Panel Says Restrictions on Visitation Improperly Prevented Family Reunification
By KENNETH OFGANG
The developmentally disabled parents of two infants were denied reasonable reunification services when social workers unduly limited their visitation rights, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
Div. One granted a writ of mandate, directing that a referral for hearing on termination of parental rights be set aside and that the parents, identified only as Tracy J. and Michelle B., be given further services in order to reunify with their children, who are in foster care.
The opinion of the court was authored by Justice James McIntyre, who said that a social services agency “may not limit a developmentally disabled parent’s visitation in the absence of evidence showing the parent’s behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child’s safety, and it cannot impede the progression of visitation services to a parent solely out of concerns about the parent’s mental health status.”
Dependency Petition
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition concerning the couple’s son, identified as T.J., nine days after his birth in January 2010. They later filed a second petition regarding T.J.’s sister, Nancy J., born in May of last year.
The children were placed in foster care and the parents were given case plans, including counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, and assessments by the San Diego Regional Center, which offers services to the developmentally disabled.
Michelle B. claimed to suffer from Prader-Willi syndrome, a non-inherited genetic disorder characterized by obesity and cognitive impairment. Her arms, social workers noted, are short in proportion to her body, making it difficult for her to hold a child, although she can cope with everyday problems.
The regional center determined that she does not have Prader-Willi syndrome and is not mentally retarded, and does not qualify for services.
Mildly Retarded
Tracy B., who suffered a childhood head injury, tested in the lower range of mildly mentally retarded. A psychologist evaluated him and said that he would benefit from reunification services but his prognosis for reunification was poor.
Last July, the court held a combined 18-month review hearing for T.J. and a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Nancy. On the agency’s recommendation, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ana L. Espana terminated services as to T.J., whose foster mother expressed a desire to adopt him, set a hearing on termination of parental rights as to him, and ordered six months of services in Nancy’s case.
The order was appealed, only as to T.J. The Court of Appeal originally reversed last November, in an unpublished opinion, and made its order final immediately.
It subsequently received a request for publication, but because the order was final, it could not grant publication, but instead recommended the Supreme Court do so.
The Court of Appeal panel also asked the Supreme Court to send the case back for potential modification of the opinion. The high court granted review, set aside the original ruling, and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
The justices yesterday reversed again, in a published opinion not substantially different than last year’s.
‘Barely’ Sufficient Evidence
McIntyre said the trial judge’s order was unsupported by substantial evidence. While there was “barely” sufficient evidence to warrant having the children remain in foster care, he explained, it was clear that the limitations on visitation and the failure to provide the mother with services tailored to her physical disabilities rendered reunification services inadequate as a matter of law.
The social workers’ reports, he elaborated, showed that the parents were protective of the boy’s safety, yet the agency limited them to one supervised visit per week of three to four hours. Given that fact, the claim that they could not safely care for him was speculative.
“Despite their full cooperation with the Agency, positive reports from service professionals, their devotion to T.J. and the availability of significant support services through SDRC, Michelle and Tracy have not had a reasonable opportunity to show they are able to parent their child,” the justice wrote. “They are entitled to that opportunity.”
The case is Tracy J. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency), D060252.
Source http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/trac012712.htm
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, January 28, 2012
Extent of alleged DCFS fraud may never be fully known - Illinois
Ethics investigators say contracting scheme may have cost taxpayers more than $18 million
By Monique Garcia
State ethics investigators say they may never know the full extent of an alleged contracting scheme that they say cost taxpayers at least $18 million and led to last year's resignation of the head of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
The comments came during a legislative hearing Friday examining a probe that found numerous violations by George E. Smith, who held various state contracts across a number of agencies, including DCFS.
The state executive inspector general's office accused Smith of forging documents, presenting false information about grant funds for after-school services, submitting budgets that allowed him to conceal funds, and accepting payments he was not entitled to receive.
But Executive Inspector General Ricardo Meza said the wrongdoing may go further, as the state only investigated contracts Smith held dating back to 2008. Smith has been doing business with the state since 1986.
