cedar Rapids child welfare workers. The confusion was further compounded by “stigma, labeling and negative inferences drawn based on a family’s history.”
The analysis noted a “culture of caution” that leads to excessive intervention, coercion and monitoring of families, particularly black families. It found “the child protection system and its partners intervened with some African-American families in extensive ways with no clear reason or rationale.”
As Rodgers, now 48, tells it: “They were just suspicious of me from the beginning.”
Over the next few months, DHS records show, Rodgers worked his way up from supervised to unsupervised visits, meeting every personal and parenting goal the agency laid out for him. In October 2009, he even had his girlfriend, Molly, who had an extensive history with DHS, move out of his apartment because his caseworker told him to.
Rodgers agreed to take his daughter, Karee, to a safe place and call police, if Molly or Karee’s mother showed up at his apartment. By December 2009, he was consistently having weekend-long visits with his child. Social workers would drop in unannounced twice a day just to monitor his care. Things were going fine.
By Jan. 13, 2010, DHS gave him full-time custody of Karee on a trial basis — the last step toward reunification.
That month, when Molly showed up at Rodgers’ place, he took Karee to his cousin’s house, in accordance with the safety plan.
Yet when police arrived, Molly told them she lived there, and it was Rodgers who was forced to leave. When he returned later that night, Molly stabbed him in the shoulder. The next day, a DHS worker showed up at Rodgers’ home with police, demanding Karee.
Rodgers refused to hand over the child without a court order. Instead, police stunned him with a Taser and took Karee. DHS moved him back to fully supervised visits.
Still, caseworkers were positive about his progress, noting that Rodgers had maintained stable housing, employment and school throughout the case. He had everything needed to care for Karee and was showing good parenting skills.
“Victor has been able to do what DHS wanted done and progress to getting Karee home,” a February 2010 note reads. “Victor is very conscientious in moving forward in his life for himself and Karee.
“Victor did a lot of things right in the incident with Molly in attempts to keep Karee safe, including removing her from the situation,” the caseworker wrote. “She was kept safe.”
Perplexingly, though, just a few lines later: “Victor needs to be able to show he can protect Karee.”
Rodgers had planned on moving back to Illinois to be close to his sister once he got custody of Karee. He never got the chance.
On May 10, 2010, police again found Molly at Rodgers’ apartment. The state filed a petition to terminate Rodgers’ rights.
Rodgers continued to visit his daughter, under supervision. The worker’s notes are poignant: “Victor was very appropriate.” … “Victor was calm and relaxed during the visit, but did seem to be sad when this worker took Karee to his vehicle and drove off.” … “Karee never wanted her dad to let go of her.” … “Karee was very content sleeping in her dad’s arms for the majority of the visit.”
At Rodgers’ termination hearing that August, the social worker testified she didn’t believe Rodgers ever would harm his child. She was just worried he wouldn’t be able to keep her safe.
On Nov. 16, 2010, Rodgers’ parental rights were terminated. He appealed. He lost.
Karee would later be adopted by an unrelated family.
“Still to this day, I don’t have an allegation of child abuse or child neglect or anything,” he said. “I’m a good parent. They said I did a great job.”
That wasn’t good enough for a system that demands parents not only prove they’ve kept their children safe but judges their fitness to parent and rights to their children based on a theoretical future harm.
Source http://thegazette.com/2011/12/31/they-were-just-suspicious-of-me-from-the-beginning/
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
California courts redefining who counts as a parent
By Hudson Sangree
Even as the definition of family in America expands and shifts, California courts are trying to keep pace by redefining whom the law regards as parents.
Judges have moved beyond traditional notions of biology and adoption and have assigned parental rights to adults with no genetic or legal ties to kids.
In a recent Sacramento case, an appeals court said a woman who never adopted her ex-girlfriend's children was nevertheless their parent because she acted like one – providing for them financially, cleaning up after them when they got sick, and volunteering at their school.
"We're redefining what constitutes a family," said McGeorge School of Law Professor Larry Levine, an expert on sexual orientation and the law. "It's a whole new way of thinking about this."
In the Dec. 9 ruling, the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal said the woman had a good reason for not adopting the children.
She was a colonel in the Air Force Reserve and was afraid of being expelled from the military if she violated the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in force at the time. The controversial policy, which began in 1993 and ended in September, barred openly gay men or lesbians from serving in the military.
Had the woman been open about her sexual orientation by forming a domestic partnership or adopting her girlfriend's children, it might have ended her military career.
The court referred to the woman and her former partner only by their initials: S.Y. and S.B. The Bee agreed to do the same to protect the privacy of the children.
"It was never even something we discussed about me participating in the adoption or formalizing the relationship," S.Y. said in an interview. "It was just a given because of 'don't ask, don't tell.' When it's something you can't do, you don't go there."
S.B. declined through her attorney to comment on the case.
Her lawyer, Elizabeth Niemi, said S.B. always planned to be the children's sole parent. She hadn't wanted S.Y. to jointly adopt the children, and S.Y. acknowledged that was true in trial testimony, she said.
"Neither party ever intended for S.Y. to have parental rights or obligations," Niemi said.
But the court said the adoptive mother's intentions weren't the deciding factor.
"Whether S.B intended for S.Y. to obtain legal rights with respect to the children is irrelevant where, as here, S.B. allowed and encouraged S.Y. to function as the children's second parent from birth, and S.Y. openly embraced the rights and obligations of being a parent," wrote acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease for the unanimous panel.
The three justices on the panel – including Justice George Nicholson and Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch – upheld a ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Helena Gweon.
Experts said the case continues a trend in which courts have ruled that adults who aren't biological or adoptive parents can still be assigned parental rights and responsibilities.
The purpose: to promote the well-being of children and ensure their financial support, Levine said.
"The state has a great interest in having those who want the benefits of parenthood to take on the responsibilities and obligations that go with parenthood," he said. "That's true for straight and gay couples."
The string of cases that led to this month's ruling in S.Y. v. S.B. included the California Supreme Court's 2002 decision in a case involving a boy identified as Nicholas H. In that case, the court granted custody to a woman's former live-in boyfriend, who admitted he was not the boy's biological father but had acted as his father since birth.
The biological father was nowhere to be found.
Traditionally, adults not related by blood or adoption would have been deemed "legal strangers" to children, but things have changed, said Courtney Joslin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, who specializes in family law and sexual orientation and the law.
In the recent case, "the court says you have to look at the reality of families' lives, and the most important inquiry is whether a person is actually functioning as a parent."
Deborah Wald, the lawyer who argued the case for S.Y. at the appellate level, said the decision was part of "a sea change that started with In re Nicholas H."
"What we've seen is that the courts are starting to look at parentage issues from a child's perspective, which is a very big shift. Before, children were treated more like property.
"Now the courts are starting to ask, 'Who do these children think their parents are?' It's a child-centered approach that relies on looking at behavior. Courts aren't willing to take children away from people whom they rely upon."
Niemi, the lawyer for S.B., took away a different lesson from the case.
"If you are a single parent, and there's not another parent somewhere," she said, "you have to be careful about who you allow to have a relationship with your kids."
Source http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136837/california-courts-redefining-who.html
Even as the definition of family in America expands and shifts, California courts are trying to keep pace by redefining whom the law regards as parents.
Judges have moved beyond traditional notions of biology and adoption and have assigned parental rights to adults with no genetic or legal ties to kids.
In a recent Sacramento case, an appeals court said a woman who never adopted her ex-girlfriend's children was nevertheless their parent because she acted like one – providing for them financially, cleaning up after them when they got sick, and volunteering at their school.
