Texas Waiving a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights: State dislikes foster children being made aware, knowledge is power, and this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite...

Waiving a Bill of Rights, Dastardly
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm

http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=403

Both the House and the Senate got themselves tied up in some long, long
debates about two important issues, water and cancer, respectively. As
of this writing, SB 3, the water bill, has withstood roughly five dozen
proposed amendments (more on that from us later), while the Senate
approved a $3 billion investment in cancer research.

The Senate’s agreement, which will require voter approval even if it
passes the Lege, got pretty tedious, so we took advantage of the time to
dramatize our favorite exchange from Monday’s long day of activity. You
can watch it yourself; it begins at the 5:18:00 mark and takes a couple
minutes to really get going.

Scene: Floor of House of Representatives

Players: Rep. Michael Villarreal, D-San Antonio; Rep. Stephen Frost,
D-Atlanta; Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball

Rep. Villarreal strides to the mic, amendment in hand. He’s hoping to
attach a “Foster Children’s Bill of Rights” to a bill reforming CPS. The
bill’s author offers ominous procedural warnings that he believes the
bill of rights should be voted on separately from his dear reforms.
Villarreal forges ahead, saying the amendment establishes “A single
section where a foster child can turn to discover their protections.”
With a curious assist from the back mic, where Rep. Frost is playing
fullback to a lurking Rep. Riddle’s linebacker, the debate unfolds…

Frost: Does this amendment require foster parents to do anything that
they are not required to do under current law?

Villarreal: No, it does not.

Frost: Does it require a foster parent to provide an allowance to a child?

Villarreal: No it does not.

Frost: Does it require a foster parent to go out and buy anything for a
foster child that current law does not?

Villarreal: No.

The questions, a bit odd to the uninformed observers in the gallery,
wrap up. Riddle moves to the back mic, where she looks down the bridge
of her nose over a pair of gold-rimmed spectacles. She asks questions
calmly at first, as Villarreal seems to be all but urging her to get to
the inevitable point.

Riddle: There are things in here that I think would hurt the children of
Texas.

Villarreal (exasperated): Debbie, if you could tell me which protection
we shouldn’t afford foster children–

Riddle: It’s not a protection. This is called a bill of rights.

This statement perplexes the playwright.

Suddenly a great storm of words flow from the Reps at both mics,
crashing into each other, creating a din on the floor. It becomes
evident that Riddle dislikes foster children being made aware that
existing law forbids their parents from physically restraining them. Or
that it requires they be given “comparable” clothing to their peers,
among other alleged perks. Riddle knows that knowledge is power, and
this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite.

Riddle (holding up the amendment text): There’s no discipline here. A
foster parent is unable to discipline. Adequate food … uh, healthy food?
Does that mean you can’t go to McDonald’s? Comparable clothing of other
children in the community. What is that? Is that designer clothes or
pants where the crotch is below the knee? … On page 2, it says that a
child cannot be restrained. This means that you cannot put a child in
time-out. You cannot ground a child.

Villarreal: Let’s read the whole section.

Riddle: Are you aware that families have to have some kind of control
and discipline in their home?

Villarreal attempts to rein in the rising voice attacking his amendment
by reading the dry text of the section in question. It is a lost cause.
Riddle immediately launches into a hypothetical: A foster parent wishes
to discipline both his or her own child as well as the foster child…

Riddle: The parent decides to put their child in time-out. (She grows
angry.) They are not able to put the foster child in time-out.
(Angrier.) That is what this says. You will be creating CHAOS in the
homes of foster parents! You will be creating chaos … to the degree that
people will not want to be foster parents.

Villarreal is stunned.

Riddle (now referencing the bill again): A child cannot be physically
prevented from leaving. So you’ve got a teenager who’s a foster kid, who
says, “Screw you, I’m leaving,” and heads for the door. And you can’t
even take the child and say, “It’s dangerous. You can’t leave. I need
you to stay here at home, and let’s talk.” You can’t do that–

Villareal (so very, very tired): That’s not true.

Riddle: And so what you’re going to do is you’re going to arm a teenage
kid, coming into someone’s loving home, with their family, waiving their
bill of rights, saying, “You can’t restrain me! I can come as I want, I
can go as I want! You can’t punish me, you can’t ground me, and — by the
way — I want the designer clothes that all the kids at school have.”

Villareal: There is no reference to designer clothes–

Their voices rise again, crashing into each other. Suddenly there is calm.

Riddle: This is the worst bill (a gavel bangs) I have ever seen.

The droning voice from the chair interrupts: the “point of order is well
taken.” Her time is up.

Epilogue: This is hardly the first time Riddle’s gone on this rant. A
Statesman story from earlier this session recounts a similar exchange,
but also includes this bit at the end.

Austinite Tristan Whitfield, 19, who was in foster care from 1993
until last year, came to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to
support the proposal.

Whitfield said that it would have been helpful for him to know what
his rights were when he was placed in the homes of people he did not know.

He said that although it’s too late for him, a bill of rights could
help his younger brother, who is still in foster care.

For foster children, “there’s so much in CPS you have no clue
about,” Whitfield said, referring to Child Protective Services.






CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

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 THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:57:05 -0700, fx wrote:

Waiving a Bill of Rights, Dastardly

Dear me, fx, you seem to have things backward. At least according to
many posters here in the past, you under another nym, by the way.

You seem to think it is an intrusion into bio families for CPS to
inform children of their rights.

