Clark County NV will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster Parents


http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142


Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents. The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to date --
it's the ones expected to come.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15 lawsuits.

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk management as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today," said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the county to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't risk
her family's financial security.






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 PROGRAMS....

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.


CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


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...

Greegor wrote:
Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents. The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!


On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents. The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to date --
it's the ones expected to come.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15 lawsuits.

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk management as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today," said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the insurance.





Let's not forget the big one!
foster care-- it's not about the money of course....


The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the county to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't risk
her family's financial security.

I thought the foster children were part of their family?

I've been told on numerous occasions foster parents are willing to take
a Financial lost to help their Foster children?

I'd guess I was wrong about that, it seems those children were just
commodities to be used for State and Federal dollars to these foster
parents after all....

after all!, they can't risk their own family's financial security...

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Who said that the foster parents didn't pay for the insurance?
I didn't see that stated anywhere.
If it were just GIVEN to them, why did three fosters decline to use it?


Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She adopted.


She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Could have.


Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Only if she had earned income.


Clothing allowance.

Probably not after she adopted them.


Complete Medicaid coverage.

And that benefitted her how? Surely she didn't get her medical bills paid
FOC because they KIDS had medical coverage.
That was solely for the kid's benefit.


ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

I don't believe they get a reimbursement when they've adopted.


Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents. The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!


On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents. The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to date --
it's the ones expected to come.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15
lawsuits.

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk management as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today," said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the county to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't risk
her family's financial security.

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, Greegor wrote:
Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Considering the news story. I gotta agree with you.


Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

That does kind of make a statement, doesn't it?


Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

Excessive losses from insuring foster parents? I couldn't imagine
why.


But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote: Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Interesting.


In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the court --
a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Wait, I have to ask Ron a question here.

Do you get anything like this?

It sounds like a pretty good deal, insurance that protects you from
your own responsibilities. A foster parent gets sued for 300k because
she lost the kid and the insurance pays.

Les...that's what insurance is in EVERY case.



Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the
insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15
lawsuits.

Wait, I have to ask Ron another question here.

Ron, 15 lawsuits currently in one county, is that anecdotal?


DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of
insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk management as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today," said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the county
to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a
tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't risk
her family's financial security.

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
Where is Ron to fill in the gaps on this 10% shortfall he was talking
about?

The whole collection of fringe benefits is also tax exempt isn't it?

You brought up a list of 'fringe benefits' that you believe to have been
provided to Judith Leekin.
Judith Leekin adopted the children in her home.
They were not foster children.
Ron fosters. In so far as I know, he has not adopted.
The 'fringies' change after adoption, and in regard to the needs of the
child.
The fact that you constantly bring Leekin into most any conversation about
foster care tells a clear story....people like her are so rare that you have
no one else to point to as an example of fostering gone wrong.




On Dec 10, 11:10 pm, LK wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, Greegor wrote:

Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Considering the news story. I gotta agree with you.







Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

That does kind of make a statement, doesn't it?



Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

Excessive losses from insuring foster parents? I couldn't imagine
why.







But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote: Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster
Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Interesting.



In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the
court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Wait, I have to ask Ron a question here.

Do you get anything like this?

It sounds like a pretty good deal, insurance that protects you from
your own responsibilities. A foster parent gets sued for 300k because
she lost the kid and the insurance pays.



Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the
insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15
lawsuits.

Wait, I have to ask Ron another question here.

Ron, 15 lawsuits currently in one county, is that anecdotal?





DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of
insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like
that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk management
as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today,"
said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the
insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the county
to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a
tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said
though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't
risk
her family's financial security.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"tlwaggoner" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 6:35 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...

Where is Ron to fill in the gaps on this 10% shortfall he was talking
about?

The whole collection of fringe benefits is also tax exempt isn't it?

You brought up a list of 'fringe benefits' that you believe to have been
provided to Judith Leekin.
Judith Leekin adopted the children in her home.
They were not foster children.
Ron fosters. In so far as I know, he has not adopted.
The 'fringies' change after adoption, and in regard to the needs of the
child.
The fact that you constantly bring Leekin into most any conversation
about
foster care tells a clear story....people like her are so rare that you
have
no one else to point to as an example of fostering gone wrong.





