Child welfare agency can't get FBI data

Child welfare agency can't get FBI data
Bureau says state agency cannot use its database to conduct background
checks on family guardians.

By Eunice Trotter

June 26, 2004

The FBI has denied Indiana Child Protection Services access to its
criminal records database, thwarting caseworkers' ability to conduct
national background checks on relatives who want to provide a home for
abuse or neglected children.

The background checks were to begin July 1, when a new law, House
Enrolled Act 1194, is scheduled to go into effect. The law requires an
FBI criminal background check of everyone in a relative's home.

FBI officials formally notified the state this week that Child
Protection Services, or CPS, is not a criminal justice agency and
therefore is not eligible to access criminal records in the Department
of Justice database.

The law puts family members who seek to take in children under more
scrutiny than foster parents.

"If the FBI won't let us have access to the information, then we can't
get it," said state Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville, author of the
law.

Local judges also have said CPS could not have access to juvenile
criminal records for the purpose of doing background checks, said
Avery.

As officials worked to digest the FBI decision, another blow to the
new law came Friday when the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, acting on
behalf of a child in foster care, filed a legal action to have the
child placed with relatives.

ICLU legal director Ken Falk said a motion was left Friday at Marion
County juvenile court, asking a judge to overturn a CPS decision to
place a child in foster care rather than with a relative. The
petitioner in the confidential filing is a court-appointed
representative for the unnamed child.

Falk said the organization wants the legal action to be decided on
behalf of all Indiana children who might be placed in foster care
instead of with suitable relatives.

"What this law would do, in effect, is make it much easier to place a
child with a stranger than with a relative," said Falk, adding that
only local background checks are performed on foster parents.

"Every single person in the system recognizes there are problems with
this law that have to be solved, but they won't be solved by next
Thursday," Falk said.

Marion County juvenile court Judge James W. Payne, who was unavailable
for comment, has been a critic of the FBI background check provision.
He foresaw a bottleneck of children waiting in foster care and a
threat to the state's federal funding. Millions of dollars could be
lost if the state violates federal rules that prohibit state wards
from being in multiple placements.

Annette Biesecker, a lawyer for the Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration, the state agency over CPS, said caseworkers will
continue to perform local background checks, including reviews of the
state's child abuse and neglect database.

She said the administration and other officials will continue to
propose changes in the law to help protect children by keeping them
out of the homes of unsuitable relatives.

"We agree it was a good bill, but it presents certain challenges that
under current law we cannot perform," she said. "We can't make the FBI
give us the information."

Legislators and FSSA officials said they had thought accessing basic
FBI records through the Indiana State Police would have been
relatively simple, though at a cost of $39 per check.

But this method would have taken two or three months to complete for
each person in a household being investigated, and the information
would not have been adequate to determine whether a relative had been
convicted of one of 19 crimes included in the new law.

State Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, co-author of the law and
a member of the Governor's Commission on Abused and Neglected Children
and Their Families, said legislators will make changes to the law
during the coming session.

It is likely the revised law will require more thorough local checks,
which in some cases were not performed at all in the past, he said.

Cathleen Graham, who heads a statewide foster care association, said
her organization supports the intent of the legislation to better
protect children who are being placed with family members.

She said the new law likely will cause children to be moved to several
foster homes.

"It is not a good thing for children to be repeatedly moved from place
to place," Graham said.

Sharon Pierce, executive director of The Villages, the state's largest
foster care agency, said changes to the bill are welcomed.

"I think then it could be a really positive tool to make sure
children's connections with families are not hurt."
http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/158035-9047-009.html
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action.

Would it be better for a child to be FIRST PLACED with relatives that they
know, rather than being instantly taken to *stranger foster care*?

Especially young children under age 7 who are presumably less used to being
moved around and establishing a relationship with that family?

Very interesting article, thanks Wex.

Wex sent in:

Subject: Child welfare agency can't get FBI data
From: wexwimpy
Date: 6/26/2004 4:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Child welfare agency can't get FBI data
Bureau says state agency cannot use its database to conduct background
checks on family guardians.

By Eunice Trotter

June 26, 2004

The FBI has denied Indiana Child Protection Services access to its
criminal records database, thwarting caseworkers' ability to conduct
national background checks on relatives who want to provide a home for
abuse or neglected children.

The background checks were to begin July 1, when a new law, House
Enrolled Act 1194, is scheduled to go into effect. The law requires an
FBI criminal background check of everyone in a relative's home.