"We're redefining what constitutes a family," said McGeorge School of Law Professor Larry Levine, an expert on sexual orientation and the law. "It's a whole new way of thinking about this."
In the Dec. 9 ruling, the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal said the woman had a good reason for not adopting the children.
She was a colonel in the Air Force Reserve and was afraid of being expelled from the military if she violated the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in force at the time. The controversial policy, which began in 1993 and ended in September, barred openly gay men or lesbians from serving in the military.
Had the woman been open about her sexual orientation by forming a domestic partnership or adopting her girlfriend's children, it might have ended her military career.
The court referred to the woman and her former partner only by their initials: S.Y. and S.B. The Bee agreed to do the same to protect the privacy of the children.
"It was never even something we discussed about me participating in the adoption or formalizing the relationship," S.Y. said in an interview. "It was just a given because of 'don't ask, don't tell.' When it's something you can't do, you don't go there."
S.B. declined through her attorney to comment on the case.
Her lawyer, Elizabeth Niemi, said S.B. always planned to be the children's sole parent. She hadn't wanted S.Y. to jointly adopt the children, and S.Y. acknowledged that was true in trial testimony, she said.
"Neither party ever intended for S.Y. to have parental rights or obligations," Niemi said.
But the court said the adoptive mother's intentions weren't the deciding factor.
"Whether S.B intended for S.Y. to obtain legal rights with respect to the children is irrelevant where, as here, S.B. allowed and encouraged S.Y. to function as the children's second parent from birth, and S.Y. openly embraced the rights and obligations of being a parent," wrote acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease for the unanimous panel.
The three justices on the panel – including Justice George Nicholson and Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch – upheld a ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Helena Gweon.
Experts said the case continues a trend in which courts have ruled that adults who aren't biological or adoptive parents can still be assigned parental rights and responsibilities.
The purpose: to promote the well-being of children and ensure their financial support, Levine said.
"The state has a great interest in having those who want the benefits of parenthood to take on the responsibilities and obligations that go with parenthood," he said. "That's true for straight and gay couples."
The string of cases that led to this month's ruling in S.Y. v. S.B. included the California Supreme Court's 2002 decision in a case involving a boy identified as Nicholas H. In that case, the court granted custody to a woman's former live-in boyfriend, who admitted he was not the boy's biological father but had acted as his father since birth.
The biological father was nowhere to be found.
Traditionally, adults not related by blood or adoption would have been deemed "legal strangers" to children, but things have changed, said Courtney Joslin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, who specializes in family law and sexual orientation and the law.
In the recent case, "the court says you have to look at the reality of families' lives, and the most important inquiry is whether a person is actually functioning as a parent."
Deborah Wald, the lawyer who argued the case for S.Y. at the appellate level, said the decision was part of "a sea change that started with In re Nicholas H."
"What we've seen is that the courts are starting to look at parentage issues from a child's perspective, which is a very big shift. Before, children were treated more like property.
"Now the courts are starting to ask, 'Who do these children think their parents are?' It's a child-centered approach that relies on looking at behavior. Courts aren't willing to take children away from people whom they rely upon."
Niemi, the lawyer for S.B., took away a different lesson from the case.
"If you are a single parent, and there's not another parent somewhere," she said, "you have to be careful about who you allow to have a relationship with your kids."
Source http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136837/california-courts-redefining-who.html
Monday, December 19, 2011
Iraq War Veteran, Fit Father Has Parental Rights Terminated
by Robert Franklin, Esq.
A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or its mother. Read about it here (Booneville Democrat, 12/8/11).
The facts of the case are straightforward. Edward Glover served in the U.S. armed services. He was deployed to Iraq. His wife, Michelle gave birth to a child, E.G. in November of 2008. While Edward was serving abroad, Michelle took up with one Maliki Raheem who had a history of domestic violence. In April, 2009, it came to the attention of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that E.G. had been severely abused by Raheem. Here is how the dissenting judge of the Arkansas Court of Appeals described the child’s injuries.
The abuse was severe: E.G. had scalding on his chest and abdomen, bruising, blood inside his eyes, head injuries, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, three rib fractures, bilateral retinal hemorrhages, bruising around the eyes and scalp consistent with trauma, a possible lung contusion, and burns to the abdomen, shoulder, right thigh, and left scrotum.
Edward Glover obtained emergency leave and returned home, but was sent back to Iraq 10 days later. Glover remained deployed oversees while legal proceedings played out. The ADHS of course took his son into foster care and eventually succeeded in terminating Michelle’s parental rights. At all but two hearings, Glover was neither present in person nor represented by counsel.
Irrespective of the fact that Glover had done nothing wrong and was never accused of any form of wrongdoing toward anyone, the trial court, at the request of ADHS, terminated Glover’s parental rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Indeed, if there was a claim by anyone at any time that Glover had ever in his life done anything to indicate unfitness as a parent, neither the trial nor the appellate court mentioned it.
So how is it possible for a father, who has not a single black mark by his name, to entirely lose his rights to a child, born during his marriage and therefore presumptively his? The cogent dissent from the Appellate Court’s decision says he can’t, but more about that in a bit.
Apparently the reason the trial judge terminated Glover’s rights is that he didn’t follow the court’s orders to avail himself of certain “services” of the ADHS. Now, remember, that ADHS is an agency of the State of Arkansas, but during most of the court proceedings, Glover was nowhere near Arkansas and therefore could not be ”served” by ADHS. More importantly, the “services” ordered are transparently aimed at a parent who has abused his/her child. Here they are:
-provide complete medical history for juvenile
-parenting classes
-anger management classes
-forensic psychological evaluation – follow recommendations
-random drug screens
-remain drug free
-remain alcohol free
-provide vital info for fetal alcohol syndrome assessment
-drug and alcohol assessment – follow recommendations
-medication assessment and follow recommendations
-maintain stable and suitable housing
-attend staffings at DHS
-cooperate with Department
-maintain contact with Department
-attend visitation with juvenile
-demonstrate improved parenting
-maintain reliable transportation or seek reasonable assistance from DHS
-complete affidavit of Financial Means
-refrain from criminal or illegal activity
So what we have is a state agency and four separate judges who couldn’t quite grasp the fact that, although there was an abused child and although there was a father in court, the father hadn’t abused the child. Glover didn’t need any of the “services” ADHS said he needed.
Likewise, the fact that he was out of the country most of the time and in the hospital part of the time when he returned from abroad and was honorably discharged from military service, and therefore unable to avail himself of the “services” never sank in on the judges or ADHS.
Late in the game, the court appointed counsel to “represent” Glover. I use quotation marks around the word “represent” because the dissenting justice at the appellate court described that representation this way:
The quality of the appointed counsel’s representation at this late stage of the case supports an inference that the purpose of the appointment was not to assist Mr. Glover in negotiating his way through the juvenile courts to gain custody of E.G., but rather to facilitate his exit by terminating his parental rights.
The dissent’s description is given considerably more weight by the fact that Glover’s lawyer made no effort to assert at trial any of the very obvious legal issues presented by the termination of a fit father’s parental rights. Having failed to assert them at trial, they couldn’t be asserted on appeal. To make her malpractice still more obvious, Glover’s attorney filed his appeal but under a “no-merit” procedure. That’s one in which the lawyer files the appeal because her client demands it, but tells the court it has no merit. This was “zealous representation” by an attorney? It’s more like a bad joke.
In short, the lawyer worked hand-in-glove with ADHS and the judges to cut the father out of his child’s life. My strong belief is that ADHS wanted that all along. That’s why its counsel convinced the judges to order the long list of “services” for Glover to comply with. ADHS hoped that Glover wouldn’t comply due to his deployment overseas and failure to comply would lose him his parental rights. And that’s just what happened. Some people may call that justice. I call it a conspiracy.