"This investigation could literally have taken us another year and a half or two to uncover," Meza told House lawmakers. "There had to be a point at our office where we decided that we thought that even though we did not fully uncover every piece of misconduct that Dr. Smith may have engaged in, we had to issue the report."
Pressed if it was possible that more than $18 million in tax dollars were misspent, Meza said, "I think that's a fair statement. … We may never know."
The Illinois attorney general's office is investigating in an attempt to recoup some of the money, and federal grand jury subpoenas have named some of Smith's companies, including Diversified Behavioral Comprehensive Care, among records sought from state agencies.
Meza said the investigation's scope was limited partly because agencies are only required to keep documents for three years, a timeline lawmakers said they will push to extend.
Legislators also said they will also seek changes to the state's Ethics Act, which prevents many cases of wrongdoing by state workers from being made public. The allegations against Smith were laid out in a report that contended former DCFS Director Erwin McEwen failed to properly oversee grants. McEwen and Smith are longtime friends, and McEwen eventually refused to cooperate with investigators.
Under the law, reports are made public if it leads to an employee's being fired or being suspended for three or more days. McEwen resigned, but a lower-level employee was suspended for five days, leading to the report's release by the Executive Ethics Commission.
Source http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dcfs-hearing-20120128,0,4787585.story
By Monique Garcia
State ethics investigators say they may never know the full extent of an alleged contracting scheme that they say cost taxpayers at least $18 million and led to last year's resignation of the head of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
The comments came during a legislative hearing Friday examining a probe that found numerous violations by George E. Smith, who held various state contracts across a number of agencies, including DCFS.
The state executive inspector general's office accused Smith of forging documents, presenting false information about grant funds for after-school services, submitting budgets that allowed him to conceal funds, and accepting payments he was not entitled to receive.
But Executive Inspector General Ricardo Meza said the wrongdoing may go further, as the state only investigated contracts Smith held dating back to 2008. Smith has been doing business with the state since 1986.
"This investigation could literally have taken us another year and a half or two to uncover," Meza told House lawmakers. "There had to be a point at our office where we decided that we thought that even though we did not fully uncover every piece of misconduct that Dr. Smith may have engaged in, we had to issue the report."
Pressed if it was possible that more than $18 million in tax dollars were misspent, Meza said, "I think that's a fair statement. … We may never know."
The Illinois attorney general's office is investigating in an attempt to recoup some of the money, and federal grand jury subpoenas have named some of Smith's companies, including Diversified Behavioral Comprehensive Care, among records sought from state agencies.
Meza said the investigation's scope was limited partly because agencies are only required to keep documents for three years, a timeline lawmakers said they will push to extend.
Legislators also said they will also seek changes to the state's Ethics Act, which prevents many cases of wrongdoing by state workers from being made public. The allegations against Smith were laid out in a report that contended former DCFS Director Erwin McEwen failed to properly oversee grants. McEwen and Smith are longtime friends, and McEwen eventually refused to cooperate with investigators.
Under the law, reports are made public if it leads to an employee's being fired or being suspended for three or more days. McEwen resigned, but a lower-level employee was suspended for five days, leading to the report's release by the Executive Ethics Commission.
Source http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dcfs-hearing-20120128,0,4787585.story
Budget Cuts Threaten Parental Rights - New Hampshire
By Dan Gorenstein
Until last July, when the state charged low-income parents with abuse or neglect of their children, the state provided them with a lawyer.
But to help balance the budget, that funding was eliminated.
New Hampshire is believed to be the only state in the country that’s ever taken such a step.
The people charged with enforcing the new policy are worried that it doesn’t serve parents or their children very well.
When Governor John Lynch and his staff were preparing his budget proposal last year, the governor made a decision.
He recommended the state cut the money to pay lawyers to represent parents in abuse and neglect cases.
The savings...$1.2 million dollars a year.
And with the Legislature in a race to balance the budget, lawmakers quickly accepted that plan along with millions of dollars worth of other cuts proposed by the governor.
That decision by Governor Lynch - made in some meeting at the statehouse in early 2011- is now playing out in court rooms like this.