How is it you don't take offense at this attempt to inform children in
foster care of their rights?

By the way, stupid. Foster kids old enough, as are being discussed
below already know their rights.

How many teens don't know who to do a google search, stupid, on policy
and statute?

You are showing just how stupid you are.

0:]


yawn only 3 stupid's?, Come on!, you have to be able to do better
than that...


May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm

http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=403

Both the House and the Senate got themselves tied up in some long, long
debates about two important issues, water and cancer, respectively. As
of this writing, SB 3, the water bill, has withstood roughly five dozen
proposed amendments (more on that from us later), while the Senate
approved a $3 billion investment in cancer research.

The Senate’s agreement, which will require voter approval even if it
passes the Lege, got pretty tedious, so we took advantage of the time to
dramatize our favorite exchange from Monday’s long day of activity. You
can watch it yourself; it begins at the 5:18:00 mark and takes a couple
minutes to really get going.

Scene: Floor of House of Representatives

Players: Rep. Michael Villarreal, D-San Antonio; Rep. Stephen Frost,
D-Atlanta; Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball

Rep. Villarreal strides to the mic, amendment in hand. He’s hoping to
attach a “Foster Children’s Bill of Rights” to a bill reforming CPS. The
bill’s author offers ominous procedural warnings that he believes the
bill of rights should be voted on separately from his dear reforms.
Villarreal forges ahead, saying the amendment establishes “A single
section where a foster child can turn to discover their protections.”
With a curious assist from the back mic, where Rep. Frost is playing
fullback to a lurking Rep. Riddle’s linebacker, the debate unfolds…

Frost: Does this amendment require foster parents to do anything that
they are not required to do under current law?

Villarreal: No, it does not.

Frost: Does it require a foster parent to provide an allowance to a child?

Villarreal: No it does not.

Frost: Does it require a foster parent to go out and buy anything for a
foster child that current law does not?

Villarreal: No.

The questions, a bit odd to the uninformed observers in the gallery,
wrap up. Riddle moves to the back mic, where she looks down the bridge
of her nose over a pair of gold-rimmed spectacles. She asks questions
calmly at first, as Villarreal seems to be all but urging her to get to
the inevitable point.

Riddle: There are things in here that I think would hurt the children of
Texas.

Villarreal (exasperated): Debbie, if you could tell me which protection
we shouldn’t afford foster children–

Riddle: It’s not a protection. This is called a bill of rights.

This statement perplexes the playwright.

Suddenly a great storm of words flow from the Reps at both mics,
crashing into each other, creating a din on the floor. It becomes
evident that Riddle dislikes foster children being made aware that
existing law forbids their parents from physically restraining them. Or
that it requires they be given “comparable” clothing to their peers,
among other alleged perks. Riddle knows that knowledge is power, and
this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite.

Riddle (holding up the amendment text): There’s no discipline here. A
foster parent is unable to discipline. Adequate food … uh, healthy food?
Does that mean you can’t go to McDonald’s? Comparable clothing of other
children in the community. What is that? Is that designer clothes or
pants where the crotch is below the knee? … On page 2, it says that a
child cannot be restrained. This means that you cannot put a child in
time-out. You cannot ground a child.

Villarreal: Let’s read the whole section.

Riddle: Are you aware that families have to have some kind of control
and discipline in their home?

Villarreal attempts to rein in the rising voice attacking his amendment
by reading the dry text of the section in question. It is a lost cause.
Riddle immediately launches into a hypothetical: A foster parent wishes
to discipline both his or her own child as well as the foster child…

Riddle: The parent decides to put their child in time-out. (She grows
angry.) They are not able to put the foster child in time-out.
(Angrier.) That is what this says. You will be creating CHAOS in the
homes of foster parents! You will be creating chaos … to the degree that
people will not want to be foster parents.

Villarreal is stunned.

Riddle (now referencing the bill again): A child cannot be physically
prevented from leaving. So you’ve got a teenager who’s a foster kid, who
says, “Screw you, I’m leaving,” and heads for the door. And you can’t
even take the child and say, “It’s dangerous. You can’t leave. I need
you to stay here at home, and let’s talk.” You can’t do that–

Villareal (so very, very tired): That’s not true.

Riddle: And so what you’re going to do is you’re going to arm a teenage
kid, coming into someone’s loving home, with their family, waiving their
bill of rights, saying, “You can’t restrain me! I can come as I want, I
can go as I want! You can’t punish me, you can’t ground me, and — by the
way — I want the designer clothes that all the kids at school have.”

Villareal: There is no reference to designer clothes–

Their voices rise again, crashing into each other. Suddenly there is calm.

Riddle: This is the worst bill (a gavel bangs) I have ever seen.

The droning voice from the chair interrupts: the “point of order is well
taken.” Her time is up.

Epilogue: This is hardly the first time Riddle’s gone on this rant. A
Statesman story from earlier this session recounts a similar exchange,
but also includes this bit at the end.

Austinite Tristan Whitfield, 19, who was in foster care from 1993
until last year, came to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to
support the proposal.

Whitfield said that it would have been helpful for him to know what
his rights were when he was placed in the homes of people he did not know.

He said that although it’s too late for him, a bill of rights could
help his younger brother, who is still in foster care.

For foster children, “there’s so much in CPS you have no clue
about,” Whitfield said, referring to Child Protective Services.






CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

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 THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...