Not surprisingly, Glover lost his appeal. The appellate majority said he hadn’t raised any of his issues on appeal, so there was no way he could win. Fair enough. Or was it?
On the contrary, the dissenting judge, Josephine Hart, completely destroyed the majority’s summary dismissal of Glover’s appeal. She points out that, due to a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court (the Mahone case) during the pendency of Glover’s case, the state cannot interfere with the parenting rights of a fit parent.
The Mahone court overruled Judkins and held that custody of a child taken from a custodial parent should result in first shifting custody to the nonoffending, noncustodial parent.
Importantly, the Mahone court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in so ruling.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental right to parent a child without interference by the state. Accordingly, there first must be a showing of unfitness before the state may intervene. The fact that one parent is unfit does not alter the state’s burden to prove that the other parent is also unable to care for the child before it may interfere in the family… Without a finding of unfitness, the state has no constitutional authority to exercise that power. Under current Supreme Court authority, the existence of a single fit parent, regardless of the acts of the other parent, negates the state’s ability to interfere in the family unit.
Those are, once again, Judge Josephine Hart’s. She was writing at the appellate level in Mahone and, when the case got to it, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed.
More importantly still, the trial court in Glover’s case had no jurisdiction. In order to exercise any authority over his rights, it had to first find that he was unfit. It didn’t because he wasn’t. Therefore, the matter could be raised for the first time on appeal.
It can therefore be raised before the Arkansas Supreme Court. From here, it looks like a slam-dunk win.
To date, however, the lesson Edward Glover’s case teaches us is just how determined child welfare agencies are to cut fathers out of the lives of their children and how willing courts are to comply.
Source http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=22391
A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or its mother. Read about it here (Booneville Democrat, 12/8/11).
The facts of the case are straightforward. Edward Glover served in the U.S. armed services. He was deployed to Iraq. His wife, Michelle gave birth to a child, E.G. in November of 2008. While Edward was serving abroad, Michelle took up with one Maliki Raheem who had a history of domestic violence. In April, 2009, it came to the attention of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that E.G. had been severely abused by Raheem. Here is how the dissenting judge of the Arkansas Court of Appeals described the child’s injuries.
The abuse was severe: E.G. had scalding on his chest and abdomen, bruising, blood inside his eyes, head injuries, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, three rib fractures, bilateral retinal hemorrhages, bruising around the eyes and scalp consistent with trauma, a possible lung contusion, and burns to the abdomen, shoulder, right thigh, and left scrotum.
Edward Glover obtained emergency leave and returned home, but was sent back to Iraq 10 days later. Glover remained deployed oversees while legal proceedings played out. The ADHS of course took his son into foster care and eventually succeeded in terminating Michelle’s parental rights. At all but two hearings, Glover was neither present in person nor represented by counsel.
Irrespective of the fact that Glover had done nothing wrong and was never accused of any form of wrongdoing toward anyone, the trial court, at the request of ADHS, terminated Glover’s parental rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Indeed, if there was a claim by anyone at any time that Glover had ever in his life done anything to indicate unfitness as a parent, neither the trial nor the appellate court mentioned it.
So how is it possible for a father, who has not a single black mark by his name, to entirely lose his rights to a child, born during his marriage and therefore presumptively his? The cogent dissent from the Appellate Court’s decision says he can’t, but more about that in a bit.
Apparently the reason the trial judge terminated Glover’s rights is that he didn’t follow the court’s orders to avail himself of certain “services” of the ADHS. Now, remember, that ADHS is an agency of the State of Arkansas, but during most of the court proceedings, Glover was nowhere near Arkansas and therefore could not be ”served” by ADHS. More importantly, the “services” ordered are transparently aimed at a parent who has abused his/her child. Here they are:
-provide complete medical history for juvenile
-parenting classes
-anger management classes
-forensic psychological evaluation – follow recommendations
-random drug screens
-remain drug free
-remain alcohol free
-provide vital info for fetal alcohol syndrome assessment
-drug and alcohol assessment – follow recommendations
-medication assessment and follow recommendations
-maintain stable and suitable housing
-attend staffings at DHS
-cooperate with Department
-maintain contact with Department
-attend visitation with juvenile
-demonstrate improved parenting
-maintain reliable transportation or seek reasonable assistance from DHS
-complete affidavit of Financial Means
-refrain from criminal or illegal activity
So what we have is a state agency and four separate judges who couldn’t quite grasp the fact that, although there was an abused child and although there was a father in court, the father hadn’t abused the child. Glover didn’t need any of the “services” ADHS said he needed.
Likewise, the fact that he was out of the country most of the time and in the hospital part of the time when he returned from abroad and was honorably discharged from military service, and therefore unable to avail himself of the “services” never sank in on the judges or ADHS.
Late in the game, the court appointed counsel to “represent” Glover. I use quotation marks around the word “represent” because the dissenting justice at the appellate court described that representation this way:
The quality of the appointed counsel’s representation at this late stage of the case supports an inference that the purpose of the appointment was not to assist Mr. Glover in negotiating his way through the juvenile courts to gain custody of E.G., but rather to facilitate his exit by terminating his parental rights.
The dissent’s description is given considerably more weight by the fact that Glover’s lawyer made no effort to assert at trial any of the very obvious legal issues presented by the termination of a fit father’s parental rights. Having failed to assert them at trial, they couldn’t be asserted on appeal. To make her malpractice still more obvious, Glover’s attorney filed his appeal but under a “no-merit” procedure. That’s one in which the lawyer files the appeal because her client demands it, but tells the court it has no merit. This was “zealous representation” by an attorney? It’s more like a bad joke.
In short, the lawyer worked hand-in-glove with ADHS and the judges to cut the father out of his child’s life. My strong belief is that ADHS wanted that all along. That’s why its counsel convinced the judges to order the long list of “services” for Glover to comply with. ADHS hoped that Glover wouldn’t comply due to his deployment overseas and failure to comply would lose him his parental rights. And that’s just what happened. Some people may call that justice. I call it a conspiracy.
Not surprisingly, Glover lost his appeal. The appellate majority said he hadn’t raised any of his issues on appeal, so there was no way he could win. Fair enough. Or was it?
On the contrary, the dissenting judge, Josephine Hart, completely destroyed the majority’s summary dismissal of Glover’s appeal. She points out that, due to a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court (the Mahone case) during the pendency of Glover’s case, the state cannot interfere with the parenting rights of a fit parent.
The Mahone court overruled Judkins and held that custody of a child taken from a custodial parent should result in first shifting custody to the nonoffending, noncustodial parent.
Importantly, the Mahone court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in so ruling.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental right to parent a child without interference by the state. Accordingly, there first must be a showing of unfitness before the state may intervene. The fact that one parent is unfit does not alter the state’s burden to prove that the other parent is also unable to care for the child before it may interfere in the family… Without a finding of unfitness, the state has no constitutional authority to exercise that power. Under current Supreme Court authority, the existence of a single fit parent, regardless of the acts of the other parent, negates the state’s ability to interfere in the family unit.
Those are, once again, Judge Josephine Hart’s. She was writing at the appellate level in Mahone and, when the case got to it, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed.
More importantly still, the trial court in Glover’s case had no jurisdiction. In order to exercise any authority over his rights, it had to first find that he was unfit. It didn’t because he wasn’t. Therefore, the matter could be raised for the first time on appeal.
It can therefore be raised before the Arkansas Supreme Court. From here, it looks like a slam-dunk win.
