By BRIAN WALKER
The Post Falls foster parents arrested on Thursday in connection with the death of a 2-year-old girl they cared for nearly three years ago bonded out of the Kootenai County jail on Friday after their first appearance in court.
Jeremy Clark, 36, and his wife, Amber Clark, 28, were arrested after a grand jury assigned to the case came back with an indictment in the Karina Moore case on Wednesday night.
Both were being held in jail on $25,000 combined bonds on two counts of felony injury to a child, one count of concealing evidence and one count of perjury. The bond amount stayed the same during the first appearance before the couple bonded out of jail late Friday afternoon, according to jail staff.
During their court appearance earlier in the day, Amber sobbed while Jeremy showed little emotion. Several supporters of the Clarks attended their appearance.
The Clarks, represented by the county Public Defender's Office, declined to be interviewed on Friday, per their attorneys. Their attorneys could not be reached for comment.
The arraignment in district court is expected on Thursday. The case is expected to go to trial.
"When I became chief, bringing this to a conclusion was one of my top priorities," Post Falls Police Chief Scot Haug said. "My feeling was that somebody needed to be a voice for Karina. This was a very complex case that took interviewing dozens of medical experts, witnesses and reviewing digital and physical evidence.
"We wanted to make sure we had a good solid case (before making the arrests). We've always had a detective, sometimes two, assigned to the case for the past three years."
Haug and Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh declined to comment on details surrounding the charges or evidence.
"I can't talk about evidence," Haug said. "That will come out in court."
McHugh added: "They deserve a fair trial."
Haug said another child under the Clarks' care - a boy who was 4 at the time - was allegedly injured in the home between 2007 and 2008.
"The (injury to child) charges indicate physical harm done to the children, but I can't get into the specifics," Haug said.
The Clarks were registered foster parents for two years and had several children in their care, but haven't been registered with the state since the Moore case. They also have kids of their own.
Haug said he believes the Clarks were aware of the ongoing investigation during the past three years. A search warrant was recently served at their home.
Jeremy was arrested without incident at his house, while Amber was arrested at her Hayden workplace.
Haug said the Clarks were not cooperative with police during the investigation, but declined to specify.
The grand jury met on the case from Monday through Wednesday. Haug said it's rare that cases go to a grand jury, which speaks to the complexity of the Moore case. He said police supported McHugh's decision to have a grand jury consider the charges.
Karina's biological mother, Samantha Moore, couldn't be reached for comment on Friday. She earlier said she doesn't believe her daughter's death was an accident.
Haug said Samantha was pleased with the outcome of the case when he spoke with her on Thursday.
The Clarks, who had been Karina's foster parents for more than a year, told police that Karina fell about 4 feet down a flight of carpeted stairs during the Jan. 6, 2009, incident. Amber Clark told police she was on the couch and recognized that the child might fall, but the child fell to the bottom of the stairs before she could help. She called the incident a tragic accident.
Haug wouldn't comment if investigators believe the account was made up.
Clark claimed she performed CPR until emergency responders arrived and flew her to Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane. Police said Karina was at the bottom of the stairs when they arrived.
Karina was brain dead and comatose afterward and died 10 days later.
The Spokane County Medical Examiner's Office ruled the case a homicide, citing "blunt force head injuries."
However, the examiner's report did not corroborate with the initial police investigation nor the opinions of multiple doctors police interviewed at Kootenai Medical Center and Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, which determined the head and spleen injuries were consistent with an accidental fall.
John Howard, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy of Karina, said he could not comment on the evidence or factors that led him to the homicide determination.
Moore filed civil lawsuits against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in January this year in state and federal courts, claiming she reported abuse allegations against the Clarks to social workers twice, but her concerns weren't addressed.
The suit claims the IDHW "negligently and with reckless indifference failed to supervise the foster home ... which resulted in the death of Karina."
The suits have been stayed.
Karina and two of her siblings, a brother and sister, had been living with the Clarks. Moore has since regained custody of her two surviving children.
The Clarks hadn't been booked in the local jail before.
Staff writer David Cole contributed to this article.
Source http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_4599160c-4a3a-5254-9fa5-1876efb5147f.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
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/
Unprecedented: N.J. judges find foster parents have no say in child placement
Blog authors note:
Finally, it's about time! Most blood relatives have no say in these kangaroo courts so why do foster parents get a say in them? They are just glorified babysitters for the state kidnappers! Hopefully, this will carry over to all states. Then it would be nice if they would allow legal blood relatives to chime in about placement - that is when the best interests of the child will truly be served. Blood families should never be replaced if they are willing and capable of providing everything necessary for the child.
-----
By Jerry DeMarco
The hearts of New Jersey foster parents are in the right place, but that doesn’t give them a say in placement hearings, a state appeals court has ruled in an unprecedented decision stemming from a Hudson County case.
The “resource parents,” as parents are called in the state’s courts, have “no independent legal interest” when a judge is weighing where to place youngsters from troubled situations, the Appellate Division determined. That responsibility belongs to a law guardian appointed by DYFS.
"The importance of the essential role of resource parents in the child placement arena is unquestioned," Judge Marie Lihotz wrote. "However, the legal rights of such caregivers in securing an undisturbed relationship with a child placed in their home [are] very limited."