On Dec 10, 11:10 pm, LK wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, Greegor wrote:

Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Considering the news story. I gotta agree with you.

Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

That does kind of make a statement, doesn't it?

Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

Excessive losses from insuring foster parents? I couldn't imagine
why.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote: Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster
Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it, citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Interesting.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the
court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July and
has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Wait, I have to ask Ron a question here.

Do you get anything like this?

It sounds like a pretty good deal, insurance that protects you from
your own responsibilities. A foster parent gets sued for 300k because
she lost the kid and the insurance pays.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the
insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation
involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least 15
lawsuits.

Wait, I have to ask Ron another question here.

Ron, 15 lawsuits currently in one county, is that anecdotal?

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county may
be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We
haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of
insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like
that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk
management
as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer today,"
said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the
insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the
county
to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's a
tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said
though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just can't
risk
her family's financial security.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Adoptive parents recive a check every month for the children they
adopted.

So sorry. Not all of them.
I have a child I adopted, and was given the option of receiving a check for
him...about $260 or so mo.
I declined.
I'm sure others do as well.

The checks stop once the child turns 18 or 21. They get medical for
the children,

I did get medical.
I'm sure that others do, and others don't.

along with ffodstamps until the child/children reach 18 or 21.

I do not receive food stamps.
I'm sure others don't as well.
I'm also sure that other's do.

The amount of the stipend ranges from 200 to 2000.00 dollars a month.

And yet, we always hear of the HUGE amounts.
I, personally, don't think that just over $250 mo is worth taking a child
for 'the money'.

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 8:27 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"tlwaggoner" wrote in message

...





On Dec 11, 6:35 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...

Where is Ron to fill in the gaps on this 10% shortfall he was
talking
about?

The whole collection of fringe benefits is also tax exempt isn't it?

You brought up a list of 'fringe benefits' that you believe to have
been
provided to Judith Leekin.
Judith Leekin adopted the children in her home.
They were not foster children.
Ron fosters. In so far as I know, he has not adopted.
The 'fringies' change after adoption, and in regard to the needs of
the
child.
The fact that you constantly bring Leekin into most any conversation
about
foster care tells a clear story....people like her are so rare that
you
have
no one else to point to as an example of fostering gone wrong.

On Dec 10, 11:10 pm, LK wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, Greegor wrote:

Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Considering the news story. I gotta agree with you.

Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

That does kind of make a statement, doesn't it?

Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it,
citing
excessive losses as the reason.

Excessive losses from insuring foster parents? I couldn't imagine
why.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs
to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote: Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster
Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it,
citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs
to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Interesting.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the
court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of
Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July
and
has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but
the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Wait, I have to ask Ron a question here.

Do you get anything like this?

It sounds like a pretty good deal, insurance that protects you from
your own responsibilities. A foster parent gets sued for 300k
because
she lost the kid and the insurance pays.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the
insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation
involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least
15
lawsuits.

Wait, I have to ask Ron another question here.

Ron, 15 lawsuits currently in one county, is that anecdotal?

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county
may
be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We
haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of
insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something
like
that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk
management
as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer
today,"
said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the
insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the
county
to
remove their children because of the potential liability.
That's a
tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said
though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just
can't
risk
her family's financial security.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Adoptive parents recive a check every month for the children they
adopted.

So sorry. Not all of them.
I have a child I adopted, and was given the option of receiving a check
for
him...about $260 or so mo.
I declined.
I'm sure others do as well.

Betty, I have an interesting answer to this claim by you.
It comes out of the Child Support arena.
Basically, it says that you really do NOT have a right to turn
down money that is to benefit the child, and if you DO turn
down money that is to benefit the child, you have failed to
properly look out for the child's best interests.

Not so.
If I die, or my spouse does, or we both do, my adopted child will receive
more funds for his care than the state subsidy amount.
In no way was my turning down the funds not in his best interests.


Should you die, become incapacitated or someday
have the child TPR'd from you for child abuse, your
decision might actually harm the child.

