If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services[CPS]
Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS]
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=5126 Improving Proctection for Children Beyond CPS The most helpful proposal to improve protection for children—as distinct from the failed “child protective services” (CPS) system—is to encourage and support nurture and rearing of children within natural families in spirit and in deed. “A proper investigation from the beginning” applies infinitely more to actions and consequences of CPS investigations on behalf of under-age Americans than to the rightly criticized methods of Aruba, cruise lines and other nations fumbling to “find” young adult Americans missing beyond our borders. SWAP (Social Work Again Proposal) was presented officially on July 26, 1994 to the Health and Human Resources Subcommittee of then Gov. George Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee in Richmond, Virginia. It distills what can be done to replace what CPS has become: a parapolice arm of the prosecution. Results of its faltering focus—little interest in preserving natural family, the smallest but most vital building block of American society—were proved by Child and Family Service Reviews, failed by every state A crystallized version of SWAP follows: When families needing help do not ask, afraid it will hurt For children hurting in foster care whose cries are ignored Knowing not every child abuse report requires intervention A SOLUTION for elected representatives at all government levels 1. Return Social Services to traditional family-supportive practice. 2. Have trained law enforcement, using due process and standard rules of evidence, investigate. (No more 3rd party, financially- interested hearsay to justify family-injuring interventions.) 3. ONLY if a child has no natural extended family willing or able to provide temporary housing should courts separate families. Making “Paper Orphans” of children--especially babies marketable for adoption and post-adoption subsidies--is an unworthy contemporary American practice. It is enabled by federal and state legislation and funding. It encourages needless out of home and family placement. Taxpayers are defrauded and never harmed children are traumatized. Lady Justice is strangled as good people, entering social work with concern for children and families, learn to practice a parapolice type child saving that hurts children, families, taxpayers and justice. There is a simple and right way to solve problems created because an adoption agenda and funding opportunities overshadowed best practice, Constitutional, and moral treatment of children and families. There is a just and rational way to return both science and common sense to child abuse investigations of the presumptively worst “crimes” (if one has been committed wittingly and intentionally). SWAP is the answer. Barbara Bryan First proposed officially 7/26/94 in Virginia to HHR Subcommittee of Gov. Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee When there are reasons that a child cannot be reared in his or her home by one or both birth parents, and there are no relatives supported sufficiently (always less expensively than with strangers) to accept and keep the children close to grandparents and siblings, then open adoption should be the order of the day “in the best interests of” children already traumatized. If slowing the rampant removal and reallocation of children reported as abused or neglected cannot be achieved by restoring basic human and civil rights and Constitutional law to all dealings with America’s parents, those children purported to benefit from continued funding under PSSF reauthorization will thank those who let it die in 2006. More money for a program that has performed perversely for three decades for children and families is not a reasonable or fiscally sound solution. Counterproductive Services Through many years I brought documented misfortunes to the attention of the appointed State Board of Social Services in the Commonwealth of Virginia at its public meetings, wherever they were throughout the Commonwealth and always at my own expense. There were times, on behalf of beleaguered and broken-hearted officially injured families, when I described CPS as “counterproductive services” because it so often achieved the opposite effect assured under State law by its policies and regulations. That was because “practice” by agents with varying degrees of knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as mental health, often matched none of the above. Nevertheless, local agencies, the Central office of Department of Social Services, the Secretariat, “family” courts (most not courts of record) and up the ladder—and too well served by the Office of the Attorney General, both attorney for the errant agency as well as the Commonwealth’s top law enforcer)—backed the errors. The sad seal of approval for local, hands-on child protection was given to agencies acting helpfully or ignoring a child to known battering in DeShaney. Why? Most state laws, although legal because they are statutory, also are extraconstitutional and known to be so. Amending State Constitutions, as Virginia did, to claim “all laws are presumed to be constitutional” is no help to children and families literally dis-membered by agents of the state. The burden to overturn a CPS agency error, and with more difficulty an extra-constitutional State law, is on the injured and/or affected citizen, obligated to go childless (a presumptive perspective itself) to the US