For many foster children, hard life begins as adults

For many foster children, hard life begins as adults
National study finds the system can leave staggering problems
By MELANIE MARKLEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

RESOURCES
FALLOUT FROM FOSTER CARE

• 54.4 percent: Foster children diagnosed with mental problems
• 25.2 percent: Suffer post-traumatic stress disorder
• 19.9 percent: Are unemployed
• 33.2 percent: Are living below the poverty level
• 22.2 percent: Have experienced homelessness

Source: Casey Family Programs/Harvard Medical School

Jeremy Gillis was 18 and still in high school when he left the foster
care system. Alone in the world with no
family and little money to live on, he ended up in a homeless shelter,
struggling to survive.

Gillis, now 22, didn't just survive. Drawing on religious faith and a
government program that helped with his living
expenses, he went on to finish high school, get a job, get his own
apartment and enroll in college, where his
plans are to get a social work degree.

"It was not easy," said Gillis, who spent 17 years in foster care,
constantly moving from one group home to
another. "I know of quite a few guys and females who went through the
system with me who didn't do as well
as I did."

As Texas lawmakers debate legislation to revamp the state's child
welfare system, a national study released
last week provides sobering insight on the bleak future that many
children in foster care face when they
become young adults.

The study, conducted by Casey Family Programs and Harvard Medical
School, found that young adults who
had been in foster care were more than twice as likely as their peers
to suffer mental health problems and 12
times less likely to finish college.

Former foster children also were more likely as adults to be
unemployed, homeless and living below the poverty
line. And they were twice as likely to suffer post-traumatic stress
disorder as U. S. war veterans.

The study, based on a sample of former foster children in Oregon and
Washington, did not analyze the reasons
behind the higher rates of problems.

'We are not doing right'
But a group of Houston youths raised in foster care says it's not
surprising, given their history of abuse or
neglect that is often compounded by instability from constantly
changing foster homes and schools.

"We are alarmed that in too many cases, these young adults aren't
doing as well as we anticipated," said Ruth
Massinga, president and chief executive officer of the Casey Family
Programs, a Seattle-based child welfare
services and advocacy group. "As a country, we are not doing right by
these children."

Nationwide every year, about 20,000 people between 18 and 21 make the
transition from foster care to legal
emancipation. In fiscal 2004, 1,084 in Texas — including 253 in the
Houston area — left foster care as young
adults.

Researchers for the study reviewed the case files of 659 adults aged
20 through 33 who had lived in foster
care in the Northwest between 1988 and 1998. Of those, 479 were
interviewed.

The study found that one-third of the former foster children were
living at or below the poverty line, three times
the average in the general population. And nearly 20 percent were
unemployed, four times the national
average.

"Sadly," said Texas Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar,
"these are very serious issues that
deserve some close attention. These are people who as children
suffered abuse, neglect, or both, and the
emotional scars are very real."

Echoes Austin study
The study reached conclusions similar to a much smaller one conducted
by the Austin-based Center for Public
Policy Priorities four years ago. That study was based on interviews
with Central Texas youths who had left the
foster care system.

Young people making the transition from foster care in Texas are
eligible for some assistance, including free
tuition at state colleges and universities. They also are eligible for
financial help, including up to $1,000 for
expenses if they attend life skill classes as well as an additional
$3,000 in federal assistance for rent, utilities
and food.

But Scott McCown, CPPP's executive director, said too many youths
leaving foster care don't take advantage
of the benefits.

"Anybody who has had teenagers, even in intact functional families,
knows that the transition to adulthood is
very difficult," McCown said. "These are kids that had a very tough
time in life, and they can be very angry kids,
and getting them to cooperate about their future can be tough."

Nikki Ambush, 24, who grew up in foster care and now works for Harris
County CPS, said there are a variety of
reasons why young adults don't take advantage of the benefits.

Some aren't knowledgeable of the full array of benefits and may not
know who to call to get them, she said.

Others are trying so hard just to survive that they don't think about
long-term goals like college, she said. The
free tuition is available only if a student signs up for a class
before turning 21.

"You've got so much going on at 18 when they kick you out, or when you
are released, or whatever happens,"
Ambush said. "School is not necessarily the biggest or first thing on
your mind."