To date, however, the lesson Edward Glover’s case teaches us is just how determined child welfare agencies are to cut fathers out of the lives of their children and how willing courts are to comply.
Source http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=22391
Niveen Ismail Seemed Prison-Bound for Plot to Kidnap Son Until Jurors Heard Her on Tape
By Matt Coker
Niveen Ismail headed into a Santa Ana courtroom last week facing the possibility of a three-year prison sentence for allegedly asking a private investigator to kidnap her 7-year-old son from his foster parents.
But, after three hours of deliberations, the jury found the Newport Beach 45-year-old not guilty, and based on the press accounts from the trial, it's easy to see why.
Ismail, who lost parental rights to her son in 2005 when officers found him home alone, contacted and met P.I. Robert Young in November 2009. According to the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA), Ismail proposed paying Young a large sum of money to kidnap her son from his foster family in Lake Forest and take him to Tijuana. From there, prosecutors alleged, Ismail planned to take her son to Europe or her native Egypt.
But the investigator later contacted the Newport Beach Police Department, and another meeting was set up on Dec. 4, 2009, that had Ismail joined by the P.I. and an undercover cop she believed was working with her point person. At that meeting, the OCDA claimed, Ismail discussed obtaining passports for her and her son, asking again for her son to be kidnapped in exchange for money. She was then arrested, and when trial began Dec. 7 Ismail was facing one felony count of solicitation to commit kidnapping.
What blew the case for prosecutors were the secretly recorded tapes from Ismail's meeting with Young and the undercover, according to Jon Cassidy's coverage in the Orange County Register. Young testified that Ismail threw out the kidnapping idea as a "what if" at the first meeting, but while she is heard discussing such a plot at the follow-up meeting, she did not actually request it, Cassidy reports. Instead, Ismail is heard continually trying to steer the conversation back to another idea: spying on the foster family, according to Cassidy, who adds it was the investigators who were heard repeatedly bringing up the kidnapping.
Ismail was told a kidnapping would cost $5,000 versus $500 for surveillance on the foster family. After initially providing Young and his fake partner with a photo of her son--and indication she was in on the kidnapping--she later changed her mind and only paid $500, Cassidy reports.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Beth Costello presented circumstantial evidence that Ismail had begun applying for an Egyptian passport and looked online for driving directions to the Mexican border and flight information from Mexico to Europe, but that obviously was not enough for the jury to buy that the mom had, as the charges suggest, solicited to commit a kidnapping.
"We had an intelligent jury that sifted through rumor, innuendo and distraction thrown at them by the prosecution," Ismail's attorney, Ann Cunningham, reportedly told Cassidy. "The case was all on tape."
Source http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/12/niveen_ismail_gladys_remigio_k.php
Niveen Ismail headed into a Santa Ana courtroom last week facing the possibility of a three-year prison sentence for allegedly asking a private investigator to kidnap her 7-year-old son from his foster parents.
But, after three hours of deliberations, the jury found the Newport Beach 45-year-old not guilty, and based on the press accounts from the trial, it's easy to see why.
Ismail, who lost parental rights to her son in 2005 when officers found him home alone, contacted and met P.I. Robert Young in November 2009. According to the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA), Ismail proposed paying Young a large sum of money to kidnap her son from his foster family in Lake Forest and take him to Tijuana. From there, prosecutors alleged, Ismail planned to take her son to Europe or her native Egypt.
But the investigator later contacted the Newport Beach Police Department, and another meeting was set up on Dec. 4, 2009, that had Ismail joined by the P.I. and an undercover cop she believed was working with her point person. At that meeting, the OCDA claimed, Ismail discussed obtaining passports for her and her son, asking again for her son to be kidnapped in exchange for money. She was then arrested, and when trial began Dec. 7 Ismail was facing one felony count of solicitation to commit kidnapping.
What blew the case for prosecutors were the secretly recorded tapes from Ismail's meeting with Young and the undercover, according to Jon Cassidy's coverage in the Orange County Register. Young testified that Ismail threw out the kidnapping idea as a "what if" at the first meeting, but while she is heard discussing such a plot at the follow-up meeting, she did not actually request it, Cassidy reports. Instead, Ismail is heard continually trying to steer the conversation back to another idea: spying on the foster family, according to Cassidy, who adds it was the investigators who were heard repeatedly bringing up the kidnapping.
Ismail was told a kidnapping would cost $5,000 versus $500 for surveillance on the foster family. After initially providing Young and his fake partner with a photo of her son--and indication she was in on the kidnapping--she later changed her mind and only paid $500, Cassidy reports.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Beth Costello presented circumstantial evidence that Ismail had begun applying for an Egyptian passport and looked online for driving directions to the Mexican border and flight information from Mexico to Europe, but that obviously was not enough for the jury to buy that the mom had, as the charges suggest, solicited to commit a kidnapping.
"We had an intelligent jury that sifted through rumor, innuendo and distraction thrown at them by the prosecution," Ismail's attorney, Ann Cunningham, reportedly told Cassidy. "The case was all on tape."
Source http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/12/niveen_ismail_gladys_remigio_k.php
Monday, December 5, 2011
Georgia Keeps Kids Languishing in Foster Care Because Their Parents Are Undocumented
By Marie Diamond
A custody fight in Georgia is illustrating the biases of a foster care system that some say routinely subverts the parental rights of undocumented and non-English speaking mothers and fathers:
Ovidio and Domitina Mendez’s lost their five children to foster care when the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services arrived at their home claimed the kids were malnourished. The couple, who are both undocumented immigrants from Guatemala, says they did everything the child welfare agency asked them to do to get their kids back. But three years later, the children are still in foster care with strangers. Why? Because they are undocumented immigrants who speak Spanish, according to advocates.
A recent study by the Applied Research Center revealed that at least 5,100 children are languishing in America’s foster care system because their immigrant parents were detained or deported. But the report also found that even when undocumented parents are not detained or deported, they face bias in the child welfare system as a result of cultural and language discrimination.
For instance, at the June hearing that terminated the Mendez’s parental rights, they were peppered with seemingly irrelevant questions about their English-speaking ability and immigration status. “Describe for the court why even three years after [the children went into the state’s custody] you cannot speak English without an interpreter,” asked Bruce Kling, special assistant attorney general for Whitfield County Department of Family and Children’s Service.
The state also argued that the Mendezes’ should not regain custody because, as undocumented immigrants, they could not attain driver’s licenses and therefore couldn’t transport their children. ARC found that many county child welfare departments give this justification for why undocumented parents can’t be trusted as caregivers.
The suggestion that undocumented immigrants are unfit parents (usually for reasons related to their poverty) is often used to separate them from their children. But children then remain in foster care because of the barriers that undocumented mothers and fathers face in trying to regain custody. Parents’ undocumented status also works against them by preventing them from accessing state services that would enable them to better provide for their children.
Source http://www.alternet.org/immigration/153309/georgia_keeps_kids_languishing_in_foster_care_because_their_parents_are_undocumented
A custody fight in Georgia is illustrating the biases of a foster care system that some say routinely subverts the parental rights of undocumented and non-English speaking mothers and fathers:
Ovidio and Domitina Mendez’s lost their five children to foster care when the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services arrived at their home claimed the kids were malnourished. The couple, who are both undocumented immigrants from Guatemala, says they did everything the child welfare agency asked them to do to get their kids back. But three years later, the children are still in foster care with strangers. Why? Because they are undocumented immigrants who speak Spanish, according to advocates.
A recent study by the Applied Research Center revealed that at least 5,100 children are languishing in America’s foster care system because their immigrant parents were detained or deported. But the report also found that even when undocumented parents are not detained or deported, they face bias in the child welfare system as a result of cultural and language discrimination.
