A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Foster Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Addtl Congressional hearing to monitor $ to foster care & adoption



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 7th 03, 07:34 PM
Fern5827
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Addtl Congressional hearing to monitor $ to foster care & adoption

Expect tighter Federal regulations.

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov


  #2  
Old November 10th 03, 08:24 AM
Anthony Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I hope so, monetary gain is the sole reason why children are removed wrongfully from a lot of parents

Subj: Assault on American Civil Liberties growing at the expense of
our children...
Date: 11/9/03 10:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:


Mr Gore, please read this, as god is my witness I'm telling the truth
about this matter. From one vet to another whom I have much respect
for. Stealing children for federal money is the worst kind of abuse to
children, parents, and to our system that was designed to help
children that really needed it, not destroy families because of the
monetary incentive.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 10/29/03 5:20:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:





This is a letter that I have sent to attorneys, you get the idea. I'm
reporting CPS abuse. I'm not just whining and complaining. My
families constitutional rights were violated as well as my family was
destroyed before my eyes. I am retaining an attorney next week. I
will be filing a Federal suit. My attorney feels my case is very
valuable and has merit as he has experience in suing in these
proceedings.


I have complained to the local social services office and was ignored.
They are all covering up for each other and refused to correct the
situation. They purposely did not include documents that were
favorable to me that would have cleared up my situation after they
seized my kids because they knew they screwed up when they yanked my
kids out of their schools. I have never been accused of any sort of
physical injuries to my children and there was never any evidence that
my children were ever neglected. In fact I volunteered at my childrens
schools. I had even gone to the local omsbudsmens office and her hands
are tied.

CPS seized my children from school,no warrant,court order,imminent
danger of any physical harm, what danger would they be in while
attending school? I'm a disabled vet getting 1300 a month
disability.My constitutional rights have been violated I have no
doubt. My case mirrors WALLIS VS. SPENCER in the 9th circuit Ca. I
have a 3 year restaining order preventing me from any sort of contact
with my children, for what I do not know? This is severing the family
bond and relationship I have enjoyed. I had full sole legal custody of
my children who were 7 and 4 at the time of the removal.My son was
attending head start which is state funded and the teachers are
mandated reporters who reported nothing. I have never been found
guilty of hurting my children in any physical manner in the past.I
have raised my children since birth. I cannot use dependency legal
services to represent me as they will not appeal anything. Read this
article which the owner gary proctor says just this. Here is a small
portion of the injustice I have already endured! Please help.

Below is an e-mail to the presiding judge in which I detail the
incompetent counsel, the CPS abuse etc... and yet I get not one
response to any of my many e-mails that I have sent him concerning
this most important matter. (Children)

Get a lot of complaints that the social workers lie or twist the
truth?
Gee...I wonder why...They can write whatever they want in those
reports
that you the judges look at and no one contests them. Waive. Waive.
Waive.
That is not Justice your Honor. That is wrong. Ethically and morally
wrong. Do you get why parents would get angry when you have no
representation? Ask any of them that have legal dependency or
ADA...Why
are there more parents with no money stuck in your system?
Waive...Waive...Waive...

Here's some advice (ask other parents who have ADA or DLS)....Two
minutes
before your first hearing after your children have been ripped out of
your
home you are advised by your "competent" attorney's assistant who is
working in your "best interest" tells you to waive all of your rights.
"You'll never win. If you want your kids back, just waive. And if
they
ask you about any medications that you are on just don't say anything.
I
understand that you were just released from the hospital and you're
taking
vicodin, but don't say anything. It will just hold things up.
(Although
you tell the attorney's assistant what is in the report is not true
they
tell you don't fight, you can't win.) Really? What they really should
have
told me is, that they can't win because they don't have time to fight
for
anyone. They are so overloaded with cases that they can't even return
a
phone call for two months. It's all about the money isn't it? It's not
for
the protection of the children. The system is abusing the parents and
children. All it would have taken was the police report showing that I
was
the victim of a violent crime and had my back fractured. I was put on
Demerol in the hospital and yes it made me loopy. It was not true what
the
social workers had written, that I was hospitalized for having
delusions
that gang members were after me and for back pains. Nice twist social
workers to justify why they had no warrant, no court order, no
interview
with me or anyone else. Just an allegation made by my sister in law
who
was angry with me because my brother had sex with a girlfriend I had.
They said that the police were concerned. The only police concern was
that
they asked the police to accompany them to remove my children from
their
schools. Really...where was the imminent danger of great bodily
injury?
Thanks to my DLS lawyer who never informed me that once we waived my
rights, although something that wasn't true was now true and forever
true.
I tried calling repeatedly and I wanted to appeal. I finally found out
my
public "defender" no longer worked there and by that time it was too
late
to appeal.

Then the social workers painted me violent. I "threatened" them and
frightened the entire office. What does that sound like? Does it sound
anything close to the truth? I threatened to sue them. That is all.
Wouldn't they have slapped a restraining order on me if I threatened
them
with anything else?

In a review hearing that they held a restraining order was thrown in.
Here's how the "hearing" went. First there was nothing filed as to why
they were filling a restraining order. I wasn't given notice nor shown
any
paperwork concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz just asked me
if I
minded. I said, I dunno. (As my public "defender" is telling me to say
no
you don't mind)I guess not. There was something said that I was a
flight
risk, because I moved from Oregon to California with my children. I
had
sole legal and physical custody of my children which of course my
divorce
paperwork was never presented by my attorney or by my social worker
who
had the information. They said my ex-wife said I ran off with our
children. I thought they were restraining me from taking my children
out
of California. Not some three year full blown ridiculous restraining
order
to keep me away from my babies. Is this justice? (I have never been
found
to abuse my children. I also went through a battery of psych exams
which I
never should have had to have done. They showed I wasn't delusional.
Something so simple turned into something ridiculous. Have you ever
been
on Demerol?