“So Mr. ____ one of the topics that we are going to go through today is making sure you have an understanding of what the potential consequences of this type of case are to your parental rights and responsibilities.”
We’re in a preliminary hearing with Judge Susan Ashley in the Rochester Family Division Courthouse.
We masked any names to protect the identity of the father and his child.
Speaking to the father, a man we’ll call ‘Donald,’ the judge stressed just what’s at stake.
“Ultimately if the court made a decision that your parental rights should be terminated, it would be at that point, you would no longer have any legal rights, duties, or obligations with regard to ____. Do you understand that’s a potential consequence to this type of a cases?”
After the hearing Donald says he completely gets there’s a chance he could lose his 4-year old forever.
But what he needs to do to prevent that, he not sure at all.
“It’s all happening it pretty quick. And I having a hard time kind of processing everything that’s going on and knowing what’s going to go on.”
This is not a case of abuse...it’s neglect.
The 34-year-old father explains he doesn’t have any place for his child to live right now.
So, she’s headed to foster care.
Donald cuts trees for a living.
He has a thick bush of black beard.
A tattoo stretches across his collarbone, an ink necklace.
“What’s the highest level of education you have...10thgrade...you dropped out...yes. I have dyslexia, I have a hard time reading and writing.”
How hard?
Donald’s fiancé Megan points to the an ‘Emergency Exit’ sign
Donald can’t read it.
Megan says her fiancé is counting on her to help him through this process....help him go through all the paperwork.
The 21-year-old says she’s out of her league.
“I can read what’s on the paper...but I can’t explain what it means in layman’s terms. Just b/c I can read it, doesn’t mean I get it. B/c half the time, I don’t.”
Judges and lawyers know the 900-some cases they’ll likely see this year will have parents who are unfit to represent themselves.
And they don’t like it...it doesn’t fit their idea of justice.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes. And it’s not fun. It doesn’t make me feel good about doing my job.”
Peter Brunette is an attorney for the state.
His job is to argue against the parents.
“Without a lawyer, there’s no way they can navigate this system to ensure that their rights are being adequately protected. That’s the problem we are all struggling with right now.”
Lawyers and judges are bending over backwards, taking extra time with these cases.
A routine 10 minute hearings 8 months ago, now can take an hour.
It’s because people like Judge Ashley try to explain things simply, and answer question after question.
But Ashley says that may not be enough.
“It concerns me there are too many parents feeling isolated against a group of people who appear to be expert in these types of cases, who parents see as ‘on the other side.’”
Essentially, parents have 12 months to shape up and address the source of the neglect.
Sometimes that’s counseling for substance abuse, or mental illness, or getting out of a violent relationship.
But without a lawyer to navigate the process, Ashley thinks parents are more likely to get overwhelmed and give up.
“Suddenly those 12 months have slipped away. And we find ourselves at a permanency hearing where the parent hasn’t done what they needed to do to correct the conditions of neglect. So I worry that there are parents who may face petitions to terminate their parental rights when they may have had the ability to fix the situation.”
University of Michigan Law Professor Vivek Sankaran worries the state may get exactly what it would normally try to avoid – a generation of kids who grow up without their parents.
Sankaran is a leading expert on child advocacy in the courts.
“It just flies in the face of everything we know about child welfare practice and policy and how to make good decisions. What makes what happens in New Hampshire so striking, is that over the past 30 years the practice of child welfare has become much more sophisticated...and then you get this, where we’ve just reverted back to where we were in the 1960’s or the 1950’s.”
“You do the best you can with budgets. And budgets is about setting priorities.”
That’s Governor Lynch.
Lynch says New Hampshire continues to fund lawyers for parents if the state files a termination of parental rights case.
That’s that step after parents were given the 12 months to correct their problems.
It’s widely believed that by the time the state files a termination of parental rights, it’s too late to reunite parent with child.
But the governor says he stands by his decision.
“A budget is about making tough choices. And that’s what we had to do with the budget we proposed.”
Donald and Megan feel they’re not going to get much sympathy from people like Governor Lynch and lawmakers in Concord.