For instance, at the June hearing that terminated the Mendez’s parental rights, they were peppered with seemingly irrelevant questions about their English-speaking ability and immigration status. “Describe for the court why even three years after [the children went into the state’s custody] you cannot speak English without an interpreter,” asked Bruce Kling, special assistant attorney general for Whitfield County Department of Family and Children’s Service.
The state also argued that the Mendezes’ should not regain custody because, as undocumented immigrants, they could not attain driver’s licenses and therefore couldn’t transport their children. ARC found that many county child welfare departments give this justification for why undocumented parents can’t be trusted as caregivers.
The suggestion that undocumented immigrants are unfit parents (usually for reasons related to their poverty) is often used to separate them from their children. But children then remain in foster care because of the barriers that undocumented mothers and fathers face in trying to regain custody. Parents’ undocumented status also works against them by preventing them from accessing state services that would enable them to better provide for their children.
Source http://www.alternet.org/immigration/153309/georgia_keeps_kids_languishing_in_foster_care_because_their_parents_are_undocumented
Friday, November 18, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
High court may revisit grandparents' rights
By STEPHANIE REITZ
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. — Increasingly, a wrenching dispute is playing out in courts nationwide: balancing parents' constitutional rights to raise their children without interference against grandparents' desire to be involved in those youngsters' lives.
Now, a growing number of grandparents are pushing lawmakers around the country to change state standards they say are too restrictive and ignore the unique bonds many grandparents have with their grandchildren.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this winter whether it will revisit the issue, which it addressed 11 years ago in a landmark case out of Washington state that makes competent parents' wishes the guiding principle in most disputes.
Although all state laws must meet that constitutional threshold, their efforts have resulted in a patchwork of state court rulings and legislation. They now impose such a variety of conditions that the parties' home states can affect the cases almost as much as the specifics.
Connecticut, Florida and Arizona are considered among the most parent-friendly based on their laws or court precedents. Others are considered more grandparent-friendly, including Utah, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Connecticut has become a battleground state in the issue for two reasons: its protections for parents are among the nation's strictest and many of its grandparents are very vocal in their push to change it.
A task force will advise the General Assembly this winter on whether to change state law to give grandparents more chance to get into court to argue their cases.
"Right now it's the luck of the draw if you're some poor family stuck in a state that doesn't stand behind that grandparent-grandchild bond and attachment," said Susan Hoffman, 59. She founded Advocates for Grandparent Grandchild Connection after losing her California petition for visitation when her adult son signed away parenting rights to her grandson.
The growing movement among grandparents' groups has alarmed many parents and their advocacy groups nationwide, including organizers and participants on the parentsrights.com website.
Many say they are being pilloried by those who wrongly accept stereotypes that all grandparents are loving and supportive. And they say they're being drained financially to defend parenting rights the Supreme Court has already upheld.
Polly Tavernia, 41, said her New York case cost her family almost $10,000 even though her estranged mother's petition was eventually dismissed.
"It was one of the worst things I've ever been through," she said. "It's honestly just horrible to have to worry about someone else making those decisions for you, especially when they don't know the whole story."
All 50 states have laws governing the conditions for non-parent third parties seeking visitation, but it was only in 2000 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling said none of those laws can infringe on the rights of competent parents.
Source http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/06/2091841/high-court-may-revisit-grandparents.html
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. — Increasingly, a wrenching dispute is playing out in courts nationwide: balancing parents' constitutional rights to raise their children without interference against grandparents' desire to be involved in those youngsters' lives.
Now, a growing number of grandparents are pushing lawmakers around the country to change state standards they say are too restrictive and ignore the unique bonds many grandparents have with their grandchildren.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this winter whether it will revisit the issue, which it addressed 11 years ago in a landmark case out of Washington state that makes competent parents' wishes the guiding principle in most disputes.
Although all state laws must meet that constitutional threshold, their efforts have resulted in a patchwork of state court rulings and legislation. They now impose such a variety of conditions that the parties' home states can affect the cases almost as much as the specifics.
Connecticut, Florida and Arizona are considered among the most parent-friendly based on their laws or court precedents. Others are considered more grandparent-friendly, including Utah, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Connecticut has become a battleground state in the issue for two reasons: its protections for parents are among the nation's strictest and many of its grandparents are very vocal in their push to change it.
A task force will advise the General Assembly this winter on whether to change state law to give grandparents more chance to get into court to argue their cases.
"Right now it's the luck of the draw if you're some poor family stuck in a state that doesn't stand behind that grandparent-grandchild bond and attachment," said Susan Hoffman, 59. She founded Advocates for Grandparent Grandchild Connection after losing her California petition for visitation when her adult son signed away parenting rights to her grandson.
The growing movement among grandparents' groups has alarmed many parents and their advocacy groups nationwide, including organizers and participants on the parentsrights.com website.
Many say they are being pilloried by those who wrongly accept stereotypes that all grandparents are loving and supportive. And they say they're being drained financially to defend parenting rights the Supreme Court has already upheld.
Polly Tavernia, 41, said her New York case cost her family almost $10,000 even though her estranged mother's petition was eventually dismissed.
"It was one of the worst things I've ever been through," she said. "It's honestly just horrible to have to worry about someone else making those decisions for you, especially when they don't know the whole story."
All 50 states have laws governing the conditions for non-parent third parties seeking visitation, but it was only in 2000 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling said none of those laws can infringe on the rights of competent parents.
Source http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/06/2091841/high-court-may-revisit-grandparents.html
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Federal Government Should Not Decide If Kids Need Mental Health Screening
by Dr. Susan Berry
On the heels of new recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), that children as young as four years of age be evaluated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a new study (funded by two agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services) has concluded that the drugs used to treat ADHD do not pose risk of serious heart problems to children and young adults. Currently, ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed neurobehavioral disorder in children, with about 10% of children having been labeled with the diagnosis, as of 2007. The highest number of parent reports of ADHD has been among those covered by Medicaid.
But, why are increasing numbers of children and adults being diagnosed with ADHD? Is it just coincidence that DHHS-funded research has recently concluded that it’s safe to give stimulant medications to very young children immediately after the AAP, a major supporter of Obamacare, has announced its recommendations for earlier screening? To be sure, many physicians and mental health practitioners believe ADHD is being overdiagnosed. MedPage Today, a service for physicians that provides a clinical perspective on breaking medical news, found that 80% of its readers believed the disorder is overdiagnosed. Similarly, psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances states that ADHD has become an “epidemic” for several reasons: (1) Changes in the wording of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), (2) heavy drug company marketing to doctors and advertising to the public, (3) extensive media coverage, (4) pressure from parents and schools to control disruptive behavior in children and (5) the use of stimulant medication (such as Ritalin) for performance enhancement.
In light of what appears to be a drive to diagnose more behaviors as “abnormal” earlier in life, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has reintroduced H.R. 2769. The Parental Consent Act 2011 prohibits mandatory mental health screening of students without the express written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. The bill seeks to protect the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. With the passage of this bill, federal education funds cannot be used to pay any local school or government agency that charges parents, who refuse consent to permit mental health screening for their child, with child abuse or child, medical, or educational neglect.
A major concern is that daycare providers and teachers are the main referral sources for ADHD screening. The types of behaviors many of these individuals may view as “problematic,” in a classroom setting, such as fidgeting, distractibility, inattention, interrupting, and lack of organization are very much consistent with a normal four-year old’s stage of development. While some adults may view the children’s behavior as a “problem,” the real issue may be that adults are expecting young children to function, without disruption, in an institutional setting.