We wouldn't be having this problem if I had been properly defended. We
wouldn't have this problem if the social workers knew that they
couldn't
just make stuff up. It's true that they do that. They're out of
control
because there's no one to keep them in check. I wouldn't be writing
you if
things were just.

I understand that you must have a lot of angry people out there. But
please, look into this matter no just for me, but for the other
parents.
If I would have known what I know now and what I didn't know then, I
think
the outcome of this situation would have been 100% different.

What if they had written that I was a heroin addict (which I'm not)? I
would have then been considered a heroin addict because I was advised
to
waive my rights.


Even after I hired Mr.Guerin Provini, it was too late. He could tell
by
then that the social workers hated me. He knew I was being railroaded.
We
tried to present new and material evidence such as the police report
showing I was a victim of a violent crime which Commissioner Schwartz
refused which denied me due process. (Which the social workers had but
would never present evidence that was favorable to me, which is
wrong.)Knowing that I was going to lose, I tried to fire my attorney
because I couldn't afford him any longer. Commissioner Schwartz made
him
proceed in my behalf. I had hoped that she would stand by her word in
the
beginning of the trial, that she would make sure there was a
visitation
order. But I guess I was punished for not showing up. I just couldn't
take
the humiliation anymore. I had been beaten down.

The only excuse that I can understand as to why things are so wrong is
because of money.

I'm sure there are other families, father's, mother's that have been
railroaded also. This needs to be investigated. Why do you think the
social workers never give you their reports in advance? So you can't
defend yourself and the public defenders won't stick up for you or
fight
for you.

Thank you for your compassion and justice.



Subj: here is the article...nothing has changed
Date: 9/17/03 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:












PARENTS LACK SAVVY LAWYERS DEPENDENCY COURT: THOSE TRYING TO REGAIN
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OFTEN ARE REPRESENTED BY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS.
December 5, 1999
Section: Local
Edition: Morning Final
Page: 1B
HOWARD MINTZ, Mercury News Staff Writer
Memo: RELATED STORY: page 6B

Illustration: Photos (2), Chart

Caption: PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Santa Ana lawyer Gary Proctor, above,
secured a contract to provide legal representa-tion to
parents trying to regain custody of their children in Santa Clara
County.

PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Left, Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards says Proctor's project is
doing
a good job with limited resources.


On most mornings, the three waiting rooms in Santa Clara County's
juvenile dependency court are a jumble of activity. Social workers
huddle
with families. Mothers and fathers, accused of neglect or abuse and
facing
the prospect of losing their children, sit and listen. Some bury their
heads in their hands. Others, like one mother who keeps jabbing a
finger
at her case file, become animated and angry.

It is usually in one of these drab waiting rooms, or in the hallways
outside court, that the mothers and fathers first meet their lawyers.
Parents thrust into the child welfare system, most of them poor and
unfamiliar with the legal terrain, might then get a few minutes to
tell
their story before they find themselves in front of a judge.

To juvenile law experts, this fleeting encounter between parents and
their court-appointed lawyers illustrates a serious problem provoking
debate in Santa Clara County and across California. Critics say
overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced lawyers are
shortchanging
parents in a near-invisible but crucial corner of the justice system.

''The memory for me will always be that we weren't represented in a
way we should have been,'' said a Campbell mother who has been
fighting
since early 1998 to get her four children back, and who spoke on
condition
of anonymity. ''I've had three different attorneys who come in and
don't
know anything about your case, and then tell you they can't do much.
It's
scary.''

The account is all too common in the secret world of child dependency
law, according to experts. Whether it is Silicon Valley or the Central
Valley, in today's legal system a lawyer is likely to spend more time
with
a client involved in a lawsuit over an auto accident than with a
parent
who might be forced by the state to surrender a child.

''It's safe to say that too often, the very worst representation in
juvenile court is the representation provided to parents,'' said
Howard
Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on
Children
and the Law. ''That's an issue that has to be addressed.''

Legal representation for parents -- many of them accused of the type
of neglect society despises most -- has taken on unprecedented
importance
in recent years as a result of tough new child welfare laws.

Private program
Debate flares over
hiring of law firm

Concerns about such representation have percolated to the surface in
Santa Clara County, where the local judges this fall renewed a
contract
for acontroversial, for-profit Santa Ana-based outfit hired three
years
ago to handle the task.

To its supporters, including Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards,
perhaps California's leading expert on juvenile law, Santa Clara
Juvenile
Defenders is a successful, cutting-edge experiment that is doing a
good
job with limited resources. Juvenile Defenders handles about 2,500
cases a
year with 14 attorneys who are working in a tense legal environment
many
lawyers shun.

''Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised by what we've seen,''
Edwards said. ''It's clear to me that (the dependency firm) has
delivered
legal services better than any entity we've had in this county.''

But to its critics, the experiment has failed hundreds of parents
filtering through the system each year.

It is difficult to evaluate individual cases because of strict
confidentiality laws governing dependency proceedings. Attorneys are
reluctant to speak on the record because of those laws, as are parents
who
fear they will jeopardize their cases. But there are widespread
reports of
frazzled, ill-prepared lawyers who don't have the resources or
training
they need to protect their clients' rights.

Complaints range from failing to challenge the findings of social
workers to declining to appeal cases. And some of these reports are
from
lawyers who once worked for the dependency firm, which has been
plagued by
high turnover.

Five former members of the office interviewed for this article
described frustration with the operation and admitted that they could
have
done more for their clients.

''We had so many clients at one time that I didn't know my clients'
names until I'd look in the file just before court,'' said Elisabeth
Hansen, who worked for Juvenile Defenders in 1997, shortly after law
school. ''I didn't feel they were getting the representation they
deserved.''

Added another recently departed lawyer: ''(The) way dependency legal
services is set up, no one is keeping the system honest.''