Secondly, the dollar amount and details in your
case are for a kinship adoption and that really
DOES present a more different set of benefits from
Fosters OR Adopters.

Hmmm.
No, Greg.
It's not for kinship adopters.
In so far as I know, this is the amount that everyone is offered upon
adopting a child in state custody.
There may be a different amount where a child is severely disabled, but for
those children who are not, this is the subsidy.
I did not get offer of a lower amount because my adoption was kinship.



The checks stop once the child turns 18 or 21. They get medical for
the children,

I did get medical.
I'm sure that others do, and others don't.

along with ffodstamps until the child/children reach 18 or 21.

I do not receive food stamps.
I'm sure others don't as well.
I'm also sure that other's do.

The amount of the stipend ranges from 200 to 2000.00 dollars a month.

And yet, we always hear of the HUGE amounts.
I, personally, don't think that just over $250 mo is worth taking a child
for 'the money'.

I keep referring to Leekin because it was RECENT
and because we DO KNOW more of the details
about the stipend in that case because it was so
utterly embarassing for the agencies that they
gave out dollar amount info they almost never do.

$50 per day for disabled ("special needs") adoptees.

At least no CAGES were used on Leekin's bunch.

Are adopters given any state sponsored insurance?

Not that I am aware of.


What OTHER fringies are handed to them?

In so far as I know, once the child is adopted they are eligible to receive
cash assistance, child care when the adoptive parents are working, and
medical insurance. I know of no other 'fringes' that adopters here receive.
There may be more, but I know nothing of them.


Both Fosters and adopters can get a free
handicap access van, in most states.
I assume the replacement of that every few years
is covered somehow.

I have never heard of such a thing here.


Fosters in one state get 48cents per mile travel reimbursement.

I dont' think it's this state. I've never heard of fosters getting
reimbursed for travel.


Betty: Partly I also keep pushing the Leekin case
because Ronald Van Dyne our beloved Omaha
Nebraska Foster and foster activist has chosen
to keep the many details of fringe benefits secret.

I don't think so Greg.
You aren't able to look up Nebraska's foster care matters online?
Why would Ron have to explain it to you when you'd simply call him a liar if
he didn't say what you wanted to hear?
Better you just look it up, right?


So naturally, as these secrets become less secret,
Ronald's lack of response and refusal to fess
up about the benefits is somewhat telling about Ron.

There aren't any secrets.
If I am not mistaken, most states have that information online. At least,
all the ones I have ever looked for were online.
Given that, I don't see any reason why Ron needs to discuss it with you.


Remember that these details are within the
public's RIGHT TO KNOW and NOT something
that is a private matter.

And again, if I'm not mistaken, that information is readily available
online.
BTW, you do know that Ron's mother is recently passed away and that it seems
as if maybe you are singling him out for that reason?


By the way, I was just WAITING for somebody to
complain as if adoptees didn't pay as good as
Fosters, since adoptees Social Security disability
benefit would go to the adopter.

That's true.
Disability would go to the adopter in the name of the child.
But I wonder, what do you think the SS amount would be based on?


TLWAGGONER:
Actually, in the case of permanently disabled kids
the money doesn't stop flowing when they turn 21.
Several of Leekin's charges were disabled ADULTS
and she continued to receive the stipend for them,
in addition to their SOCIAL SECURITY.

Dan Sullivan's message
G Where is Ron to fill in the gaps on this
G 10% shortfall he was talking about?
G The whole collection of fringe benefits
G is also tax exempt isn't it?

DS Face it, greg.
DS All the scams you ran on all your
DS landlords over the years don't compare
DS to the bilking you could have done with
DS foster kids.
DS Maybe in your next lifetime.

Dan, What do you call this tactic, the "spastic monkey"?
You just string together any accusations you
think will distract from a touchy subject, right?






On Dec 11, 8:29 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
Who said that the foster parents didn't pay for the insurance?
I didn't see that stated anywhere.
If it were just GIVEN to them, why did three fosters decline to use it?

Are you referring to the three who declined using it by
ceasing to be Fosters anymore, because it ended?