Harris County CPS, however, is hoping to make adulthood less traumatic
by opening a transition center that will
help young people leaving foster care to find jobs, secure housing and
get other assistance.

'A system can't nourish you'
Ambush also is forming an alumni association that can serve as a
support group for adults who have been in
the foster care system. Although she counts herself among the
fortunate to have spent her teenage years
living with a single, stable foster family, she understands the
problems all too well.

"You are being raised by a system," she said. "But a system can't
nourish you, it can't be a stable environment
for you. I mean, you have to find your own way. And that's the sad
thing. If you can't find your own way, you are
left out there."

State Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, said he hopes to include
provisions in the legislation revamping CPS
that would place more emphasis on transitional services for foster
care youths. House Bill 6 will be considered
by the House this week. A similar bill has passed the Senate.

"Many of these kids have physical issues and mental health problems,"
he said, "and then we are going to send
them out into the world with $1,000 and say, 'Good luck.' That's not
fair to these children."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3127838




"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For
you are crunchy and taste good with catsup."

wexwimpy wrote:
For many foster children, hard life begins as adults
National study finds the system can leave staggering problems
By MELANIE MARKLEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

RESOURCES
FALLOUT FROM FOSTER CARE

=B7 54.4 percent: Foster children diagnosed with mental problems
=B7 25.2 percent: Suffer post-traumatic stress disorder
=B7 19.9 percent: Are unemployed
=B7 33.2 percent: Are living below the poverty level
=B7 22.2 percent: Have experienced homelessness

Source: Casey Family Programs/Harvard Medical School

Jeremy Gillis was 18 and still in high school when he left the foster
care system. Alone in the world with no
family and little money to live on, he ended up in a homeless
shelter,
struggling to survive.

Gillis, now 22, didn't just survive. Drawing on religious faith and a
government program that helped with his living
expenses, he went on to finish high school, get a job, get his own
apartment and enroll in college, where his
plans are to get a social work degree.

"It was not easy," said Gillis, who spent 17 years in foster care,
constantly moving from one group home to
another. "I know of quite a few guys and females who went through the
system with me who didn't do as well
as I did."

As Texas lawmakers debate legislation to revamp the state's child
welfare system, a national study released
last week provides sobering insight on the bleak future that many
children in foster care face when they
become young adults.

The study, conducted by Casey Family Programs and Harvard Medical
School, found that young adults who
had been in foster care were more than twice as likely as their peers
to suffer mental health problems and 12
times less likely to finish college.

Former foster children also were more likely as adults to be
unemployed, homeless and living below the poverty
line. And they were twice as likely to suffer post-traumatic stress
disorder as U. S. war veterans.

The study, based on a sample of former foster children in Oregon and
Washington, did not analyze the reasons
behind the higher rates of problems.

'We are not doing right'
But a group of Houston youths raised in foster care says it's not
surprising, given their history of abuse or
neglect that is often compounded by instability from constantly
changing foster homes and schools.

"We are alarmed that in too many cases, these young adults aren't
doing as well as we anticipated," said Ruth
Massinga, president and chief executive officer of the Casey Family
Programs, a Seattle-based child welfare
services and advocacy group. "As a country, we are not doing right by
these children."

Nationwide every year, about 20,000 people between 18 and 21 make the
transition from foster care to legal
emancipation. In fiscal 2004, 1,084 in Texas - including 253 in the
Houston area - left foster care as young
adults.

Researchers for the study reviewed the case files of 659 adults aged
20 through 33 who had lived in foster
care in the Northwest between 1988 and 1998. Of those, 479 were
interviewed.

The study found that one-third of the former foster children were
living at or below the poverty line, three times
the average in the general population. And nearly 20 percent were
unemployed, four times the national
average.

"Sadly," said Texas Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar,
"these are very serious issues that
deserve some close attention. These are people who as children
suffered abuse, neglect, or both, and the
emotional scars are very real."

Echoes Austin study
The study reached conclusions similar to a much smaller one conducted
by the Austin-based Center for Public
Policy Priorities four years ago. That study was based on interviews
with Central Texas youths who had left the
foster care system.

Young people making the transition from foster care in Texas are
eligible for some assistance, including free
tuition at state colleges and universities. They also are eligible
for
financial help, including up to $1,000 for
expenses if they attend life skill classes as well as an additional
$3,000 in federal assistance for rent, utilities
and food.