FBI officials formally notified the state this week that Child
Protection Services, or CPS, is not a criminal justice agency and
therefore is not eligible to access criminal records in the Department
of Justice database.

The law puts family members who seek to take in children under more
scrutiny than foster parents.

"If the FBI won't let us have access to the information, then we can't
get it," said state Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville, author of the
law.

Local judges also have said CPS could not have access to juvenile
criminal records for the purpose of doing background checks, said
Avery.

As officials worked to digest the FBI decision, another blow to the
new law came Friday when the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, acting on
behalf of a child in foster care, filed a legal action to have the
child placed with relatives.

ICLU legal director Ken Falk said a motion was left Friday at Marion
County juvenile court, asking a judge to overturn a CPS decision to
place a child in foster care rather than with a relative. The
petitioner in the confidential filing is a court-appointed
representative for the unnamed child.

Falk said the organization wants the legal action to be decided on
behalf of all Indiana children who might be placed in foster care
instead of with suitable relatives.

"What this law would do, in effect, is make it much easier to place a
child with a stranger than with a relative," said Falk, adding that
only local background checks are performed on foster parents.

"Every single person in the system recognizes there are problems with
this law that have to be solved, but they won't be solved by next
Thursday," Falk said.

Marion County juvenile court Judge James W. Payne, who was unavailable
for comment, has been a critic of the FBI background check provision.
He foresaw a bottleneck of children waiting in foster care and a
threat to the state's federal funding. Millions of dollars could be
lost if the state violates federal rules that prohibit state wards
from being in multiple placements.

Annette Biesecker, a lawyer for the Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration, the state agency over CPS, said caseworkers will
continue to perform local background checks, including reviews of the
state's child abuse and neglect database.

She said the administration and other officials will continue to
propose changes in the law to help protect children by keeping them
out of the homes of unsuitable relatives.

"We agree it was a good bill, but it presents certain challenges that
under current law we cannot perform," she said. "We can't make the FBI
give us the information."

Legislators and FSSA officials said they had thought accessing basic
FBI records through the Indiana State Police would have been
relatively simple, though at a cost of $39 per check.

But this method would have taken two or three months to complete for
each person in a household being investigated, and the information
would not have been adequate to determine whether a relative had been
convicted of one of 19 crimes included in the new law.

State Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, co-author of the law and
a member of the Governor's Commission on Abused and Neglected Children
and Their Families, said legislators will make changes to the law
during the coming session.

It is likely the revised law will require more thorough local checks,
which in some cases were not performed at all in the past, he said.

Cathleen Graham, who heads a statewide foster care association, said
her organization supports the intent of the legislation to better
protect children who are being placed with family members.

She said the new law likely will cause children to be moved to several
foster homes.

"It is not a good thing for children to be repeatedly moved from place
to place," Graham said.

Sharon Pierce, executive director of The Villages, the state's largest
foster care agency, said changes to the bill are welcomed.

"I think then it could be a really positive tool to make sure
children's connections with families are not hurt."
http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/158035-9047-009.html
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become
a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.

"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Would it be better for a child to be FIRST PLACED with relatives that they
know, rather than being instantly taken to *stranger foster care*?

No. It is best that they be placed in a safe family home. IF a relative is
known immediately and IF that person is "fit", then, perhaps, yes.

IF the agency were well funded,
IF the caseworkers were trained well and
IF they were paid well,
IF they were given assistants and assistance,

AND

IF the proposed kin could be found to be free of criminal history of abuse
and violence, be chemical free and
IF their home could be quickly inspected and presumed safe and further,
IF the kin / relative would to down to LE themselves and order and pay for
their own criminal background checks,
and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

THEN

Perhaps we'll make changes that work. One child at a time. What have you
done to improve the life of a child today? Recycle grey water?

Sherm.

Sherry dully commented:

and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

My dear, at least I am not pouting about Laura Bush's face-lift. I am
contributing, whereas you constantly follow the pattern of finding fault.

Read the latest Pew Commission on FC and their focus groups about perceptions
of fosters? At least 30% feel fosters have monetary motives.

What have you done to help families? I have a documented record of
VOLUNTEERISM. Whereas I presume you were PAID.

Or did you VOLUNTEER?

Did'ja hear the latest from Indiana?

On 27 Jun 2004 19:52:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Sherry dully commented:

and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in
our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of
fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

My dear, at least I am not pouting about Laura Bush's face-lift. I
am
contributing, whereas you constantly follow the pattern of finding
fault.