The new federal and state child-welfare laws make it is easier than
ever for agencies to take a child away from parents in cases involving
allegations of abuse and neglect. Parents who choose to fight for
their
rights now face an uphill climb, and experts say they need good
lawyers to
protect them in court.

It is against this backdrop that the debate over legal services is
taking place. If nothing else, experts say, these parents -- most of
whom
don't have the means to hire a lawyer on their own -- need a savvy
legal
guide to walk them through the process. Although Santa Clara County's
dependency court as a whole is considered a model in the state, there
is
profound disagreement over one aspect: whether the lawyers most often
representing parents here are doing an adequate job.

The system changed in 1997, when the board of supervisors, on a 3-2
vote, approved a little-noticed $1.3 million contract for Juvenile
Defenders, a group headed by Gary Proctor, a prominent Santa Ana
lawyer.
The county, among other things, picked Proctor's group because it
would
save nearly $1 million a year.

The contract rankled local lawyers. For one thing, it involved
abandoning the old system of using the public defender's office and a
panel of local lawyers to represent parents. The small circle of
dependency lawyers in the county also viewed Proctor as a carpetbagger
who
would spend more time on his law practice in Santa Ana than in San
Jose.
And Proctor was chosen over local candidates, including the Legal Aid
Society.

''Any time you have an outsider coming in and displacing the local
(system), there is going to be anger and discontent,'' said Howard
Siegel,
a former chief of the public defender's dependency unit who was hired
by
Proctor to supervise one of his two offices. ''In this case, I'm
satisfied
most of the criticism is sour grapes.''



With Edwards' endorsement, the Superior Court in September decided to
renew Proctor's contract. The three-year deal is worth roughly $1.76
million per year, although it may be cut short if more state funding
does
not come through in 2000. Legal Aid left out
Lack of public debate
draws criticism

Critics say the Superior Court judges should have opened up the
matter for public debate before renewing Proctor's contract. Legal
Aid,
which now has the local contract to provide court-appointed lawyers in
criminal cases, wanted the dependency work, but didn't know about the
renewal until told by the Mercury News.

''We were interested in doing that work,'' said Susan Sutton,
president of Legal Aid's board of directors. ''I'm not sure we've got
the
circumstantial guarantee that (the current setup) is the best we can
do.''
Judge Edwards, asked about the bidding issue, replied: ''I think
(Legal
Aid) would be a good contract bidder next time. But we just decided to
go
ahead and roll it over this year.''

Sutton and other dependency experts say Proctor's office has cut too
many corners, leaving parents without recourse against the findings of
social workers.

Opposing lawyers also express concern that Proctor's staff, while
energetic and dedicated, often is overburdened and green. The county
counsel's office, which represents the social services department, and
the
district attorney's office, which represents children, both staff
dependency court with experienced lawyers who make substantially more
money than the attorneys appearing for parents. Starting salaries for
Proctor's lawyers are often $10,000 a year less than a starting salary
for
DAs or a county counsel.

Until recently, Proctor's office was staffed primarily with lawyers
fresh out of law school or with little legal experience. By
comparison,
other counties, such as San Mateo and San Francisco, have panels of
lawyers with years of experience in dependency court.

''The individual attorneys are very bright, very conscientious, but
they don't have the type of experience I think would make for better
representation,'' said Deputy District Attorney Penny Blake, who has
represented children in dependency matters for 11 years.

''There is a problem with a lack of visible advocacy,'' adds Michael
Kresser, director of a San Jose appellate project that inherits cases
from
Proctor's office and reviews their work. ''We see a lot of these cases
submitted . . . without any evidence or any argument in favor of the
client. They are not contesting anything.''

Admitting problems
More experienced lawyers added

Proctor concedes his original plan backfired. As a result, he has
gradually replaced rookies with more experienced lawyers, although
many of
them still have limited experience in dependency work.

''It didn't work out up here,'' Proctor said. ''This is a much more
adversarial, litigious courthouse than Orange County.''

Proctor and his supporters say he is getting a bum rap. In many
quarters he is considered an innovator in the world of dependency law.
He
has embraced a philosophy that judges such as Edwards and San Diego
Superior Court Judge James Milliken, another juvenile-law leader,
consider
groundbreaking.

Proctor maintains lawyers for parents should act as social workers to
help reunify families, many torn apart by drug addiction; he pushes
his
staff to abandon the confrontational approach used in other areas of
the
court system.

While critics say this approach leads to poor advocacy, Proctor
insists it benefits parents and their children if his lawyers can get
services for clients instead of spending their time fighting in court.

''There is no question in my mind that across the board (this
program) is providing a higher level of representation than the old
(panel
of attorneys),'' said Siegel. ''It is working as well as it possibly
can
with our budgetary restraints.''

For better or worse, Proctor's experiment in Santa Clara County may
not last much longer if those budgetary restraints don't loosen.
Sounding
frustrated, Proctor says the courts must find a way to provide better
funding for legal representation or he might pull out of the county
next
year, which the contract allows him to do.

''This isn't a cash cow,'' says Proctor. ''The court has got to do
everything it can to get the money from the state. If it doesn't
happen,
they may need to find a different way of doing business. It's not fair
to
our parents to be in a battleground where we're so outnumbered.''





(Fern5827) wrote in message ...
Expect tighter Federal regulations.