Yes.


Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?


She adopted.

At which point she could collect Social Security as the payee
for each of the dsabled charges.

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Could have.

Well, Betty, that IS a considerable resource when
you consider there were 11 charges.

Judging from the amounts of money she received, I doubt that she received
food stamps.


Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Only if she had earned income.

Betty, are you confusing the Earned Income Credit (EIC)
the Child Tax Credit?

Yes, I was.


Clothing allowance.

Probably not after she adopted them.

There IS a wide array of services available to
people who have adopted special needs kids.

In my state adopted children do not get clothing allowances.


I only recently found out about the fact that
they do commonly get provided a handicapped
van, for example.

And that would include replacement as needed.

I've never heard of that.


Complete Medicaid coverage.

And that benefitted her how? Surely she didn't get her medical bills
paid
FOC because they KIDS had medical coverage.
That was solely for the kid's benefit.

Parents of a similar child do NOT get Medicaid
without regard for their INCOME or HOLDINGS.

Very true.


ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

I don't believe they get a reimbursement when they've adopted.

How could you say that when you claimed
that they offered you $250 per month
for adopting a healthy child who is KIN?

That is not 'reimbursement'. The adopter gets that much, and nothing more.
Now, Greg, I agree that some people aren't too swift, and don't take
exceptional care of the children that they adopt.
But those that I know personally do.
Including myself.
That subsidy? Had I opted to take it, it would have only paid for Christmas
gifts this month...and only part of the child's christmas gifts.
It would not cover the cost of his food every month.
Every two, to three months it would have helped with his clothing needs, but
nothing more.
It's honestly not that much money.
If my standards of living were a bit lower, and I fed the child nothing but
peanut butter and ramen noodles, then yeah, it would pay for his food.
If I bought his clothes at the salvation army, then yeah, it would cover his
clothing needs.
Fortunately, I don't have to put the child at a lower standard of living, so
he eats stuffed pork like everyone else here, and he wears clothes from the
mall most of the time (I admit I bought him a winter jacket from wal mart,
but only because he locked his little eyes on it when I was there shopping
for laundry detergent and fabric refresher, and that's what he wanted so he
got it)
So that money? It's nothing.


Adopters get a monthly stipend, and a wide array of
benefits are available to them.

I see that Ronald Van Dyne, our Omaha Foster has
decided not to clarify any of these details! LOL

Why should he clarify for you Greg?
You seem to be the only person concerned about it, and you can find that
information online very easily.


Betty, Will you concede that the "10% shortfall"
argument is reasonably beat by the whole array
of "fringe benefits" involved?

Actually, no. I won't.
You must not understand all of the things involved in taking care of a
child, and how those things are financially hard on a family.
Until you do, there is no point in trying to make you understand.


I would like to see a complete accounting of
the many "fringies" and hidden benefits involved
both for Fosters and adopters both for regular
healthy kids and for various levels of "special needs" kids.

The public has a right to know, right?

Yes, and that information should be available online.
All you need to do is look.
When you find it, let us all know.

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 1:22 pm, tlwaggoner wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:35 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:





"Greegor" wrote in message

...

Where is Ron to fill in the gaps on this 10% shortfall he was talking
about?

The whole collection of fringe benefits is also tax exempt isn't it?

You brought up a list of 'fringe benefits' that you believe to have
been
provided to Judith Leekin.
Judith Leekin adopted the children in her home.
They were not foster children.
Ron fosters. In so far as I know, he has not adopted.
The 'fringies' change after adoption, and in regard to the needs of the
child.
The fact that you constantly bring Leekin into most any conversation
about
foster care tells a clear story....people like her are so rare that you
have
no one else to point to as an example of fostering gone wrong.

On Dec 10, 11:10 pm, LK wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, Greegor wrote:

Hey, LK, remember that I have been building a list of
nice fringies that FOSTERS get? This insurance would
be a HUGE one wouldn't it?

Considering the news story. I gotta agree with you.

Do you think Judith Leekin got insurance like this?

She could have got Food Stamps for all 11 kids with
NO regard for her income and holdings.

Housing grants to build another wing onto the house.