It would choke the Web to repost all at once the fault finding you've
done over the years.

Read the latest Pew Commission on FC and their focus groups about
perceptions
of fosters? At least 30% feel fosters have monetary motives.

Potato, everyone thinks everyone else is getting rich doing nothing.
Yah know, All cops eat donuts all day, all priests pray on little
boys, city road work crews only lean on those shovels, doctors are all
incompetent boobs, farmers are out to poison us all, lawyers are all
ambulance chasers, and Plants are all old twits in well into
alzheimers.

I only believe ONE of those.

What have you done to help families? I have a documented record of
VOLUNTEERISM. Whereas I presume you were PAID.

As a foster parent? R R R R...there isn't enough money, twitter head.

Or did you VOLUNTEER?

That IS what foster parents are considered. But even volunteers must
sign a contract. And that is true no matter where you give your time.

Fosters give them time, their homes, the time they could be spending
doing other things, even looking after their bio kids, and their
energy. And many spend considerably more than the child's subsidy to
support them. Go for a ride along with a foster parent. Take a lunch.
They often don't have time to stop for one. And when they do they
usually leave most of it sitting as they look after very disturbed
children.

Did'ja hear the latest from Indiana?

Did'ja hear any thing with your Ear, Corn?

Kane

"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Sherry dully commented:

and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

My dear, at least I am not pouting about Laura Bush's face-lift. I am
contributing, whereas you constantly follow the pattern of finding fault.

Read the latest Pew Commission on FC and their focus groups about
perceptions
of fosters? At least 30% feel fosters have monetary motives.

What have you done to help families? I have a documented record of
VOLUNTEERISM. Whereas I presume you were PAID.

Or did you VOLUNTEER?

Only a total fool would ever consider me dull, Fool. Kane generously gives
you credit for being higher up the food chain than I would, Mildew.

You have consistently failed and refused to document your proclaimed
volunteer "work". For that matter, your professed Masters Degree, etc.

My volunteer work history is extensive. Wanna' tell us even ONE of your
positions? My advocacy goes far beyond your recycling of grey water... I
have never accepted nor requested any payment for my charitable, civic or
other interests to which I give away my freely donated time, money, energy
and effort.

My parents instilled in me the obligations that I have which walk hand in
hand with privilege that has been bestowed upon me. They taught me well for
it is far more rewarding than difficult. I am not going to "presume" that
someone like you cannot understand this, instead I'll just regard it as
self-evident.

You "presume" as you prattle on. You don't know what you're talking/ typing
about. For you to presume my history of efforts to my fellow humans, tiny
and elderly and other interests, is idiotic and senile. I follow my heart
and I walk the walk of my dedication.

As for Foster parenting, I also foster animals and I have adopted a few who
are taken to my farm where I have caretakers hired to help the unadoptable
very old ones to live out there remaining days in comfort and peace. My
foster children have trusts set up for them for their future. These trusts
include any funds which may have been made payable to me for their needs. I
don't need the money, you feeble, narrow-minded babbling decrepit piece of
the nothingness of your so-called life.

Except to correct for the benefit of someone who comes to this newsgroup
sincerely seeking help and information, I'll not be responding to your
gibberish again. If a needy soul listend to your uninformed pap, it could
harm a parent and child for need of a kind informed word and correct
information.

What in the world are you posting on this newsgroup for anyway? You have
never been nor could you qualifiy as a foster parent, providing a safe
family home. It is strange that your anger and angst should be directed
toward good folks who are devoted and commited in their resolve to help
children. Because you protesteth so much, a reasonable person might be led
to believe that you have tried and failed at becoming a foster or adoptive
parent. Or even a successful parent at all. Did your daughter ever get out
from under the department's supervision for her difficulties?

Whatever ~
You do not belong amongst the good folks here who try to actually help
parents and children. Your grey water bucket overfloweth,

Sherman

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On 27 Jun 2004 19:52:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Sherry dully commented:

and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in
our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of
fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

My dear, at least I am not pouting about Laura Bush's face-lift. I
am
contributing, whereas you constantly follow the pattern of finding
fault.

It would choke the Web to repost all at once the fault finding you've
done over the years.

Read the latest Pew Commission on FC and their focus groups about
perceptions
of fosters? At least 30% feel fosters have monetary motives.