“I think people just look at people who are losing their kids, people just look at them like they are scumbags....I don’t think people understand it ain’t always due to abuse or anything like that. Sometimes it’s over financial problems why they need help.”
“The people in Concord don’t care...They go home every night to their kids and wife and their husband and live the life that they want. But they have people like us sitting here, not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow. Ever. They don’t have that. I wish they would just live in people’s shoes who don’t have everything and that can’t figure it out as easily as they can.”
Lawyers representing parents are taking this to the state Supreme Court.
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of this budget cut are expected sometime this spring.
By the time the case is settled, the window for Donald to reunite with his 4-year-old could be closed.
Source http://www.nhpr.org/post/budget-cuts-threaten-parental-rights
Until last July, when the state charged low-income parents with abuse or neglect of their children, the state provided them with a lawyer.
But to help balance the budget, that funding was eliminated.
New Hampshire is believed to be the only state in the country that’s ever taken such a step.
The people charged with enforcing the new policy are worried that it doesn’t serve parents or their children very well.
When Governor John Lynch and his staff were preparing his budget proposal last year, the governor made a decision.
He recommended the state cut the money to pay lawyers to represent parents in abuse and neglect cases.
The savings...$1.2 million dollars a year.
And with the Legislature in a race to balance the budget, lawmakers quickly accepted that plan along with millions of dollars worth of other cuts proposed by the governor.
That decision by Governor Lynch - made in some meeting at the statehouse in early 2011- is now playing out in court rooms like this.
“So Mr. ____ one of the topics that we are going to go through today is making sure you have an understanding of what the potential consequences of this type of case are to your parental rights and responsibilities.”
We’re in a preliminary hearing with Judge Susan Ashley in the Rochester Family Division Courthouse.
We masked any names to protect the identity of the father and his child.
Speaking to the father, a man we’ll call ‘Donald,’ the judge stressed just what’s at stake.
“Ultimately if the court made a decision that your parental rights should be terminated, it would be at that point, you would no longer have any legal rights, duties, or obligations with regard to ____. Do you understand that’s a potential consequence to this type of a cases?”
After the hearing Donald says he completely gets there’s a chance he could lose his 4-year old forever.
But what he needs to do to prevent that, he not sure at all.
“It’s all happening it pretty quick. And I having a hard time kind of processing everything that’s going on and knowing what’s going to go on.”
This is not a case of abuse...it’s neglect.
The 34-year-old father explains he doesn’t have any place for his child to live right now.
So, she’s headed to foster care.
Donald cuts trees for a living.
He has a thick bush of black beard.
A tattoo stretches across his collarbone, an ink necklace.
“What’s the highest level of education you have...10thgrade...you dropped out...yes. I have dyslexia, I have a hard time reading and writing.”
How hard?
Donald’s fiancé Megan points to the an ‘Emergency Exit’ sign
Donald can’t read it.
Megan says her fiancé is counting on her to help him through this process....help him go through all the paperwork.
The 21-year-old says she’s out of her league.
“I can read what’s on the paper...but I can’t explain what it means in layman’s terms. Just b/c I can read it, doesn’t mean I get it. B/c half the time, I don’t.”
Judges and lawyers know the 900-some cases they’ll likely see this year will have parents who are unfit to represent themselves.
And they don’t like it...it doesn’t fit their idea of justice.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes. And it’s not fun. It doesn’t make me feel good about doing my job.”
Peter Brunette is an attorney for the state.
His job is to argue against the parents.
“Without a lawyer, there’s no way they can navigate this system to ensure that their rights are being adequately protected. That’s the problem we are all struggling with right now.”
Lawyers and judges are bending over backwards, taking extra time with these cases.
A routine 10 minute hearings 8 months ago, now can take an hour.
It’s because people like Judge Ashley try to explain things simply, and answer question after question.
But Ashley says that may not be enough.
“It concerns me there are too many parents feeling isolated against a group of people who appear to be expert in these types of cases, who parents see as ‘on the other side.’”
Essentially, parents have 12 months to shape up and address the source of the neglect.