Child tax credit for each one.

Clothing allowance.

Complete Medicaid coverage.

ON TOP of the monthly ""reimbursement"" stipend.

Ron said that the stipend was 10% below matching
the costs, but he never counted in the huge amount
of fringe benefits!

What kind of dollar value would you place on all
of these "fringies"?

What dollar value would just the INSURANCE alone be worth?

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

That does kind of make a statement, doesn't it?

Yay!

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it,
citing
excessive losses as the reason.

Excessive losses from insuring foster parents? I couldn't imagine
why.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Oh OH!

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, fx wrote: Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I-Team: Clark County Will No Longer Provide Insurance to Foster
Parents

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7457142

Clark County will no longer provide insurance to its foster
parents.
The
county's carrier dropped it following a six-figure civil
settlement.

Last week, local foster parents got a letter telling them the
liability
and property damage insurance provided by the county would end
this
Friday. The insurance company, United National dropped it,
citing
excessive losses as the reason.

But the I-Team has learned the issue is not just the pay-outs to
date --
it's the ones expected to come.

Interesting.

In early October, United National deposited $300,000 with the
court -- a
settlement in the lawsuit regarding the disappearance of
Everlyse
Cabrera. Everlyse went missing from her foster home last July
and has
not been seen since.

Her foster parents were named as parties in the lawsuit, but the
insurance policy provided by the county covered them.

Wait, I have to ask Ron a question here.

Do you get anything like this?

It sounds like a pretty good deal, insurance that protects you from
your own responsibilities. A foster parent gets sued for 300k
because
she lost the kid and the insurance pays.

Sources tell the I-Team, that settlement is one of several the
insurance
carrier expects to pay because of other on-going litigation
involving
the county's child welfare system. It currently faces at least
15
lawsuits.

Wait, I have to ask Ron another question here.

Ron, 15 lawsuits currently in one county, is that anecdotal?

DFS director Tom Morton says he's exploring whether the county
may be
able to self-fund insurance.

"We don't really have a viable alternative at this point. We
haven't
been able to identify another company that offers this type of
insurance
so the only option is for the county to self fund something like
that.
We have been discussing this with George Stevens in risk
management
as
to what alternatives might exist but don't have an answer
today,"
said
Morton.

Morton said the vast majority of foster parents carried the
insurance.

The I-Team is aware of three foster parents who have asked the
county
to
remove their children because of the potential liability. That's
a
tough
decision for any foster parent to make. But one foster mom said
though
she is heartbroken at surrendering her foster kids, she just
can't
risk
her family's financial security.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Adoptive parents recive a check every month for the children they
adopted.
The checks stop once the child turns 18 or 21. They get medical for
the children,
along with ffodstamps until the child/children reach 18 or 21.
The amount of the stipend ranges from 200 to 2000.00 dollars a month.

The New York authorities said that for Special Needs people
they pay up to $50 per DAY per child.

That stipend motivates people like Judith Leekin.

It very well may.
Money motivates many different people in many different ways.
I've known of women to have children simply because the state of California
gave an extremely high amount of welfare each month.
I've known of women who got pregnant right before leaving their spouse
purposely, because the spouse worked and they knew the child support would
roll in.
I've know of fathers taking custody of their children that they didn't even
really want to avoid paying their fair share for the child's support.
So what Greg?
It's not an unknown fact that SOME people are motivated by MONEY.

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 10:22 am, Greegor wrote:
THANKS BETTY, I had forgotten about "respite care".

How many weeks of paid vacation leave do adopters get?

I would not know.
I was never offered any, nor have I ever heard of adopters here getting
respite care.
So far as I know it is only fosters that are entitled to respite care.

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 9:35 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...

On Dec 12, 10:22 am, Greegor wrote:
THANKS BETTY, I had forgotten about "respite care".

How many weeks of paid vacation leave do adopters get?

I would not know.
I was never offered any, nor have I ever heard of adopters here getting
respite care.
So far as I know it is only fosters that are entitled to respite care.

What you don't know could fill volumes.

That is absolutely correct.
Of course, You aren't the walking encyclopedia either.