Supreme Court with private resources. That person has a minuscule chance of ever having such a case heard to upend decades of allowed and funded CPS practice. Anonymous Reporting Although the old “evil empire,” the USSR outlawed anonymous reports in 1984 because of their unreliability, the Act that launched CPS under CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) more than three decades ago required states to accept and act on anonymous reports and to maintain Central Registries of those reports of suspicions. Our nation has criticized Third World countries for similar practices in the “rule of suspect,” only in CPS cases we legally take and hold the children until “cooperation” or a confession is forthcoming. No one wearing a black robe or sitting on a bench anywhere, and certainly not the US Surpremes who have penned the bitter words of DeShaney, wants to open the lid on the Pandora’s box in which CPS buries its mistakes. With inferior resources to the purse and sword of the State, families often “give up” children, sometimes in exchange for promised health or mental health care, sometimes in the frequently vain hope they may be allowed to keep one or more of them, and sometimes only to learn per 1997 ASFA that subsequent newborns will be removed from the delivery room and handed over to pre-adoptive homes and there is financial incentive involved. What is the difference between a now denounced ill-conceived official policy of sterilization and constructive serial sterilization: taking away children, one by one, only after a mother has conceived, nurtured and given birth to them, if through actions of its CPS agents “the people” and agents and courts are wrong as too often occurs? Feigning concern for children and “family preservation” while giving equal and often greater weight to testimony of pre-adoptive foster parents, even in the cases of wrongful removals that will not be repaired if “Oh, well, the child has been there for 15 of the past 22 months so we HAVE to terminate your parental rights,” is a shell game practiced for decades and refined following ASFA Legal Child Trafficking Anywhere else on the planet that kind of trafficking in children would be decried. America made it legal, major media glorify it and promote the practice in subtle and blatant ways by extolling adoption minus particulars on the origins of infant availabilities as the smallest prizes. Far from telling the whole story of what CPS has been allowed to do, glory stories are played up and errors and horrors suggested as aberrations with proposed solutions of the usual mantra: “More money, more workers, more training.” Multiple Response Systems (MRS) or “differential response” is CPS hiding behind a happy face mask. There are times when parents, most familiar with their own children and more protective than transient child protectors working under state laws purposefully disconnected from either State or US Constitutional Law, should say “No, thank you” to “parenting classes” and other seeming “services” such as coerced anti-Fifth Amendment mental health evaluations. But, that makes them “uncooperative” re “participation in services” which “documents” a reason for proceeding with termination of parental rights. “Preservation,” sometimes redefined as finding or creating a “forever home” somewhere with somebody, is a word meaning one thing to a natural parent trying desperately to liberate a child from system overreach and something quite different to CPS and State agents computing how many more children must be “adopted out” to exceed last year’s quota to qualify for an agency federal bonus. Some tragic stories of agency-overloaded, if not we-just-can’t-say-no-to-the-child-and-the-check couples, also compute the fame (“Aren’t they the most amazing and good-hearted people.”) and gain. The work as well as the rewards go up in bottom line value if the child arrives with the right labels of “special needs” and “at risk,” near guaranteed labels for a “substantiated” abused or neglected child, accurate or not. Government has been scammed enough through the years by CPS agencies to have HHS/IG auditors who know the whole truth and, prayerfully, have tried to convey it to large-hearted and level headed members of Congress. Children and Taxpayers Cheated There was Contra Costa County’s refusal to proceed with adoptions, even ones that natural parents approved, because money for various services but unshared with those who actually cared for the children could be used otherwise by the agency. There was the interesting exposure in Texas: labeling children along CPS and education lines and billing for counseling done by a psychologist in a distant state who never had a clue. Double-dipping against the taxpayers was simple and this was not by a white collar criminal in the private domain. Taxpayers paid all. Children did NOT receive the benefits. Families were hurt. Agents of the state and monitors at federal levels danced with each other while Government supposedly watchdogs Government to explain the effectiveness and efficiency of spending federal appropriations FOR THE CHILDREN. When CFSR auditors were stiffed in their initial efforts to gain supporting documentation for spending claims from Virginia’s CPS and foster care (and just maybe the tiny “preservation services” lumped in under foster care and adoption), they went back and had essentially the same welcome and result. No one connected with CPS (“confidential” and presumed to be on the side of angels) expects to be bothered or ever really held accountable. After all, the nice judge