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov
  #3  
Old November 14th 03, 05:35 AM
Anthony Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I hope so, monetary gain is the sole reason why children are removed (I told you all 4 days ago)

(Anthony Smith) wrote in message . com...
Subj: Assault on American Civil Liberties growing at the expense of
our children...
Date: 11/9/03 10:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:



Mr Gore, please read this, as god is my witness I'm telling the truth
about this matter. From one vet to another whom I have much respect
for. Stealing children for federal money is the worst kind of abuse to
children, parents, and to our system that was designed to help
children that really needed it, not destroy families because of the
monetary incentive.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 10/29/03 5:20:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:





This is a letter that I have sent to attorneys, you get the idea. I'm
reporting CPS abuse. I'm not just whining and complaining. My
families constitutional rights were violated as well as my family was
destroyed before my eyes. I am retaining an attorney next week. I
will be filing a Federal suit. My attorney feels my case is very
valuable and has merit as he has experience in suing in these
proceedings.


I have complained to the local social services office and was ignored.
They are all covering up for each other and refused to correct the
situation. They purposely did not include documents that were
favorable to me that would have cleared up my situation after they
seized my kids because they knew they screwed up when they yanked my
kids out of their schools. I have never been accused of any sort of
physical injuries to my children and there was never any evidence that
my children were ever neglected. In fact I volunteered at my childrens
schools. I had even gone to the local omsbudsmens office and her hands
are tied.

CPS seized my children from school,no warrant,court order,imminent
danger of any physical harm, what danger would they be in while
attending school? I'm a disabled vet getting 1300 a month
disability.My constitutional rights have been violated I have no
doubt. My case mirrors WALLIS VS. SPENCER in the 9th circuit Ca. I
have a 3 year restaining order preventing me from any sort of contact
with my children, for what I do not know? This is severing the family
bond and relationship I have enjoyed. I had full sole legal custody of
my children who were 7 and 4 at the time of the removal.My son was
attending head start which is state funded and the teachers are
mandated reporters who reported nothing. I have never been found
guilty of hurting my children in any physical manner in the past.I
have raised my children since birth. I cannot use dependency legal
services to represent me as they will not appeal anything. Read this
article which the owner gary proctor says just this. Here is a small
portion of the injustice I have already endured! Please help.

Below is an e-mail to the presiding judge in which I detail the
incompetent counsel, the CPS abuse etc... and yet I get not one
response to any of my many e-mails that I have sent him concerning
this most important matter. (Children)

Get a lot of complaints that the social workers lie or twist the
truth?
Gee...I wonder why...They can write whatever they want in those
reports
that you the judges look at and no one contests them. Waive. Waive.
Waive.
That is not Justice your Honor. That is wrong. Ethically and morally
wrong. Do you get why parents would get angry when you have no
representation? Ask any of them that have legal dependency or
ADA...Why
are there more parents with no money stuck in your system?
Waive...Waive...Waive...

Here's some advice (ask other parents who have ADA or DLS)....Two
minutes
before your first hearing after your children have been ripped out of
your
home you are advised by your "competent" attorney's assistant who is
working in your "best interest" tells you to waive all of your rights.
"You'll never win. If you want your kids back, just waive. And if
they
ask you about any medications that you are on just don't say anything.
I
understand that you were just released from the hospital and you're
taking
vicodin, but don't say anything. It will just hold things up.
(Although
you tell the attorney's assistant what is in the report is not true
they
tell you don't fight, you can't win.) Really? What they really should
have
told me is, that they can't win because they don't have time to fight
for
anyone. They are so overloaded with cases that they can't even return
a
phone call for two months. It's all about the money isn't it? It's not
for
the protection of the children. The system is abusing the parents and
children. All it would have taken was the police report showing that I
was
the victim of a violent crime and had my back fractured. I was put on
Demerol in the hospital and yes it made me loopy. It was not true what
the
social workers had written, that I was hospitalized for having
delusions
that gang members were after me and for back pains. Nice twist social
workers to justify why they had no warrant, no court order, no
interview
with me or anyone else. Just an allegation made by my sister in law
who
was angry with me because my brother had sex with a girlfriend I had.
They said that the police were concerned. The only police concern was
that
they asked the police to accompany them to remove my children from
their
schools. Really...where was the imminent danger of great bodily
injury?
Thanks to my DLS lawyer who never informed me that once we waived my
rights, although something that wasn't true was now true and forever
true.
I tried calling repeatedly and I wanted to appeal. I finally found out
my
public "defender" no longer worked there and by that time it was too
late
to appeal.

Then the social workers painted me violent. I "threatened" them and
frightened the entire office. What does that sound like? Does it sound
anything close to the truth? I threatened to sue them. That is all.
Wouldn't they have slapped a restraining order on me if I threatened
them
with anything else?

In a review hearing that they held a restraining order was thrown in.
Here's how the "hearing" went. First there was nothing filed as to why
they were filling a restraining order. I wasn't given notice nor shown
any
paperwork concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz just asked me
if I
minded. I said, I dunno. (As my public "defender" is telling me to say
no
you don't mind)I guess not. There was something said that I was a
flight
risk, because I moved from Oregon to California with my children. I
had
sole legal and physical custody of my children which of course my
divorce
paperwork was never presented by my attorney or by my social worker
who
had the information. They said my ex-wife said I ran off with our
children. I thought they were restraining me from taking my children
out
of California. Not some three year full blown ridiculous restraining
order
to keep me away from my babies. Is this justice? (I have never been
found
to abuse my children. I also went through a battery of psych exams
which I
never should have had to have done. They showed I wasn't delusional.
Something so simple turned into something ridiculous. Have you ever
been
on Demerol?

We wouldn't be having this problem if I had been properly defended. We
wouldn't have this problem if the social workers knew that they
couldn't
just make stuff up. It's true that they do that. They're out of
control
because there's no one to keep them in check. I wouldn't be writing
you if
things were just.

I understand that you must have a lot of angry people out there. But
please, look into this matter no just for me, but for the other
parents.
If I would have known what I know now and what I didn't know then, I
think
the outcome of this situation would have been 100% different.

What if they had written that I was a heroin addict (which I'm not)? I
would have then been considered a heroin addict because I was advised
to
waive my rights.