As more young children have been placed in daycare settings, larger groups of them must be managed by just a few adults. Dr. Paul’s bill prevents children who attend public schools, or daycare programs that receive federal funding, from being forced to submit to mental health screening without parental consent.
According to Congressman Paul, a physician:
“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.”
The bill is in response to a recommendation by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, established in 2002 by President George W. Bush, whose stated purpose was to bring greater awareness and service guidelines regarding mental health issues to Americans. According to Congressman Paul:
“The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.”
While AAP recommends that behavioral interventions be utilized first, prior to medications, for young children diagnosed with ADHD, Dr. Frances states:
“…experience suggests that these cautions will be widely ignored in busy everyday practice, especially because behavioral approaches are usually unavailable and medication is so highly promoted and readily available.”
As a practicing psychologist, this last statement is the crux of the matter. While there is a small minority of children who have neurological disorders that require medications, some parents and teachers would prefer a quick fix of medication for a child in order to make teaching and parenting easier, rather than work on an approach that requires thinking outside the box and consistent implementation by both parents and teachers. The number of young children who come to my office already tagged with ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, etc. is staggering. The larger educational issue is that many of the children diagnosed with ADHD are actually very bright and need to be taught in a different manner, one that our “one size fits all,” institutional public education system does not adequately address.
Source http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2011/11/04/the-federal-government-should-not-decide-if-kids-need-mental-health-screening/
On the heels of new recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), that children as young as four years of age be evaluated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a new study (funded by two agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services) has concluded that the drugs used to treat ADHD do not pose risk of serious heart problems to children and young adults. Currently, ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed neurobehavioral disorder in children, with about 10% of children having been labeled with the diagnosis, as of 2007. The highest number of parent reports of ADHD has been among those covered by Medicaid.
But, why are increasing numbers of children and adults being diagnosed with ADHD? Is it just coincidence that DHHS-funded research has recently concluded that it’s safe to give stimulant medications to very young children immediately after the AAP, a major supporter of Obamacare, has announced its recommendations for earlier screening? To be sure, many physicians and mental health practitioners believe ADHD is being overdiagnosed. MedPage Today, a service for physicians that provides a clinical perspective on breaking medical news, found that 80% of its readers believed the disorder is overdiagnosed. Similarly, psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances states that ADHD has become an “epidemic” for several reasons: (1) Changes in the wording of the diagnosis in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), (2) heavy drug company marketing to doctors and advertising to the public, (3) extensive media coverage, (4) pressure from parents and schools to control disruptive behavior in children and (5) the use of stimulant medication (such as Ritalin) for performance enhancement.
In light of what appears to be a drive to diagnose more behaviors as “abnormal” earlier in life, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has reintroduced H.R. 2769. The Parental Consent Act 2011 prohibits mandatory mental health screening of students without the express written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. The bill seeks to protect the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. With the passage of this bill, federal education funds cannot be used to pay any local school or government agency that charges parents, who refuse consent to permit mental health screening for their child, with child abuse or child, medical, or educational neglect.
A major concern is that daycare providers and teachers are the main referral sources for ADHD screening. The types of behaviors many of these individuals may view as “problematic,” in a classroom setting, such as fidgeting, distractibility, inattention, interrupting, and lack of organization are very much consistent with a normal four-year old’s stage of development. While some adults may view the children’s behavior as a “problem,” the real issue may be that adults are expecting young children to function, without disruption, in an institutional setting.
As more young children have been placed in daycare settings, larger groups of them must be managed by just a few adults. Dr. Paul’s bill prevents children who attend public schools, or daycare programs that receive federal funding, from being forced to submit to mental health screening without parental consent.
According to Congressman Paul, a physician:
“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.”
The bill is in response to a recommendation by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, established in 2002 by President George W. Bush, whose stated purpose was to bring greater awareness and service guidelines regarding mental health issues to Americans. According to Congressman Paul:
“The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.”
While AAP recommends that behavioral interventions be utilized first, prior to medications, for young children diagnosed with ADHD, Dr. Frances states:
“…experience suggests that these cautions will be widely ignored in busy everyday practice, especially because behavioral approaches are usually unavailable and medication is so highly promoted and readily available.”
As a practicing psychologist, this last statement is the crux of the matter. While there is a small minority of children who have neurological disorders that require medications, some parents and teachers would prefer a quick fix of medication for a child in order to make teaching and parenting easier, rather than work on an approach that requires thinking outside the box and consistent implementation by both parents and teachers. The number of young children who come to my office already tagged with ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, etc. is staggering. The larger educational issue is that many of the children diagnosed with ADHD are actually very bright and need to be taught in a different manner, one that our “one size fits all,” institutional public education system does not adequately address.
Source http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2011/11/04/the-federal-government-should-not-decide-if-kids-need-mental-health-screening/
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, September 6, 2011
Grandmother fights for relative rights for children
Posted: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 4:00 am
By JENNIFER SUMMER Houston Community Newspapers
A grandmother’s love is what kept her four grandchildren out of foster care.
For Cleveland’s Linda Boles, it has been a fight to gain grandparental rights and any monetary support for all four children, a fight she is planning to take to Washington, D.C. to rally for more rights as well as the opportunity to gain custody and support as a caregiver for her grandchildren.
“My daughter was with four different drug dealers, so Child Protective Services was called numerous times. It took 29 voluntary placements for them to give me the paperwork to keep the kids at my house and keep them safe,” Boles said.
Boles was working in real estate at the time when she would receive the calls from CPS where she would keep them for several days then they would go back to the mom’s house.
After the numerous calls and the evidence, Boles now has all four grandchildren and started the group Kids Left Behind which fights for grandparental rights in Texas.
“There are a lot of grandparents in Texas who do not know we have no rights. In 2008, I spoke in Washington, D.C. on the fact there is no funding from the state for grandparents to care for their grandchildren. They are not told from the beginning what they can have and what they cannot,” Boles said.
With the Kids Left Behind group, Boles has worked with other grandparents who are going through the same thing she has.
Boles asks the questions, how many calls does it take for a true CPS investigation? and why is adoption not available to grandparents and relatives but it is to foster parents?
A few of her cases, the children are placed into a foster home and then they are picked up by the grandparents who must go through the same background checks and house checks as a foster parent would have to but they do not have the same paperwork or the same rights.
“We go through the same things foster homes do but we get nothing. Why is there not some kinship added when they develop these committees? Our voice is not heard. Grandparents are raising 3 percent of the children in this state, yet we do not have a voice,” Boles said.
Every couple of months, the grandparents have to file for custody of the children again and must take off work whenever CPS calls for a home check or visit.
In Boles’ case, she is not receiving any child support from the parents of the children so she must support them as much as she can, but they currently live on 53 cents a day.
For foster families, they are reimbursed for most of their expenses while the grandparents and other relative caregivers are not.
“Voluntary placement needs to be done away with. The parents cannot just show up when they want to. Relative caregivers need rights to take care of the children. We deal with doctor appointments, school and transportation every day so we need help,” Boles said.
There are several others across the country who are rallying behind Boles and hoping to raise funds to help her have a place to stay while in Washington, D.C. so she can share her story and rally for relative caregiver rights.
They have already received some monetary support but they are hoping for more support and donations to help the trip be successful for Boles.
“I cannot understand why Texas does not want to help with all of these children. If they are put in a relative caregiver’s home, they have a better chance at succeeding than in a foster home,” Boles said. “I have lost everything, but that is the love I have for these grandchildren; I would never give that up.”
To support her family, Boles hunts, fishes and gardens to ensure there is always food on the table.