nearly always accepts CPS recommendations (if he/she likes remaining on the bench) and a stroke of a judge’s pen immunizes all. Then there is that nice coverage from risk management and a taxpayer-provided lawyer in the form of an assistant DA, prosecutor, Commonwealth’s attorney. Why keep and show HHS/IG auditors annoying (and evidentiary) paperwork? Why honor requests from Congress to prove that anyone really protected children or “served” them and preserved families when one is covered every which way by courts, free lawyers and is assumed by the public to be in there fighting “for children?” Served or Severed? IF members of Congress learned the language of child protection agencies and apparent “child (as distinct from “family”) advocates, the ones shamelessly covered by “the United States,” six other states and others defending government error at all costs (i.e., protecting tax coffers from taxpayers who know preventable error when they see it), they would welcome DeShaney redux as an illumination from the highest bench of the Judicial branch. In that decision, a justice speaks for “poor Joshua,” noting that Child protective services, or CPS the agency, is the sole “support” and help for known injured children. When its agents are allowed to ignore a battered child to death—with the blessing of even the US Supremes—there are meanings shrouded in all the writings related to the quite often predictable travesty of a child death. Nothing truly “slipped through the cracks.” We hear post-homicide statements from NYC’s CPC agency Commissioner (must be translated by the aware) that “We have no reports” on Lisa Steinberg or Nadine Lockwood or Elisa Isquierda. The actual meaning, among other possibilities is: (a) we declined to accept reports (we are required to investigate), (b) we never wrote down details of the calls we were planning to ignore anyway or (c) maybe they were written down but we’ve shredded them. There must immediately be returned to the nation, through rational choices and educated awareness of its elected representatives, a presumption in favor of birth and natural family in all but true orphan status for babies and children. Newborns should not be whisked from delivery rooms because a 1997 federal law enables trafficking in tiny human flesh because a mother has “lost” prior children to the system. For all the families who’ve had children succumb serially to once-unidentified genetic disorders, for all who’ve seen children react to overloads of vaccines (5-9 shots at one time for many welfare or military children whose brains swell, retinal hemorrhages are caused and suddenly their parents are accused of becoming angry, violently shaking them, never mind the law of physics proves there MUST be accompanying severe neck injury), an official policy that creates trauma where often there provably was little or none prior to CPS “intervention,” MUST CEASE AND DESIST. So, someone goes to prison, a mother becomes childless, children are scattered from family and each other, and no one dares tell the whole story of overloads for some in situations, of too many shots at one time in relation to the current health status of a child, some of whom were preemies and given shots anyway by the “chronological” rather than gestational age. Capital Punishment Equivalent Mistakes are made. More child protection reports than anyone chooses to believe are not supportable IF those accused received the courtesies given serial killers under justice system options that include a death sentence. Attorneys who bravely try standing between the feelings of the lowest line CPS worker and a never-abusive but about-to-be fractured family in purposely extraconstitutional courts (see pre-1899 comments about the first juvenile courts) correctly equate turning a family’s child into a “legal stranger” by a judge’s pen the civil (or supremely Uncivil) parallel of capital punishment under criminal justice. But, aren’t child abusers even WORSE than murderers? So why are not they—and alleged “evidence,” too often state-purchased hearsay—under the most carefully scrutinized rules of solid evidence? Instead families have a choice: simply give up children—or watch them taken anyway under color of law—and maybe you get to live. What is life without the children that parents wanted, loved and for whom strong advocacy may have meant unwarily “starting something”? That “something” may have been annoying a doctor, an educator, a professional with too many questions, quoting law or policy, or offering or challenging an opinion that did not match the child or what the parent knew of the child. For busy and annoyed and sometimes arrogant professionals a call to CPS to report “suspicions” has proved to be an almost guaranteed diversion and assurance any threats or costly or bothersome advocacy for a child will stop (“under color of law”). Never mind the child, truly “in need of services,” is now subject to removal by CPS and near instant pre-adoptive placement? Who cares that adopters will likely have to promise not to pursue similar advocacy, even after they learn what the parent/s always knew: the child needed help and parents went to the agency that promised it. Just as with Congressional interest in improving foster care, one can aim at “improv(ing) child protective services,” as one can attempt to reform or improve Frankenstein. The end result remains: a monster. Barbara Bryan BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEIR "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS]
....ah whatever would we do without the dim but vocal ranters.