Sometimes that’s counseling for substance abuse, or mental illness, or getting out of a violent relationship.
But without a lawyer to navigate the process, Ashley thinks parents are more likely to get overwhelmed and give up.
“Suddenly those 12 months have slipped away. And we find ourselves at a permanency hearing where the parent hasn’t done what they needed to do to correct the conditions of neglect. So I worry that there are parents who may face petitions to terminate their parental rights when they may have had the ability to fix the situation.”
University of Michigan Law Professor Vivek Sankaran worries the state may get exactly what it would normally try to avoid – a generation of kids who grow up without their parents.
Sankaran is a leading expert on child advocacy in the courts.
“It just flies in the face of everything we know about child welfare practice and policy and how to make good decisions. What makes what happens in New Hampshire so striking, is that over the past 30 years the practice of child welfare has become much more sophisticated...and then you get this, where we’ve just reverted back to where we were in the 1960’s or the 1950’s.”
“You do the best you can with budgets. And budgets is about setting priorities.”
That’s Governor Lynch.
Lynch says New Hampshire continues to fund lawyers for parents if the state files a termination of parental rights case.
That’s that step after parents were given the 12 months to correct their problems.
It’s widely believed that by the time the state files a termination of parental rights, it’s too late to reunite parent with child.
But the governor says he stands by his decision.
“A budget is about making tough choices. And that’s what we had to do with the budget we proposed.”
Donald and Megan feel they’re not going to get much sympathy from people like Governor Lynch and lawmakers in Concord.
“I think people just look at people who are losing their kids, people just look at them like they are scumbags....I don’t think people understand it ain’t always due to abuse or anything like that. Sometimes it’s over financial problems why they need help.”
“The people in Concord don’t care...They go home every night to their kids and wife and their husband and live the life that they want. But they have people like us sitting here, not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow. Ever. They don’t have that. I wish they would just live in people’s shoes who don’t have everything and that can’t figure it out as easily as they can.”
Lawyers representing parents are taking this to the state Supreme Court.
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of this budget cut are expected sometime this spring.
By the time the case is settled, the window for Donald to reunite with his 4-year-old could be closed.
Source http://www.nhpr.org/post/budget-cuts-threaten-parental-rights
WA to pay $2.35M in abuse case settlement
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state will pay $2.35 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a woman who alleged that two state agencies failed to protect her from a sex offender who abused her when she was a child.
The Pierce County Superior Court lawsuit alleged that a paroled child rapist named Danny Dorosky Sr. was allowed to live with the victim's family, despite a Parole Board order that required intensive management and supervision because of the prior sex crime.
One of the woman's lawyers, Jason Amala, said Dorosky ingratiated himself into the victim's family and eventually moved into the home, where he abused the girl for almost three years. She was 10 when the abuse started, Amala said.
The woman also contended that the Department of Social and Health Services' Child Protective Services failed to protect her after school officials in Shelton reported the girl might be a sexual abuse victim.
Corrections spokeswoman Selena Davis confirmed the settlement and its amount late Wednesday. She said she could not immediately comment on case details.
DSHS spokesman Thomas Shapley referred inquiries to a lawyer with the state attorney general's office who did not immediately return a call.
The woman's lawyers say the abuse began in 1990. After the victim's father contacted law enforcement about the man in 1993, Mason County officials eventually arrested Dorosky. He was convicted of child molestation and rape. He died in 2004, Amala said.
In a phone interview Wednesday with The Olympian, the now 31-year-old woman said she had buried her awareness of what had happened until recently, when her own daughter turned 10.
She said she looked up Dorosky's court records and eventually hired a lawyer.
She said "it makes me sick" that state employees could have prevented what had happened to her and didn't.
The plaintiff, a state employee, added that she would appreciate an apology from the state. Beyond that, she said she hopes her lawsuit will lead to policy changes that will prevent supervision failures.
Source http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/WA-to-pay-2-35M-in-abuse-case-settlement-2713424.php
The Pierce County Superior Court lawsuit alleged that a paroled child rapist named Danny Dorosky Sr. was allowed to live with the victim's family, despite a Parole Board order that required intensive management and supervision because of the prior sex crime.