Even after I hired Mr.Guerin Provini, it was too late. He could tell
by
then that the social workers hated me. He knew I was being railroaded.
We
tried to present new and material evidence such as the police report
showing I was a victim of a violent crime which Commissioner Schwartz
refused which denied me due process. (Which the social workers had but
would never present evidence that was favorable to me, which is
wrong.)Knowing that I was going to lose, I tried to fire my attorney
because I couldn't afford him any longer. Commissioner Schwartz made
him
proceed in my behalf. I had hoped that she would stand by her word in
the
beginning of the trial, that she would make sure there was a
visitation
order. But I guess I was punished for not showing up. I just couldn't
take
the humiliation anymore. I had been beaten down.

The only excuse that I can understand as to why things are so wrong is
because of money.

I'm sure there are other families, father's, mother's that have been
railroaded also. This needs to be investigated. Why do you think the
social workers never give you their reports in advance? So you can't
defend yourself and the public defenders won't stick up for you or
fight
for you.

Thank you for your compassion and justice.



Subj: here is the article...nothing has changed
Date: 9/17/03 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:












PARENTS LACK SAVVY LAWYERS DEPENDENCY COURT: THOSE TRYING TO REGAIN
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OFTEN ARE REPRESENTED BY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS.
December 5, 1999
Section: Local
Edition: Morning Final
Page: 1B
HOWARD MINTZ, Mercury News Staff Writer
Memo: RELATED STORY: page 6B

Illustration: Photos (2), Chart

Caption: PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Santa Ana lawyer Gary Proctor, above,
secured a contract to provide legal representa-tion to
parents trying to regain custody of their children in Santa Clara
County.

PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Left, Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards says Proctor's project is
doing
a good job with limited resources.


On most mornings, the three waiting rooms in Santa Clara County's
juvenile dependency court are a jumble of activity. Social workers
huddle
with families. Mothers and fathers, accused of neglect or abuse and
facing
the prospect of losing their children, sit and listen. Some bury their
heads in their hands. Others, like one mother who keeps jabbing a
finger
at her case file, become animated and angry.

It is usually in one of these drab waiting rooms, or in the hallways
outside court, that the mothers and fathers first meet their lawyers.
Parents thrust into the child welfare system, most of them poor and
unfamiliar with the legal terrain, might then get a few minutes to
tell
their story before they find themselves in front of a judge.

To juvenile law experts, this fleeting encounter between parents and
their court-appointed lawyers illustrates a serious problem provoking
debate in Santa Clara County and across California. Critics say
overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced lawyers are
shortchanging
parents in a near-invisible but crucial corner of the justice system.

''The memory for me will always be that we weren't represented in a
way we should have been,'' said a Campbell mother who has been
fighting
since early 1998 to get her four children back, and who spoke on
condition
of anonymity. ''I've had three different attorneys who come in and
don't
know anything about your case, and then tell you they can't do much.
It's
scary.''

The account is all too common in the secret world of child dependency
law, according to experts. Whether it is Silicon Valley or the Central
Valley, in today's legal system a lawyer is likely to spend more time
with
a client involved in a lawsuit over an auto accident than with a
parent
who might be forced by the state to surrender a child.

''It's safe to say that too often, the very worst representation in
juvenile court is the representation provided to parents,'' said
Howard
Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on
Children
and the Law. ''That's an issue that has to be addressed.''

Legal representation for parents -- many of them accused of the type
of neglect society despises most -- has taken on unprecedented
importance
in recent years as a result of tough new child welfare laws.

Private program
Debate flares over
hiring of law firm

Concerns about such representation have percolated to the surface in
Santa Clara County, where the local judges this fall renewed a
contract
for acontroversial, for-profit Santa Ana-based outfit hired three
years
ago to handle the task.

To its supporters, including Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards,
perhaps California's leading expert on juvenile law, Santa Clara
Juvenile
Defenders is a successful, cutting-edge experiment that is doing a
good
job with limited resources. Juvenile Defenders handles about 2,500
cases a
year with 14 attorneys who are working in a tense legal environment
many
lawyers shun.

''Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised by what we've seen,''
Edwards said. ''It's clear to me that (the dependency firm) has
delivered
legal services better than any entity we've had in this county.''

But to its critics, the experiment has failed hundreds of parents
filtering through the system each year.

It is difficult to evaluate individual cases because of strict
confidentiality laws governing dependency proceedings. Attorneys are
reluctant to speak on the record because of those laws, as are parents
who
fear they will jeopardize their cases. But there are widespread
reports of
frazzled, ill-prepared lawyers who don't have the resources or
training
they need to protect their clients' rights.

Complaints range from failing to challenge the findings of social
workers to declining to appeal cases. And some of these reports are
from
lawyers who once worked for the dependency firm, which has been
plagued by
high turnover.

Five former members of the office interviewed for this article
described frustration with the operation and admitted that they could
have
done more for their clients.

''We had so many clients at one time that I didn't know my clients'
names until I'd look in the file just before court,'' said Elisabeth
Hansen, who worked for Juvenile Defenders in 1997, shortly after law
school. ''I didn't feel they were getting the representation they
deserved.''

Added another recently departed lawyer: ''(The) way dependency legal
services is set up, no one is keeping the system honest.''

The new federal and state child-welfare laws make it is easier than
ever for agencies to take a child away from parents in cases involving
allegations of abuse and neglect. Parents who choose to fight for
their
rights now face an uphill climb, and experts say they need good
lawyers to
protect them in court.

It is against this backdrop that the debate over legal services is
taking place. If nothing else, experts say, these parents -- most of
whom
don't have the means to hire a lawyer on their own -- need a savvy
legal
guide to walk them through the process. Although Santa Clara County's
dependency court as a whole is considered a model in the state, there
is
profound disagreement over one aspect: whether the lawyers most often
representing parents here are doing an adequate job.