Let's take just one of these bogus claims...."life insurance for foster children." The assumption would be that all children in foster care would be covered....but there's an odd little kink the poster seems to have not noticed. See "**" : http://www.opm.gov/insure/life/65-64529.txt [[[ See my end piece after this insert ]]] Sec. 870.306 Are foster children eligible as family members under my Option C coverage? (a) Effective October 30, 1998, foster children are eligible for coverage as family members under Option C. (b) To qualify for coverage as a foster child, the child must meet the following requirements: (1) The child must live with you; (2) The parent-child relationship (as defined in Sec. 870.101) must be with you, not the biological parent; (3) You must be the primary source of financial support for the child; and (4) You must expect to raise the child to adulthood. (c) A child does not qualify as a foster child if: ** (1) A welfare or social service agency places the child in your home; and ** (2) There is an agreement by which the agency retains control of the child or pays you for maintenance. (d)(1) If you want to cover a foster child, you must sign a certification stating that the child meets all the requirements. The certification must also state that you will notify your employing office if one of these situations happens: (i) The child marries; (ii) The child moves out of your home; or (iii) The child stops being financially dependent on you. (2) Your employing office must keep the signed certification in your file, along with other life insurance forms. (e) If your foster child moves out of your home to live with a biological parent, the child loses eligibility. The child cannot again be covered as a foster child unless: (1) The biological parent dies; (2) The biological parent is imprisoned; (3) The biological parent becomes unable to care for the child due to a disability; or (4) You get a court order taking parental responsibility away from the biological parent. Why did I notice this, in particular? Some of you may recall I've said there that for about 14 years I helped RELATIVE foster families involved with CPS. In that time I met a number of folks that were NOT fostering children placed by CPS. CPS was simply the expediter FOR the relatives, and had NOT placed the child with them. The child's own parents had in an inter family agreement. In some instance people were fostering someone's child that was NOT related by blood, but by marriage only. That is all the COVERAGE is about. NO life insurance policies are taken out with CPS as beneficiaries. And if a family has sole financial responsibility for a child, as often the case in private arrangements, then they should be able to treat the child just as the rest of the children in their household. NOTHING to do with the state, just insurance coverage FOR POSTAL AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. In other words, just folks, not FOSTER FAMILIES CERTIFIED AND SUPERVISED BY CPS: "[Federal Register: October 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 209)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 64529-64553] [[Page 64529]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part IV Office of Personnel Management ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 CFR Part 870 Federal Employees' Group Life Program: Miscellaneous Changes and Clarifications and Plain Language Rewrite; Proposed Rule [[Page 64530]] ............................. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Can't help but wonder what else fx is shooting out his ass. Amazing what shows up here in socks. This one kind of reminds of one from the past....R R R R R 0;] On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:00:37 -0700, fx wrote: Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=5126 Improving Proctection for Children Beyond CPS The most helpful proposal to improve protection for children—as distinct from the failed “child protective services” (CPS) system—is to encourage and support nurture and rearing of children within natural families in spirit and in deed. “A proper investigation from the beginning” applies infinitely more to actions and consequences of CPS investigations on behalf of under-age Americans than to the rightly criticized methods of Aruba, cruise lines and other nations fumbling to “find” young adult Americans missing beyond our borders. SWAP (Social Work Again Proposal) was presented officially on July 26, 1994 to the Health and Human Resources Subcommittee of then Gov. George Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee in Richmond, Virginia. It distills what can be done to replace what CPS has become: a parapolice arm of the prosecution. Results of its faltering focus—little interest in preserving natural family, the smallest but most vital building block of American society—were proved by Child and Family Service Reviews, failed by every state A crystallized version of SWAP follows: When families needing help do not ask, afraid it will hurt For children hurting in foster care whose cries are ignored Knowing not every child abuse report requires intervention A SOLUTION for elected representatives at all government levels 1. Return Social Services to traditional family-supportive practice. 