The decision was brought on by a Hudson County judge’s refusal to allow two foster parents a say in a hearing that removed a child from her drug-addicted parents and placed the girl with her aunt.
The youngster, now 2, was born on July 16, 2009 with cocaine and other drugs in her system, which put her into a hospital for six weeks. She ended up with the foster parents while DYFS moved to remove her parents’ biological rights.
The foster parents requested "full participation" in proceedings aimed at final placement of the girl, calling themselves "indispensible parties" and "psychological parents."
They said they had plenty of information to share, wanted to review expert reports produced by DYFS and requested they be allowed to retain their own expert. They also gave the judge statements from a pediatrician.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Foti in Jersey City allowed them to speak, and to attend various hearings, but said their participation ended there. Their testimony couldn’t carry any weight in the ultimate decision, in which the girl was taken from them on April 21. 2011, Foti ruled.
They appealed.
The appeals judges backed Foti, saying the foster parents “should be given the opportunity to let the judge know their wishes during the best-interests hearing.” They noted that "Foti evaluated the competence, sensitivity, patience, responsiveness and devotion of all possible caregivers."
They even went so far as to say that it would hurt the girl somewhat to be removed "from the loving care" of the foster parents.
In the end, however, the appeals judges said Foti "properly balanced the evidence of all necessary considerations and was not merely a preference for a relative placement over care by her resource parents."
What's more, they said, DYFS clearly spells out in its contract that foster parents don’t have the legal right to seek adoption.
The foster parents "opened their home" to the girl, identified in court papers as V.B., "who then stole their hearts," the judges wrote.
"The protective services system values adults like [them], who have optimally fulfilled their role as resource parents. The commitment, care, sacrifice and unconditional love [they] nobly conferred on V.B. will forever alter the course of her life. Nevertheless, the emotional ties that unavoidably developed neither result in psychological parent status nor otherwise confer an interest permitting standing to intervene in a interests hearing."
Source http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/hudson/2981-unprecedented-nj-judges-find-foster-parents-have-no-say-in-child-placement
Finally, it's about time! Most blood relatives have no say in these kangaroo courts so why do foster parents get a say in them? They are just glorified babysitters for the state kidnappers! Hopefully, this will carry over to all states. Then it would be nice if they would allow legal blood relatives to chime in about placement - that is when the best interests of the child will truly be served. Blood families should never be replaced if they are willing and capable of providing everything necessary for the child.
-----
By Jerry DeMarco
The hearts of New Jersey foster parents are in the right place, but that doesn’t give them a say in placement hearings, a state appeals court has ruled in an unprecedented decision stemming from a Hudson County case.
The “resource parents,” as parents are called in the state’s courts, have “no independent legal interest” when a judge is weighing where to place youngsters from troubled situations, the Appellate Division determined. That responsibility belongs to a law guardian appointed by DYFS.
"The importance of the essential role of resource parents in the child placement arena is unquestioned," Judge Marie Lihotz wrote. "However, the legal rights of such caregivers in securing an undisturbed relationship with a child placed in their home [are] very limited."
The decision was brought on by a Hudson County judge’s refusal to allow two foster parents a say in a hearing that removed a child from her drug-addicted parents and placed the girl with her aunt.
The youngster, now 2, was born on July 16, 2009 with cocaine and other drugs in her system, which put her into a hospital for six weeks. She ended up with the foster parents while DYFS moved to remove her parents’ biological rights.
The foster parents requested "full participation" in proceedings aimed at final placement of the girl, calling themselves "indispensible parties" and "psychological parents."
They said they had plenty of information to share, wanted to review expert reports produced by DYFS and requested they be allowed to retain their own expert. They also gave the judge statements from a pediatrician.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Foti in Jersey City allowed them to speak, and to attend various hearings, but said their participation ended there. Their testimony couldn’t carry any weight in the ultimate decision, in which the girl was taken from them on April 21. 2011, Foti ruled.
They appealed.
The appeals judges backed Foti, saying the foster parents “should be given the opportunity to let the judge know their wishes during the best-interests hearing.” They noted that "Foti evaluated the competence, sensitivity, patience, responsiveness and devotion of all possible caregivers."
They even went so far as to say that it would hurt the girl somewhat to be removed "from the loving care" of the foster parents.
In the end, however, the appeals judges said Foti "properly balanced the evidence of all necessary considerations and was not merely a preference for a relative placement over care by her resource parents."
What's more, they said, DYFS clearly spells out in its contract that foster parents don’t have the legal right to seek adoption.
The foster parents "opened their home" to the girl, identified in court papers as V.B., "who then stole their hearts," the judges wrote.
"The protective services system values adults like [them], who have optimally fulfilled their role as resource parents. The commitment, care, sacrifice and unconditional love [they] nobly conferred on V.B. will forever alter the course of her life. Nevertheless, the emotional ties that unavoidably developed neither result in psychological parent status nor otherwise confer an interest permitting standing to intervene in a interests hearing."
Source http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/hudson/2981-unprecedented-nj-judges-find-foster-parents-have-no-say-in-child-placement
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
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)