The system changed in 1997, when the board of supervisors, on a 3-2
vote, approved a little-noticed $1.3 million contract for Juvenile
Defenders, a group headed by Gary Proctor, a prominent Santa Ana
lawyer.
The county, among other things, picked Proctor's group because it
would
save nearly $1 million a year.

The contract rankled local lawyers. For one thing, it involved
abandoning the old system of using the public defender's office and a
panel of local lawyers to represent parents. The small circle of
dependency lawyers in the county also viewed Proctor as a carpetbagger
who
would spend more time on his law practice in Santa Ana than in San
Jose.
And Proctor was chosen over local candidates, including the Legal Aid
Society.

''Any time you have an outsider coming in and displacing the local
(system), there is going to be anger and discontent,'' said Howard
Siegel,
a former chief of the public defender's dependency unit who was hired
by
Proctor to supervise one of his two offices. ''In this case, I'm
satisfied
most of the criticism is sour grapes.''



With Edwards' endorsement, the Superior Court in September decided to
renew Proctor's contract. The three-year deal is worth roughly $1.76
million per year, although it may be cut short if more state funding
does
not come through in 2000. Legal Aid left out
Lack of public debate
draws criticism

Critics say the Superior Court judges should have opened up the
matter for public debate before renewing Proctor's contract. Legal
Aid,
which now has the local contract to provide court-appointed lawyers in
criminal cases, wanted the dependency work, but didn't know about the
renewal until told by the Mercury News.

''We were interested in doing that work,'' said Susan Sutton,
president of Legal Aid's board of directors. ''I'm not sure we've got
the
circumstantial guarantee that (the current setup) is the best we can
do.''
Judge Edwards, asked about the bidding issue, replied: ''I think
(Legal
Aid) would be a good contract bidder next time. But we just decided to
go
ahead and roll it over this year.''

Sutton and other dependency experts say Proctor's office has cut too
many corners, leaving parents without recourse against the findings of
social workers.

Opposing lawyers also express concern that Proctor's staff, while
energetic and dedicated, often is overburdened and green. The county
counsel's office, which represents the social services department, and
the
district attorney's office, which represents children, both staff
dependency court with experienced lawyers who make substantially more
money than the attorneys appearing for parents. Starting salaries for
Proctor's lawyers are often $10,000 a year less than a starting salary
for
DAs or a county counsel.

Until recently, Proctor's office was staffed primarily with lawyers
fresh out of law school or with little legal experience. By
comparison,
other counties, such as San Mateo and San Francisco, have panels of
lawyers with years of experience in dependency court.

''The individual attorneys ar very bright, very conscientious, but
they don't have the type of experience I think would make for better
representation,'' said Deputy District Attorney Penny Blake, who has
represented children in dependency matters for 11 years.

''There is a problem with a lack of visible advocacy,'' adds Michael
Kresser, director of a San Jose appellate project that inherits cases
from
Proctor's office and reviews their work. ''We see a lot of these cases
submitted . . . without any evidence or any argument in favor of the
client. They are not contesting anything.''

Admitting problems
More experienced lawyers added

Proctor concedes his original plan backfired. As a result, he has
gradually replaced rookies with more experienced lawyers, although
many of
them still have limited experience in dependency work.

''It didn't work out up here,'' Proctor said. ''This is a much more
adversarial, litigious courthouse than Orange County.''

Proctor and his supporters say he is getting a bum rap. In many
quarters he is considered an innovator in the world of dependency law.
He
has embraced a philosophy that judges such as Edwards and San Diego
Superior Court Judge James Milliken, another juvenile-law leader,
consider
groundbreaking.

Proctor maintains lawyers for parents should act as social workers to
help reunify families, many torn apart by drug addiction; he pushes
his
staff to abandon the confrontational approach used in other areas of
the
court system.

While critics say this approach leads to poor advocacy, Proctor
insists it benefits parents and their children if his lawyers can get
services for clients instead of spending their time fighting in court.

''There is no question in my mind that across the board (this
program) is providing a higher level of representation than the old
(panel
of attorneys),'' said Siegel. ''It is working as well as it possibly
can
with our budgetary restraints.''

For better or worse, Proctor's experiment in Santa Clara County may
not last much longer if those budgetary restraints don't loosen.
Sounding
frustrated, Proctor says the courts must find a way to provide better
funding for legal representation or he might pull out of the county
next
year, which the contract allows him to do.

''This isn't a cash cow,'' says Proctor. ''The court has got to do
everything it can to get the money from the state. If it doesn't
happen,
they may need to find a different way of doing business. It's not fair
to
our parents to be in a battleground where we're so outnumbered.''





(Fern5827) wrote in message ...
Expect tighter Federal regulations.

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov




Subject: Los Angeles Protest Activities, Victory! LA County Authorities Move
for Title IV-E Wavier!, LA Radio & News Coverage

Dr. Shirley Moore was unable to make the original scheduled KPFK 90.7 FM
Radio broadcast on Nov 11th, but it was taped and will now be broadcast on,
DATE: Friday, November 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 AM
RADIO STA: KPFK 90.7 FM
GUEST: Dr. Shirley Moore
Persons out of the LA Broadcast Area can tune in via the Internet at
www.kpfk.org. This requires Real Player Radio which can be downloaded free
via the internet.

Included below is information on Planned Protest Activities for the LA Area,
and following that a message I received from Dr. Moore on Our Recent Victory
with the LA County Board Of Supervisors and a New's Article by Troy Anderson
in regards to the Protest Held at the Nov. 5th LA Supers Meeting.
We are also planning gatherings at the Board of Supervisor Meetings in San
Diego County, Riverside and San Bernadino Counties in the very near future.
An Action Alert will be sent on these protest in the near future.
Dennis

Dr. Shirley Moore AFRA Director for the Los Angeles Area will be on the air
to talk about Department of Children and Family Services in the Los Angeles
area and the Planned AFRA Demonstrations scheduled for Nov 16th, Sunday, in
Liemert Park, Crenshaw Blvd. at Vernon Ave.