But Scott McCown, CPPP's executive director, said too many youths
leaving foster care don't take advantage
of the benefits.

"Anybody who has had teenagers, even in intact functional families,
knows that the transition to adulthood is
very difficult," McCown said. "These are kids that had a very tough
time in life, and they can be very angry kids,
and getting them to cooperate about their future can be tough."

Nikki Ambush, 24, who grew up in foster care and now works for Harris
County CPS, said there are a variety of
reasons why young adults don't take advantage of the benefits.

Some aren't knowledgeable of the full array of benefits and may not
know who to call to get them, she said.

Others are trying so hard just to survive that they don't think about
long-term goals like college, she said. The
free tuition is available only if a student signs up for a class
before turning 21.

"You've got so much going on at 18 when they kick you out, or when
you
are released, or whatever happens,"
Ambush said. "School is not necessarily the biggest or first thing on
your mind."

Harris County CPS, however, is hoping to make adulthood less
traumatic
by opening a transition center that will
help young people leaving foster care to find jobs, secure housing
and
get other assistance.

'A system can't nourish you'
Ambush also is forming an alumni association that can serve as a
support group for adults who have been in
the foster care system. Although she counts herself among the
fortunate to have spent her teenage years
living with a single, stable foster family, she understands the
problems all too well.

"You are being raised by a system," she said. "But a system can't
nourish you, it can't be a stable environment
for you. I mean, you have to find your own way. And that's the sad
thing. If you can't find your own way, you are
left out there."

State Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, said he hopes to include
provisions in the legislation revamping CPS
that would place more emphasis on transitional services for foster
care youths. House Bill 6 will be considered
by the House this week. A similar bill has passed the Senate.

"Many of these kids have physical issues and mental health problems,"
he said, "and then we are going to send
them out into the world with $1,000 and say, 'Good luck.' That's not
fair to these children."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3127838

Where are their blood relatives?

Does a CPS intervention negate the family tie for life? How?

When they are "sent out into the world" the state cannot stop their
relatives from helping them, can it?

In using such a study for policy and planning one might first want to
consider the validity of a demographic the small size, in comparison to
the very likely much larger size of the group it was drawn from. Surely
there were a whole lot more children than this that graduated, aged
out, from foster care in a ten year period:

"
Researchers for the study reviewed the case files of 659 adults aged
20 through 33 who had lived in foster care in the Northwest between
1988 and 1998. Of those, 479 were interviewed.
"

It's got a great emotional appeal, but little objectivity. And NO
suggestion of what those children might have brought from their
homelife into state custody. And some were in ajudicated
placements...in other words, criminals before they left foster care.

0:-














"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For
you are crunchy and taste good with catsup."

Is needless Foster Care traumatizing?

Does it cause CSAAS?

Can the agency MANAGEMENT be
criminally charged as accessories
when pedophile caseworkers conspire
to remove kids and place them with
their pedophile Foster Care associates?

Greegor wrote:
Is needless Foster Care traumatizing?

Not necessarily. It might not be at all.
That claim that it is is one more of the bogus piece of crap you folks
spread here to try and make your poisonous garden grow.

Kids go all kinds of places that at first frighten them, and it turns
out to not be bad after all and they end up having fun. Think about all
the places kids go that are new places for them.

Does it cause CSAAS?

Whose to say?

Maybe you can create a connection. Go ahead.

Can the agency MANAGEMENT be
criminally charged as accessories
when pedophile caseworkers conspire
to remove kids and place them with
their pedophile Foster Care associates?

I doubt if management didn't know it they could be.

If they knew, of course, and they should be.

Next question.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3127838

Kane wrote...

Where are their blood relatives?

Does a CPS intervention negate the family tie for life? How?

When they are "sent out into the world" the state cannot stop their
relatives from helping them, can it?

In using such a study for policy and planning one might first want to
consider the validity of a demographic the small size, in comparison to
the very likely much larger size of the group it was drawn from. Surely
there were a whole lot more children than this that graduated, aged
out, from foster care in a ten year period:

Kane, we have mentioned many times of the failure of CPS failing to care for
kids who age out of the system and being dumped on the streets.