2. Have trained law enforcement, using due process and standard rules of evidence, investigate. (No more 3rd party, financially- interested hearsay to justify family-injuring interventions.) 3. ONLY if a child has no natural extended family willing or able to provide temporary housing should courts separate families. Making “Paper Orphans” of children--especially babies marketable for adoption and post-adoption subsidies--is an unworthy contemporary American practice. It is enabled by federal and state legislation and funding. It encourages needless out of home and family placement. Taxpayers are defrauded and never harmed children are traumatized. Lady Justice is strangled as good people, entering social work with concern for children and families, learn to practice a parapolice type child saving that hurts children, families, taxpayers and justice. There is a simple and right way to solve problems created because an adoption agenda and funding opportunities overshadowed best practice, Constitutional, and moral treatment of children and families. There is a just and rational way to return both science and common sense to child abuse investigations of the presumptively worst “crimes” (if one has been committed wittingly and intentionally). SWAP is the answer. Barbara Bryan First proposed officially 7/26/94 in Virginia to HHR Subcommittee of Gov. Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee When there are reasons that a child cannot be reared in his or her home by one or both birth parents, and there are no relatives supported sufficiently (always less expensively than with strangers) to accept and keep the children close to grandparents and siblings, then open adoption should be the order of the day “in the best interests of” children already traumatized. If slowing the rampant removal and reallocation of children reported as abused or neglected cannot be achieved by restoring basic human and civil rights and Constitutional law to all dealings with America’s parents, those children purported to benefit from continued funding under PSSF reauthorization will thank those who let it die in 2006. More money for a program that has performed perversely for three decades for children and families is not a reasonable or fiscally sound solution. Counterproductive Services Through many years I brought documented misfortunes to the attention of the appointed State Board of Social Services in the Commonwealth of Virginia at its public meetings, wherever they were throughout the Commonwealth and always at my own expense. There were times, on behalf of beleaguered and broken-hearted officially injured families, when I described CPS as “counterproductive services” because it so often achieved the opposite effect assured under State law by its policies and regulations. That was because “practice” by agents with varying degrees of knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as mental health, often matched none of the above. Nevertheless, local agencies, the Central office of Department of Social Services, the Secretariat, “family” courts (most not courts of record) and up the ladder—and too well served by the Office of the Attorney General, both attorney for the errant agency as well as the Commonwealth’s top law enforcer)—backed the errors. The sad seal of approval for local, hands-on child protection was given to agencies acting helpfully or ignoring a child to known battering in DeShaney. Why? Most state laws, although legal because they are statutory, also are extraconstitutional and known to be so. Amending State Constitutions, as Virginia did, to claim “all laws are presumed to be constitutional” is no help to children and families literally dis-membered by agents of the state. The burden to overturn a CPS agency error, and with more difficulty an extra-constitutional State law, is on the injured and/or affected citizen, obligated to go childless (a presumptive perspective itself) to the US Supreme Court with private resources. That person has a minuscule chance of ever having such a case heard to upend decades of allowed and funded CPS practice. Anonymous Reporting Although the old “evil empire,” the USSR outlawed anonymous reports in 1984 because of their unreliability, the Act that launched CPS under CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) more than three decades ago required states to accept and act on anonymous reports and to maintain Central Registries of those reports of suspicions. Our nation has criticized Third World countries for similar practices in the “rule of suspect,” only in CPS cases we legally take and hold the children until “cooperation” or a confession is forthcoming. No one wearing a black robe or sitting on a bench anywhere, and certainly not the US Surpremes who have penned the bitter words of DeShaney, wants to open the lid on the Pandora’s box in which CPS buries its mistakes. With inferior resources to the purse and sword of the State, families often “give up” children, sometimes in exchange for promised health or mental health care, sometimes in the frequently vain hope they may be allowed to keep one or more of them, and