One of the woman's lawyers, Jason Amala, said Dorosky ingratiated himself into the victim's family and eventually moved into the home, where he abused the girl for almost three years. She was 10 when the abuse started, Amala said.
The woman also contended that the Department of Social and Health Services' Child Protective Services failed to protect her after school officials in Shelton reported the girl might be a sexual abuse victim.
Corrections spokeswoman Selena Davis confirmed the settlement and its amount late Wednesday. She said she could not immediately comment on case details.
DSHS spokesman Thomas Shapley referred inquiries to a lawyer with the state attorney general's office who did not immediately return a call.
The woman's lawyers say the abuse began in 1990. After the victim's father contacted law enforcement about the man in 1993, Mason County officials eventually arrested Dorosky. He was convicted of child molestation and rape. He died in 2004, Amala said.
In a phone interview Wednesday with The Olympian, the now 31-year-old woman said she had buried her awareness of what had happened until recently, when her own daughter turned 10.
She said she looked up Dorosky's court records and eventually hired a lawyer.
She said "it makes me sick" that state employees could have prevented what had happened to her and didn't.
The plaintiff, a state employee, added that she would appreciate an apology from the state. Beyond that, she said she hopes her lawsuit will lead to policy changes that will prevent supervision failures.
Source http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/WA-to-pay-2-35M-in-abuse-case-settlement-2713424.php
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Detectives seek child abuse victims of former Lompoc-area soccer coach
Detectives are asking for the public's help in finding possible molestation victims of a man who coached youth soccer in the Lompoc area in the mid- to late 1980s, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department announced today.
The man, 52-year-old Terence Paul Stevens, is already facing multiple charges of child molestation.
During his coaching years, Stevens reportedly befriended several of his juvenile players, whom he ultimately molested, deputies said.
Two of those victims, who are now adults, have told investigators in recent months about their alleged victimization at the hands of Stevens when they were minors living in the Lompoc area.
By the mid 1990s, Stevens had moved to the San Diego area, where he continued coaching youth soccer. In 2008, Stevens was visiting Yuma, Ariz., when authorities there arrested him for sexual conduct with a minor. He has since been convicted of that crime and is serving a prison sentence in Arizona.
In August 2011, Stevens was extradited to Santa Barbara County to answer the local charges from the 1980s. Stevens is now facing 17 felony counts of lewd acts with a child; oral copulation of a minor and sodomy with a minor; all of which are related to the crimes committed against the two Lompoc-area victims.
Detectives are asking that anyone with information regarding additional victims call the Detective Bureau at 805-934-6170 or the sheriff's Anonymous Tip Line at 805-681-4171.
Source http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/detectives-seek-child-abuse-victims-of-former-lompoc-area-soccer/article_de28d196-45f4-11e1-b50f-001871e3ce6c.html
The man, 52-year-old Terence Paul Stevens, is already facing multiple charges of child molestation.
During his coaching years, Stevens reportedly befriended several of his juvenile players, whom he ultimately molested, deputies said.
Two of those victims, who are now adults, have told investigators in recent months about their alleged victimization at the hands of Stevens when they were minors living in the Lompoc area.
By the mid 1990s, Stevens had moved to the San Diego area, where he continued coaching youth soccer. In 2008, Stevens was visiting Yuma, Ariz., when authorities there arrested him for sexual conduct with a minor. He has since been convicted of that crime and is serving a prison sentence in Arizona.
In August 2011, Stevens was extradited to Santa Barbara County to answer the local charges from the 1980s. Stevens is now facing 17 felony counts of lewd acts with a child; oral copulation of a minor and sodomy with a minor; all of which are related to the crimes committed against the two Lompoc-area victims.
Detectives are asking that anyone with information regarding additional victims call the Detective Bureau at 805-934-6170 or the sheriff's Anonymous Tip Line at 805-681-4171.
Source http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/detectives-seek-child-abuse-victims-of-former-lompoc-area-soccer/article_de28d196-45f4-11e1-b50f-001871e3ce6c.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)