To answer your question... it's also been mentioned here many times that CPS
prevents an association with relatives and family... and former friends.
The idea to to keep parents from being able to interfere through anyone
known to the kids.

After spending 17 years in foster care it's not easy to be accept by blood
relatives who had little contact with the boy. He is, after all, a stranger
to them. How much help are the suppose to give the boy and for what reason?
No, we just can't pass the kid off and expect relatives to pick up broken
peices created in large part by CPS.

bobb

bobb wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3127838

Kane wrote...

Where are their blood relatives?

Does a CPS intervention negate the family tie for life? How?

When they are "sent out into the world" the state cannot stop their
relatives from helping them, can it?

In using such a study for policy and planning one might first want to
consider the validity of a demographic the small size, in comparison
to
the very likely much larger size of the group it was drawn from.
Surely
there were a whole lot more children than this that graduated, aged
out, from foster care in a ten year period:

Kane, we have mentioned many times of the failure of CPS failing to
care for
kids who age out of the system and being dumped on the streets.

Yes, you certainly have, and never answered my question about their
family and extended family.



To answer your question... it's also been mentioned here many times
that CPS
prevents an association with relatives and family... and former
friends.

It has? I've never seen any such claims here, and if there were,
certainly no proof that is so. How would CPS prevents such contact by
an adult (AGED out of the system, remember) when they have zero success
stopping a teen still IN the system from contacting their family
members, and in fact order foster parents to make that possible for
children, even when OTHER contact, for safety reasons is not allowed?

The idea to to keep parents from being able to interfere through
anyone
known to the kids.

You'll have to flesh that out a bit. It makes no sense. Interfere with
what? Who? How?

And how does that work to stop an adult, just leaving the CPS system,
from contact with relatives?

After spending 17 years in foster care it's not easy to be accept by
blood
relatives who had little contact with the boy.

Relatives abandon children "wrongly" removed (as so often claimed here)
by CPS?

You posit a remarkably rare phenomena, that children lose contact with
relatives, or even, bobber, their parents. Even adopted children in
most states are part of an open adoption plan, with some contact.
Certainly in foster care their is openness in nearly every case of long
term care. Unless of course the parents fell out and disappeared.

He is, after all, a stranger
to them.

Oh? No blood relative of mine, even those I've never met, is a
"stranger" to me. We'd take about an hour to catch up on our
connections and those we know mutually. And even those I knew and a
child and haven't seen for decades...many of them, would still be
family to me, no matter who or what came in our way.

How much help are the suppose to give the boy and for what reason?

Well, about as much as a caring family member might give to any
relative. You have a problem with that?

No, we just can't pass the kid off and expect relatives to pick up
broken
peices created in large part by CPS.

Bull****. The relatives, by NOT becoming involved (sometimes not their
fault and sometimes it is) back when it would have been an
intervention. Don't try that **** with me, bobber. I worked with
relatives for years, and saw the good ones, the bad ones, and the ones
that simply couldn't help it. And blood speaks to blood.

As for the dilema of kids aging out of the system, you are in fact
right...and why? MONEY YOU BLIND ASSHOLE.

There are not enough funds to assist. There never has been. And I have
spoken to legislators on the that issue. HAVE YOU, NITWIT?

Written anyone? There are no legislators here. Go..do it. Stop your
fruckin' whining, you boring twit.

By the way, a large number of children "aging" out of the system are in
fact eligible of SSI and get it. They are disabled. And by genetic and
functional injuries inflicted by their PARENTS, yah useless asswipe.

Blaming 'foster care' for the injuries to these children should be a
crime and you should be in jail for perpetrating it, yah fukerian liar.


The actual incident of this is low, not high. Adn you and Doug and
other's here are sick ****s trying to peddle this crap. AND TRYING TO
KEEP THE SYSTEM CRIPPLED AND UNDERFUNDED SO THE CHILDREN WHO LEAVE THE
SYSTEM ARE NOT PROPERLY FUNDED and supported.

All funding is competed for by every government agency and between them
all. The assholes like you that sit and whine and don't make your
voices heard where it counts are part of the problem. Because these
"children" are now adults it become very difficult to get the
legislators to allocate funding. The public thinks they should be on
their own.