DATE: Sunday, November 16, 2003
TIME: 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
PLACE: Liemert Park in Los Angeles on the corner of Crenshaw
Blvd and Vernon Avenue.

Dr. Shirley Moore (a former MTA employee) won a decision by the 4th
appellate court with regard to the conflict of interest between the Judges
and County Counsel. Dr. Shirley Moore is running for State Assembly.

Protest this Sunday at Liemert Park in Los Angeles concerning the abuses of
the legal system by the county. Financial incentives have resulted in a
sharp increase in the number of citizens involved in the legal system. The
grant money, the court fines, the court filing fees, plus are supporting the
construction of new courthouses.

We will have petitions on hand to be signed asking Honorable Ashcroft to
come into this state and place a consent decree upon the court system. All
cases both criminal and civil that involved the county need to be reviewed
with regard to conflict of interest. We are certainly in a state of
emergency. A statewide is being planned in the near future. Please pass
this on! Please plan to attend the Protest on November 16th 2003, and
December 6th, 2003!

DATE: Saturday, December 6th, 2003
TIME: 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM
EVENT: The Juvenile Justice Centennial Celebration
PLACE: The Renaissance Hollywood Hotel
1755 Highland Avenue, Hollywood, CA

This event is where all the alleged professionals in the Juvenile Justice
system will be gathering. The parents and concerning citizens about the
abuses of the Juvenile Court system will hold a protest outside the event.

PRESIDENT'S DAY WEEKEND MARCH PLANNED

A statewide march will take place in February in front of the federal
Building. This will be held over the President's day weekend. A follow up
event of the same nature will take place in Northern California in May.
Please make arrangements to attend these noteworthy events. This outcry
will certainly get the attention of Honorable Ashcroft. Remember, we have
to act as the people did during the civil rights movement.

Dr. Shirley Moore
America's Family Rights Association
Director AFRA Los Angeles Area

Report from Dr. Moore On Results of LA County Board of Supervisiors Nov 12th
2003 Meeting

As a result of our persistence, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor;s
voted today to ask the Federal Government it they could in fact use a
Federal waiver called title IV-E funds in an effort to keep the children in
their homes as opposed to sending them to foster homes. (The reporter then
asked the director Dr. Sanders if in fact they are going to revisit the past
cases like Dr. Moore had requested. Dr. Sanders said that at this time, he
would go from this point today.) I personally am waiting on the response
from Washington, DC. This has been done in Illinois, and as a result, the
foster care system has been cut in half. I am hoping

County seeking waiver
$250 million would be targeted for families


By Troy Anderson
Staff Writer


A recent state report that found counties earn more money putting children
in foster care than in keeping them out prompted Los Angeles County
supervisors to seek federal approval to use $250 million in child welfare
funds to help solve family problems.

The vote allows the troubled Department of Children and Family Services to
begin negotiating for a waiver that would allow the nation's largest child
protective system to spend a good chunk of its annual $1.4 billion budget on
services to help troubled families.

DCFS now spends less than $30 million a year to help families with financial
difficulties, substance abuse and other problems that bring them to the
attention of child protection services.

The vast majority of the budget goes to pay for the average $30,000 a year
cost of keeping a child in foster care. In some cases, the costs exceed
$150,000 per child.

But the system has long been criticized for the poor care it provides
children in foster care, who are six to seven times more likely to be
mistreated in the system than in the general population.

DCFS officials don't expect a decision from Washington until March.

DCFS Director David Sanders said experts have estimated that as many as half
of the county's 75,000 children in foster and adoptive homes could have been
left in their parents' care if the appropriate services had been provided.

He said the way the system is now funded is inflexible and forces the agency
to provide "ineffective and overly intrusive" services that are "often
detrimental" to children and families.

"Right now, if a family is referred to the child abuse hotline and it turns
out they need some support services, they are often put on waiting lists,"
Sanders said.

Several states are also seeking renewal of their waivers, including
Illinois, which was granted a similar waiver in the late 1990s that helped
it reduce its foster care population in half and improved the care children
receive.

"I think it's a very innovative proposal," said Virginia Weisz, directing
attorney of the Children's Rights Project in Los Angeles.

She said the "Title IV-E" waiver would help DCFS implement a 1980 federal
law that requires states and counties to make "reasonable efforts" to keep
families together if possible.

"Ironically, the federal mandate has not provided funds to do that," Weisz
said.

Miriam Krinsky, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los
Angeles, which represents 20,000 foster children, said there is no doubt
child advocates have "tremendous challenges" in changing a system that has
been in place for decades.

"There are too many children and too many families we bring under the
jurisdiction of the court simply to get services they need," Krinsky said.
"We don't do enough to look at how to give assistance to children and
families."

"There should not be a financial disincentive that causes us to remove
children from their home simply to get them help," she said.

Tony Bravo, president of Service Employees International Union, Local 535,
which represents the county's social workers, said in his 23 years with the
department he has seen far too many children unnecessarily placed and kept
in foster care.

"We feel this initiative is a bold and innovative concept that will provide
a win-win for our clients and the Board of Supervisors," Bravo said. "By
shifting funds to community resources, it will result in a reduction of
(children) that come into the system and lower our caseloads so we have more
time to visit with families and children."

Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985

Parents rip county foster care system
By Troy Anderson
Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 04, 2003 -

In emotionally charged testimony Tuesday before the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors, parents whose children have been placed in foster care
called for an investigation into whether thousands of youngsters should have
been taken from their parents.


The testimony follows the release of a state Department of Social Services
report in September that found too many children have unnecessarily been
placed in foster care because of "perverse financial incentives" that
encourage local governments to earn money by bringing children into the
foster care system.