sometimes only to learn per 1997 ASFA that subsequent newborns will be removed from the delivery room and handed over to pre-adoptive homes and there is financial incentive involved. What is the difference between a now denounced ill-conceived official policy of sterilization and constructive serial sterilization: taking away children, one by one, only after a mother has conceived, nurtured and given birth to them, if through actions of its CPS agents “the people” and agents and courts are wrong as too often occurs? Feigning concern for children and “family preservation” while giving equal and often greater weight to testimony of pre-adoptive foster parents, even in the cases of wrongful removals that will not be repaired if “Oh, well, the child has been there for 15 of the past 22 months so we HAVE to terminate your parental rights,” is a shell game practiced for decades and refined following ASFA Legal Child Trafficking Anywhere else on the planet that kind of trafficking in children would be decried. America made it legal, major media glorify it and promote the practice in subtle and blatant ways by extolling adoption minus particulars on the origins of infant availabilities as the smallest prizes. Far from telling the whole story of what CPS has been allowed to do, glory stories are played up and errors and horrors suggested as aberrations with proposed solutions of the usual mantra: “More money, more workers, more training.” Multiple Response Systems (MRS) or “differential response” is CPS hiding behind a happy face mask. There are times when parents, most familiar with their own children and more protective than transient child protectors working under state laws purposefully disconnected from either State or US Constitutional Law, should say “No, thank you” to “parenting classes” and other seeming “services” such as coerced anti-Fifth Amendment mental health evaluations. But, that makes them “uncooperative” re “participation in services” which “documents” a reason for proceeding with termination of parental rights. “Preservation,” sometimes redefined as finding or creating a “forever home” somewhere with somebody, is a word meaning one thing to a natural parent trying desperately to liberate a child from system overreach and something quite different to CPS and State agents computing how many more children must be “adopted out” to exceed last year’s quota to qualify for an agency federal bonus. Some tragic stories of agency-overloaded, if not we-just-can’t-say-no-to-the-child-and-the-check couples, also compute the fame (“Aren’t they the most amazing and good-hearted people.”) and gain. The work as well as the rewards go up in bottom line value if the child arrives with the right labels of “special needs” and “at risk,” near guaranteed labels for a “substantiated” abused or neglected child, accurate or not. Government has been scammed enough through the years by CPS agencies to have HHS/IG auditors who know the whole truth and, prayerfully, have tried to convey it to large-hearted and level headed members of Congress. Children and Taxpayers Cheated There was Contra Costa County’s refusal to proceed with adoptions, even ones that natural parents approved, because money for various services but unshared with those who actually cared for the children could be used otherwise by the agency. There was the interesting exposure in Texas: labeling children along CPS and education lines and billing for counseling done by a psychologist in a distant state who never had a clue. Double-dipping against the taxpayers was simple and this was not by a white collar criminal in the private domain. Taxpayers paid all. Children did NOT receive the benefits. Families were hurt. Agents of the state and monitors at federal levels danced with each other while Government supposedly watchdogs Government to explain the effectiveness and efficiency of spending federal appropriations FOR THE CHILDREN. When CFSR auditors were stiffed in their initial efforts to gain supporting documentation for spending claims from Virginia’s CPS and foster care (and just maybe the tiny “preservation services” lumped in under foster care and adoption), they went back and had essentially the same welcome and result. No one connected with CPS (“confidential” and presumed to be on the side of angels) expects to be bothered or ever really held accountable. After all, the nice judge nearly always accepts CPS recommendations (if he/she likes remaining on the bench) and a stroke of a judge’s pen immunizes all. Then there is that nice coverage from risk management and a taxpayer-provided lawyer in the form of an assistant DA, prosecutor, Commonwealth’s attorney. Why keep and show HHS/IG auditors annoying (and evidentiary) paperwork? Why honor requests from Congress to prove that anyone really protected children or “served” them and preserved families when one is covered every which way by courts, free lawyers and is assumed by the public to be in there fighting “for children?” Served or Severed? IF members of Congress learned the language of child protection agencies and apparent “child (as distinct from “family”) advocates, the ones shamelessly covered by “the United States,” six other states and others