She and the children have also had the opportunity to go Echo Hill Ranch which is owned by the son of Kinky Friedman, Dr. S.T. Friedman, where they learned how to fold the flag properly and play with other kids.
“It is wrong for the children when we do not get to participate in things because we cannot afford it. Every child should be treated the same,” Boles said.
The rally Boles plans to attend is the GrandRally in Washington, D.C. Sept. 15 where she will have the chance to meet other relative caregivers and have her voice heard.
“It is time for our voice to be heard,” Boles added.
For more information about the GrandRally, log on to www.grandrally.org.
Source http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/dayton/news/grandmother-fights-for-relative-rights-for-children/article_30d65ff7-062a-58d3-9745-727ca443db82.html
By JENNIFER SUMMER Houston Community Newspapers
A grandmother’s love is what kept her four grandchildren out of foster care.
For Cleveland’s Linda Boles, it has been a fight to gain grandparental rights and any monetary support for all four children, a fight she is planning to take to Washington, D.C. to rally for more rights as well as the opportunity to gain custody and support as a caregiver for her grandchildren.
“My daughter was with four different drug dealers, so Child Protective Services was called numerous times. It took 29 voluntary placements for them to give me the paperwork to keep the kids at my house and keep them safe,” Boles said.
Boles was working in real estate at the time when she would receive the calls from CPS where she would keep them for several days then they would go back to the mom’s house.
After the numerous calls and the evidence, Boles now has all four grandchildren and started the group Kids Left Behind which fights for grandparental rights in Texas.
“There are a lot of grandparents in Texas who do not know we have no rights. In 2008, I spoke in Washington, D.C. on the fact there is no funding from the state for grandparents to care for their grandchildren. They are not told from the beginning what they can have and what they cannot,” Boles said.
With the Kids Left Behind group, Boles has worked with other grandparents who are going through the same thing she has.
Boles asks the questions, how many calls does it take for a true CPS investigation? and why is adoption not available to grandparents and relatives but it is to foster parents?
A few of her cases, the children are placed into a foster home and then they are picked up by the grandparents who must go through the same background checks and house checks as a foster parent would have to but they do not have the same paperwork or the same rights.
“We go through the same things foster homes do but we get nothing. Why is there not some kinship added when they develop these committees? Our voice is not heard. Grandparents are raising 3 percent of the children in this state, yet we do not have a voice,” Boles said.
Every couple of months, the grandparents have to file for custody of the children again and must take off work whenever CPS calls for a home check or visit.
In Boles’ case, she is not receiving any child support from the parents of the children so she must support them as much as she can, but they currently live on 53 cents a day.
For foster families, they are reimbursed for most of their expenses while the grandparents and other relative caregivers are not.
“Voluntary placement needs to be done away with. The parents cannot just show up when they want to. Relative caregivers need rights to take care of the children. We deal with doctor appointments, school and transportation every day so we need help,” Boles said.
There are several others across the country who are rallying behind Boles and hoping to raise funds to help her have a place to stay while in Washington, D.C. so she can share her story and rally for relative caregiver rights.
They have already received some monetary support but they are hoping for more support and donations to help the trip be successful for Boles.
“I cannot understand why Texas does not want to help with all of these children. If they are put in a relative caregiver’s home, they have a better chance at succeeding than in a foster home,” Boles said. “I have lost everything, but that is the love I have for these grandchildren; I would never give that up.”
To support her family, Boles hunts, fishes and gardens to ensure there is always food on the table.
She and the children have also had the opportunity to go Echo Hill Ranch which is owned by the son of Kinky Friedman, Dr. S.T. Friedman, where they learned how to fold the flag properly and play with other kids.
“It is wrong for the children when we do not get to participate in things because we cannot afford it. Every child should be treated the same,” Boles said.
The rally Boles plans to attend is the GrandRally in Washington, D.C. Sept. 15 where she will have the chance to meet other relative caregivers and have her voice heard.
“It is time for our voice to be heard,” Boles added.
For more information about the GrandRally, log on to www.grandrally.org.
Source http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/dayton/news/grandmother-fights-for-relative-rights-for-children/article_30d65ff7-062a-58d3-9745-727ca443db82.html
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Detroit mom cleared of charges that stemmed from standoff at home
11:14 PM, Aug. 29, 2011
In a case that sparked debate about parental rights versus state involvement in the medical care of children, a Detroit woman won a major victory Monday when all the charges against her were dropped.
Maryanne Godboldo, 57, was accused of firing a gun at Detroit police officers who were assisting a state Child Protective Services worker when they came to her Blaine Street home on March 24 to get her daughter.
The charges against Godboldo were dismissed at her preliminary examination in 36th District Court in Detroit. Judge Ronald Giles agreed with her lawyers that the court order to remove Godboldo's 13-year-old daughter was not valid.
"I am very, very happy and blessed that Judge Giles did the right thing," Godboldo said at a news conference at Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit.
Giles also agreed that there was no evidence supporting the charge that Godboldo fired a gun at police during the standoff.
When asked about Giles' ruling, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said: "Ms. Godboldo was afforded her due process under the law. We abide by and respect the decision."
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, said the prosecutor will appeal the dismissal of charges.
Godboldo legal team confident that case will survive an appeal
Maryanne Godboldo's legal team is confident that a Wayne County District Court judge's dismissal of all charges against her on Monday will survive an appeal.
"The standard is abuse of discretion," said Byron Pitts, one of Godboldo's lawyers. "The court today did not abuse his discretion."
Godboldo, 57, of Detroit was charged with discharge of a weapon, three counts of felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer and felony firearm.
She was accused of firing a gun at police who had accompanied a state Child Protective Services employee to Godboldo's home on Blaine on March 24.
The employee had a Juvenile Court order to take Godboldo's 13-year-old daughter after Godboldo had been accused of neglecting her by discontinuing a psychotropic drug. Godboldo has maintained she has the right to decide her daughter's medical treatment.
Police said Godboldo barricaded herself in her home with her daughter and shot at them.
After hearing testimony at Godboldo's preliminary examination in 36th District Court on Monday in Detroit, Judge Ronald Giles ruled that the court order was not valid and that there was insufficient evidence that Godboldo fired at police officers.
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Prosecutor's Office, said the dismissed charges will be appealed. Miller said that Wayne County Circuit Judge Lynne Pierce earlier determined at a Juvenile Court hearing that the order to remove the child was valid.
The appeal will be heard in Wayne County Circuit Court.
At a news conference Monday at Hartford Memorial Baptist Church, Pitts and Godboldo's other attorney, Allison Folmar, explained why they prevailed.
Folmar said Godboldo "never shot at an officer -- period. It never happened."
They said the court order was not valid because a court clerk stamped the judge's name to the order without consulting the judge.
"A judge never looked at this, never saw it," Pitts said. "It has to be an elected authority. This lady took the judge's stamp, stamped the judge's name and off she goes."
He called it "a huge constitutional error."
As a result of this case, Pitts said, there has been a policy change. Court employees are no longer allowed to stamp judges' names on court orders.
Godboldo's supporters say Giles' ruling was justice.
Sandra Hines, a member of the Godboldo Action Committee, said: "This case is rooted on the grounds of parental rights. It's the right of every parent to be the custodial caregiver over their child."
Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, said, "It's a victory for parental rights."
He also said that "Citizens have the right not to adhere to questionable reasons for entering their home. A person does not have to allow an unreasonable search and seizure to their home."
Neema Yacen of Detroit and a member of the Godboldo Action Committee, said it was a case of state overreach. "This is a mother who said her child had a problem, took her to the people who she thought could help her, and they crucified her."