Potato, everyone thinks everyone else is getting rich doing nothing.
Yah know, All cops eat donuts all day, all priests pray on little
boys, city road work crews only lean on those shovels, doctors are all
incompetent boobs, farmers are out to poison us all, lawyers are all
ambulance chasers, and Plants are all old twits in well into
alzheimers.

I only believe ONE of those.

What have you done to help families? I have a documented record of
VOLUNTEERISM. Whereas I presume you were PAID.

As a foster parent? R R R R...there isn't enough money, twitter head.

Or did you VOLUNTEER?

That IS what foster parents are considered. But even volunteers must
sign a contract. And that is true no matter where you give your time.


It wouldn't know, it has never done so. Like all it's verbiage; humus.

Kelemana

Sherry, dear.

ASS-umptions on your part.

Infertile?

For you to presume my history of efforts to my fellow humans, tiny
and elderly and other interests, is idiotic and senile. I follow my heart

Too bad your adjectives are pejorative.

My
foster children have trusts set up for them for their future. These trusts
include any funds which may have been made payable to me for their needs. I

Do they know about these trust funds?

you feeble, narrow-minded babbling decrepit piece of
the nothingness of your so-called lif

"The lady doth protest too much."

I'll not be responding to your
gibberish again. If a needy soul listend to your uninformed pap, it could

It is strange that your anger and angst should be directed
toward good folks who are devoted and commited in their resolve to help
children.

THESE ARE only YOUR PERCEPTIONS. Did your wealth not teach you there are 2
sides to every story?

Sherry or She man Sherman. Are you a transvestite?


Sherry aka Sherman has a bug....


Subject: Child welfare agency can't get FBI data Indiana FSSA
From: "Sherman"
Date: 6/27/2004 9:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Sherry dully commented:

and IF someone like yourself, should you be a "fit" retired elder in our
society would volunteer to help out with the problem instead of fuddying
around commenting ignorantly upon the extant problems,

My dear, at least I am not pouting about Laura Bush's face-lift. I am
contributing, whereas you constantly follow the pattern of finding fault.

Read the latest Pew Commission on FC and their focus groups about
perceptions
of fosters? At least 30% feel fosters have monetary motives.

What have you done to help families? I have a documented record of
VOLUNTEERISM. Whereas I presume you were PAID.

Or did you VOLUNTEER?

Only a total fool would ever consider me dull, Fool. Kane generously gives
you credit for being higher up the food chain than I would, Mildew.

You have consistently failed and refused to document your proclaimed
volunteer "work". For that matter, your professed Masters Degree, etc.

My volunteer work history is extensive. Wanna' tell us even ONE of your
positions? My advocacy goes far beyond your recycling of grey water... I
have never accepted nor requested any payment for my charitable, civic or
other interests to which I give away my freely donated time, money, energy
and effort.

My parents instilled in me the obligations that I have which walk hand in
hand with privilege that has been bestowed upon me. They taught me well for
it is far more rewarding than difficult. I am not going to "presume" that
someone like you cannot understand this, instead I'll just regard it as
self-evident.

You "presume" as you prattle on. You don't know what you're talking/ typing
about. For you to presume my history of efforts to my fellow humans, tiny
and elderly and other interests, is idiotic and senile. I follow my heart
and I walk the walk of my dedication.

As for Foster parenting, I also foster animals and I have adopted a few who
are taken to my farm where I have caretakers hired to help the unadoptable
very old ones to live out there remaining days in comfort and peace. My
foster children have trusts set up for them for their future. These trusts
include any funds which may have been made payable to me for their needs. I
don't need the money, you feeble, narrow-minded babbling decrepit piece of
the nothingness of your so-called life.

Except to correct for the benefit of someone who comes to this newsgroup
sincerely seeking help and information, I'll not be responding to your
gibberish again. If a needy soul listend to your uninformed pap, it could
harm a parent and child for need of a kind informed word and correct
information.

What in the world are you posting on this newsgroup for anyway? You have
never been nor could you qualifiy as a foster parent, providing a safe
family home. It is strange that your anger and angst should be directed
toward good folks who are devoted and commited in their resolve to help
children. Because you protesteth so much, a reasonable person might be led
to believe that you have tried and failed at becoming a foster or adoptive
parent. Or even a successful parent at all. Did your daughter ever get out
from under the department's supervision for her difficulties?

Whatever ~
You do not belong amongst the good folks here who try to actually help
parents and children. Your grey water bucket overfloweth,

Sherman









FSSA INDIANA - NG ascps has pointers to a support group set up to help kin
disallowed by CPS there. Email.

Fern.