defending government error at all costs (i.e., protecting tax coffers from taxpayers who know preventable error when they see it), they would welcome DeShaney redux as an illumination from the highest bench of the Judicial branch. In that decision, a justice speaks for “poor Joshua,” noting that Child protective services, or CPS the agency, is the sole “support” and help for known injured children. When its agents are allowed to ignore a battered child to death—with the blessing of even the US Supremes—there are meanings shrouded in all the writings related to the quite often predictable travesty of a child death. Nothing truly “slipped through the cracks.” We hear post-homicide statements from NYC’s CPC agency Commissioner (must be translated by the aware) that “We have no reports” on Lisa Steinberg or Nadine Lockwood or Elisa Isquierda. The actual meaning, among other possibilities is: (a) we declined to accept reports (we are required to investigate), (b) we never wrote down details of the calls we were planning to ignore anyway or (c) maybe they were written down but we’ve shredded them. There must immediately be returned to the nation, through rational choices and educated awareness of its elected representatives, a presumption in favor of birth and natural family in all but true orphan status for babies and children. Newborns should not be whisked from delivery rooms because a 1997 federal law enables trafficking in tiny human flesh because a mother has “lost” prior children to the system. For all the families who’ve had children succumb serially to once-unidentified genetic disorders, for all who’ve seen children react to overloads of vaccines (5-9 shots at one time for many welfare or military children whose brains swell, retinal hemorrhages are caused and suddenly their parents are accused of becoming angry, violently shaking them, never mind the law of physics proves there MUST be accompanying severe neck injury), an official policy that creates trauma where often there provably was little or none prior to CPS “intervention,” MUST CEASE AND DESIST. So, someone goes to prison, a mother becomes childless, children are scattered from family and each other, and no one dares tell the whole story of overloads for some in situations, of too many shots at one time in relation to the current health status of a child, some of whom were preemies and given shots anyway by the “chronological” rather than gestational age. Capital Punishment Equivalent Mistakes are made. More child protection reports than anyone chooses to believe are not supportable IF those accused received the courtesies given serial killers under justice system options that include a death sentence. Attorneys who bravely try standing between the feelings of the lowest line CPS worker and a never-abusive but about-to-be fractured family in purposely extraconstitutional courts (see pre-1899 comments about the first juvenile courts) correctly equate turning a family’s child into a “legal stranger” by a judge’s pen the civil (or supremely Uncivil) parallel of capital punishment under criminal justice. But, aren’t child abusers even WORSE than murderers? So why are not they—and alleged “evidence,” too often state-purchased hearsay—under the most carefully scrutinized rules of solid evidence? Instead families have a choice: simply give up children—or watch them taken anyway under color of law—and maybe you get to live. What is life without the children that parents wanted, loved and for whom strong advocacy may have meant unwarily “starting something”? That “something” may have been annoying a doctor, an educator, a professional with too many questions, quoting law or policy, or offering or challenging an opinion that did not match the child or what the parent knew of the child. For busy and annoyed and sometimes arrogant professionals a call to CPS to report “suspicions” has proved to be an almost guaranteed diversion and assurance any threats or costly or bothersome advocacy for a child will stop (“under color of law”). Never mind the child, truly “in need of services,” is now subject to removal by CPS and near instant pre-adoptive placement? Who cares that adopters will likely have to promise not to pursue similar advocacy, even after they learn what the parent/s always knew: the child needed help and parents went to the agency that promised it. Just as with Congressional interest in improving foster care, one can aim at “improv(ing) child protective services,” as one can attempt to reform or improve Frankenstein. The end result remains: a monster. Barbara Bryan BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEIR "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
child protective services overhaul.... | Greegor | Spanking | 2 | February 9th 07 03:49 AM |
child protective services overhaul.... | Greegor | Foster Parents | 3 | February 9th 07 03:49 AM |
Who Does 'Child Protective Services' Protect? | xXBlondieGyrlXx | Foster Parents | 2 | March 20th 05 01:25 PM |
NG alt support child protective services | Fern5827 | Spanking | 3 | September 21st 04 12:19 AM |
NG alt support child protective services | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | December 9th 03 03:50 PM |