David Sanders, director of the county Department of Children and Family
Services, said experts have estimated that as many as half of the county's
foster children could have been left in their parents' care if appropriate
services had been provided to the families.

Some of the dozens of parents gathered in the Hall of Administration hearing
room also questioned whether Los Angeles County judges could fairly hear
their cases because the county pays each judge about $30,000 a year in
benefits on top of the state salaries and benefits they receive.

"We believe that every case has been tainted," said Shirley Moore, a state
Assembly candidate and a member of the California Black Republican Council.

A court spokesman did not return a reporter's phone call seeking comment
late Tuesday.

In the supervisors' hearing, no public official spoke in defense of the
child protective services system.

Moore said she and others have gathered nearly 100,000 signatures they plan
to submit to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in a request to place the
county's courts under oversight of a federal consent decree. The petition
alleges the courts have lost their integrity due to "intrinsic fraud and
financial conflicts of interest" in civil and criminal cases involving
children's services, eminent domain and probate.

"Too many black children are being taken from their homes in the name of
grant money," Moore said. "This criminal enterprise must stop."

The Rev. Ruby Lynn Brown, an associate minister from Pasadena and a 34-year
employee at County/USC Medical Center, said "relative caregivers" who take
care of grandchildren and other relatives in the foster care system are
concerned about the large number of children they believe were wrongfully
seized from their families.

"There are too many minority children being transported through the system
because of the arrogance of children's services," Brown said.

Brown and Moore said they intend to ask Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger
for a state investigation of the child protective services system.

Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985






The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. DATE: Friday, November 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 AM
RADIO STA: KPFK 90.7 FM
GUEST: Dr. Shirley Moore

Dr. Shirley Moore AFRA Director for the Los Angeles Area will be on the air
to talk about Department of Children and Family Services in the Los Angeles
area and the Planned AFRA Demonstrations scheduled for Nov 16th, Sunday, in
Liemert Park, Crenshaw Blvd. at Vernon Ave.

DATE: Sunday, November 16, 2003
TIME: 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
PLACE: Liemert Park in Los Angeles on the corner of Crenshaw
Blvd and Vernon Avenue.

Dr. Shirley Moore (a former MTA employee) won a decision by the 4th
appellate court with regard to the conflict of interest between the Judges
and County Counsel. Dr. Shirley Moore is running for State Assembly.

Protest this Sunday at Liemert Park in Los Angeles concerning the abuses of
the legal system by the county. Financial incentives have resulted in a
sharp increase in the number of citizens involved in the legal system. The
grant money, the court fines, the court filing fees, plus are supporting the
construction of new courthouses.

We will have petitions on hand to be signed asking Honorable Ashcroft to
come into this state and place a consent decree upon the court system. All
cases both criminal and civil that involved the county need to be reviewed
with regard to conflict of interest. We are certainly in a state of
emergency. A statewide is being planned in the near future. Please pass
this on! Please plan to attend the Protest on November 16th 2003, and
December 6th, 2003!

DATE: Saturday, December 6th, 2003
TIME: 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM
EVENT: The Juvenile Justice Centennial Celebration
PLACE: The Renaissance Hollywood Hotel
1755 Highland Avenue, Hollywood, CA

This event is where all the alleged professionals in the Juvenile Justice
system will be gathering. The parents and concerning citizens about the
abuses of the Juvenile Court system will hold a protest outside the event.

PRESIDENT'S DAY WEEKEND MARCH PLANNED

A statewide march will take place in February in front of the federal
Building. This will be held over the President's day weekend. A follow up
event of the same nature will take place in Northern California in May.
Please make arrangements to attend these noteworthy events. This outcry
will certainly get the attention of Honorable Ashcroft. Remember, we have
to act as the people did during the civil rights movement.

Dr. Shirley Moore
Director over the Los Angeles AFRA
America's Family Rights Association

Parents rip county foster care system
By Troy Anderson
Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 04, 2003 -

In emotionally charged testimony Tuesday before the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors, parents whose children have been placed in foster care
called for an investigation into whether thousands of youngsters should have
been taken from their parents.


The testimony follows the release of a state Department of Social Services
report in September that found too many children have unnecessarily been
placed in foster care because of "perverse financial incentives" that
encourage local governments to earn money by bringing children into the
foster care system.

David Sanders, director of the county Department of Children and Family
Services, said experts have estimated that as many as half of the county's
foster children could have been left in their parents' care if appropriate
services had been provided to the families.

Some of the dozens of parents gathered in the Hall of Administration hearing
room also questioned whether Los Angeles County judges could fairly hear
their cases because the county pays each judge about $30,000 a year in
benefits on top of the state salaries and benefits they receive.

"We believe that every case has been tainted," said Shirley Moore, a state
Assembly candidate and a member of the California Black Republican Council.

A court spokesman did not return a reporter's phone call seeking comment
late Tuesday.

In the supervisors' hearing, no public official spoke in defense of the
child protective services system.

Moore said she and others have gathered nearly 100,000 signatures they plan
to submit to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in a request to place the
county's courts under oversight of a federal consent decree. The petition
alleges the courts have lost their integrity due to "intrinsic fraud and
financial conflicts of interest" in civil and criminal cases involving
children's services, eminent domain and probate.

"Too many black children are being taken from their homes in the name of
grant money," Moore said. "This criminal enterprise must stop."

The Rev. Ruby Lynn Brown, an associate minister from Pasadena and a 34-year
employee at County/USC Medical Center, said "relative caregivers" who take
care of grandchildren and other relatives in the foster care system are
concerned about the large number of children they believe were wrongfully
seized from their families.

"There are too many minority children being transported through the system
because of the arrogance of children's services," Brown said.

Brown and Moore said they intend to ask Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger
for a state investigation of the child protective services system.

Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.