Godboldo, whose daughter is now in the custody of her sister Penny Godboldo, is working to get her child back.
Judge Pierce has said she needs to evaluate the girl's current treatment and is seeking a report from her doctor.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20110830/NEWS02/108300383/Detroit-mom-cleared-charges-stemmed-from-standoff-home
In a case that sparked debate about parental rights versus state involvement in the medical care of children, a Detroit woman won a major victory Monday when all the charges against her were dropped.
Maryanne Godboldo, 57, was accused of firing a gun at Detroit police officers who were assisting a state Child Protective Services worker when they came to her Blaine Street home on March 24 to get her daughter.
The charges against Godboldo were dismissed at her preliminary examination in 36th District Court in Detroit. Judge Ronald Giles agreed with her lawyers that the court order to remove Godboldo's 13-year-old daughter was not valid.
"I am very, very happy and blessed that Judge Giles did the right thing," Godboldo said at a news conference at Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit.
Giles also agreed that there was no evidence supporting the charge that Godboldo fired a gun at police during the standoff.
When asked about Giles' ruling, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said: "Ms. Godboldo was afforded her due process under the law. We abide by and respect the decision."
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, said the prosecutor will appeal the dismissal of charges.
Godboldo legal team confident that case will survive an appeal
Maryanne Godboldo's legal team is confident that a Wayne County District Court judge's dismissal of all charges against her on Monday will survive an appeal.
"The standard is abuse of discretion," said Byron Pitts, one of Godboldo's lawyers. "The court today did not abuse his discretion."
Godboldo, 57, of Detroit was charged with discharge of a weapon, three counts of felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer and felony firearm.
She was accused of firing a gun at police who had accompanied a state Child Protective Services employee to Godboldo's home on Blaine on March 24.
The employee had a Juvenile Court order to take Godboldo's 13-year-old daughter after Godboldo had been accused of neglecting her by discontinuing a psychotropic drug. Godboldo has maintained she has the right to decide her daughter's medical treatment.
Police said Godboldo barricaded herself in her home with her daughter and shot at them.
After hearing testimony at Godboldo's preliminary examination in 36th District Court on Monday in Detroit, Judge Ronald Giles ruled that the court order was not valid and that there was insufficient evidence that Godboldo fired at police officers.
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Prosecutor's Office, said the dismissed charges will be appealed. Miller said that Wayne County Circuit Judge Lynne Pierce earlier determined at a Juvenile Court hearing that the order to remove the child was valid.
The appeal will be heard in Wayne County Circuit Court.
At a news conference Monday at Hartford Memorial Baptist Church, Pitts and Godboldo's other attorney, Allison Folmar, explained why they prevailed.
Folmar said Godboldo "never shot at an officer -- period. It never happened."
They said the court order was not valid because a court clerk stamped the judge's name to the order without consulting the judge.
"A judge never looked at this, never saw it," Pitts said. "It has to be an elected authority. This lady took the judge's stamp, stamped the judge's name and off she goes."
He called it "a huge constitutional error."
As a result of this case, Pitts said, there has been a policy change. Court employees are no longer allowed to stamp judges' names on court orders.
Godboldo's supporters say Giles' ruling was justice.
Sandra Hines, a member of the Godboldo Action Committee, said: "This case is rooted on the grounds of parental rights. It's the right of every parent to be the custodial caregiver over their child."
Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, said, "It's a victory for parental rights."
He also said that "Citizens have the right not to adhere to questionable reasons for entering their home. A person does not have to allow an unreasonable search and seizure to their home."
Neema Yacen of Detroit and a member of the Godboldo Action Committee, said it was a case of state overreach. "This is a mother who said her child had a problem, took her to the people who she thought could help her, and they crucified her."
Godboldo, whose daughter is now in the custody of her sister Penny Godboldo, is working to get her child back.
Judge Pierce has said she needs to evaluate the girl's current treatment and is seeking a report from her doctor.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20110830/NEWS02/108300383/Detroit-mom-cleared-charges-stemmed-from-standoff-home
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Family Sues Child Protective Services for Parental Rights Violations
Contact: Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie, 731-499-7471; Patrick Michael McGraw, Attorney for Plaintiffs, 540-904-5704, patmcgrawlaw@cox.net
ROANOKE, Va., April 18, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- A lawsuit has been filed Virginia Federal Court concerning violations of Parental Rights by a Virginia couple. Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie formerly of Giles County, Virginia have filed the lawsuit against 30 defendants regarding the removal of their children in March of 2008 for allegedly abusing and abandoning their children.
The Dinwiddie's children were removed for 8 months total and placed in foster homes throughout the New River Valley some up to two hours away from they're home. Although the Dinwiddie's were found to be innocent of the charges at tax payer expense the local Department of Social Services chose to keep their children and impose a host of "Community Services" upon the parents and their children in a prolonged effort to keep them separated rather than reunify the family.
Details of the lawsuit show that while the parents were suffering at the hands of authorities, the children were suffering at the hands of social workers, foster parents, therapists, foster care agencies, and even other foster children. In a 36 page document filed in Federal Court the Dinwiddie's assert that the Defendants violated their Constitutional Rights and accuse the defendants of Fraud, Defamation, Tortious Interference with Custodial Rights, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Lawful Duty (Negligence), Breach of Written, Oral, and Implied Contract, Common Law Conspiracy under Virginia Law, and lastly Business Conspiracy.
"Before my children were taken into foster care they were polite and respectful towards each other and ourselves as parents but after their foster care experience we noticed a marked change for the worse regarding their attitude and behavior," said Fred Dinwiddie. "It took a long time for them to readjust and tell us their experiences, fears, and apprehensions related to being in foster care. They had lost respect for us because they felt we couldn't protect them anymore."
Michael Dinwiddie also listed as a Plaintiff in the suit is serving in Afghanistan.
Videos of the Dinwiddies visiting with their children:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4peNBmntwQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU3F8YXAD4I
Source: Christian Newswire
ROANOKE, Va., April 18, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- A lawsuit has been filed Virginia Federal Court concerning violations of Parental Rights by a Virginia couple. Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie formerly of Giles County, Virginia have filed the lawsuit against 30 defendants regarding the removal of their children in March of 2008 for allegedly abusing and abandoning their children.
The Dinwiddie's children were removed for 8 months total and placed in foster homes throughout the New River Valley some up to two hours away from they're home. Although the Dinwiddie's were found to be innocent of the charges at tax payer expense the local Department of Social Services chose to keep their children and impose a host of "Community Services" upon the parents and their children in a prolonged effort to keep them separated rather than reunify the family.
Details of the lawsuit show that while the parents were suffering at the hands of authorities, the children were suffering at the hands of social workers, foster parents, therapists, foster care agencies, and even other foster children. In a 36 page document filed in Federal Court the Dinwiddie's assert that the Defendants violated their Constitutional Rights and accuse the defendants of Fraud, Defamation, Tortious Interference with Custodial Rights, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Lawful Duty (Negligence), Breach of Written, Oral, and Implied Contract, Common Law Conspiracy under Virginia Law, and lastly Business Conspiracy.
"Before my children were taken into foster care they were polite and respectful towards each other and ourselves as parents but after their foster care experience we noticed a marked change for the worse regarding their attitude and behavior," said Fred Dinwiddie. "It took a long time for them to readjust and tell us their experiences, fears, and apprehensions related to being in foster care. They had lost respect for us because they felt we couldn't protect them anymore."
Michael Dinwiddie also listed as a Plaintiff in the suit is serving in Afghanistan.
Videos of the Dinwiddies visiting with their children:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4peNBmntwQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU3F8YXAD4I
Source: Christian Newswire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)