Did you bother to read the letter from a Portland Oregon volunteer
organization that in fact does prepare children to leave the system as
adults? Same problem. Not enough money. They do good work though with
the volunteers who come forward.

Want to know who the majority of volunteer are? CPS WORKERS AND OTHER
PROFESSIONALS FROM THE COURTS, THE MENTAL HEALTH, AND JUVENILE SYSTEMS,
YAH ****ING NITWIT. ON THEIR OWN DAMN TIME.

You are a hazard to humanity, bobber the swift. What should be
classified as a pandemic social disease. There are far too many such as
you.

bobb

Put your head back up it, bobber, and take a nap.

0:-

Kane excused supervisory chain of command at CPS agencies
for not being aware of what takes place on their watch?

Any supervisor, and any level, bears a responsibility to
supervise the activities under their supervision.

In law suits, the phrases are "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN"
and "Failure to supervise".

Supervisors who don't supervise because they think
their deliberate ignorance will shield them are getting
some REALLY BAD legal advice!

Greegor wrote:
Kane excused supervisory chain of command at CPS agencies
for not being aware of what takes place on their watch?

Where?

Any supervisor, and any level, bears a responsibility to
supervise the activities under their supervision.

That's true.

Responsibility is an after the fact event in supervision. Supervisors
are not paid for, nor allowed to, constantly follow workers minute by
minute.

In law suits, the phrases are "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN"
and "Failure to supervise".

That's right, but of course has not point in this instance.

Supervisors who don't supervise because they think
their deliberate ignorance will shield them are getting
some REALLY BAD legal advice!

And you would apply that to this situation how again?

Are you in fact saying that if a supervisor didn't know that there was
a paedophile involved they 'should' have? How should they have known?

Psychic hotline?

I love when sidewalk superintendants babble on about what other's
should have done, but would themselves never be able to come near doing
the job, even if they could get hired, which of course they couldn't.

So tell us greegor, how does one spot a paedophile, outside the very
few that wear a placard stating, "I **** little kids?"

Go ahead. Show us how CPS SHOULD have done this job you have for them
in spotting paedophiles.

We'll wait.

When you are done, explain why you think Criminal charges against
management are in order, rather than other charges or penalties.

If I hire someone for my company, that I sent out to do a pickup order
for me, and they shoot the people at the Will Call desk, should I be
charged with murder?

Of course I should if I told him to shoot them, and I should be
charged, possibly, with something considerably lessor if he said he was
going to and I believed him, but didn't call, and less if he said he
was and I laughed and didn't believe him, (probably nothing at all as a
charge).

And if he didn't tell me he was going to. And his crim background check
showed no murder or attempts before?

What criminal charge would you say would be sufficent to punish me for
my ignorance of his past and his intent? What if he had NO past
whatsoever of violence?

So, tell us, what are you babbling about?

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Kane excused supervisory chain of command at CPS agencies
for not being aware of what takes place on their watch?

No I didn't. I pointed out the difficulties involved. Or are you
suggesting it's an easy job? And of course mistakes would not happen if
you were doing it?

Any supervisor, and any level, bears a responsibility to
supervise the activities under their supervision.

That's right. They are not psychics, however. Or is it required that no
unacceptable events may happen and any supervisor upon whose watch they
do must be fired?

I have a hunch we'd run out of supervisors. What do you think?

In law suits, the phrases are "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN"
and "Failure to supervise".

Ah, the "should have known."

You do not understand the implications.

That would suggest there are events judged by others, as NOT being
KNOWN because there was no reason the supervisor "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN."
In other words, it's been decided that supervisors are not required to
be psychics. If it was sent to a supervisor in a form that is
recognized as being a "should have known" say an email, or memo, or in
conference, then the super should have known.

If it was being passed around the office as rumor, it may well be the
supervisor had not way to know for sure. Of if an event was reported
while the supervisor was away on say vacation, and during the time
after returning they were going through their correspondance and had
not come to the item that exploded into a major event, they would not
be seen as having 'SHOULD HAVE KNOWN," since it was physically
impossible to do so.

The trick you folks like to play doesn't work if YOU are in the
hotseat.

You would scream foul. In fact, geegor, you scream fould even when you
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that is you were told point blank, publically, but
chose to ignore or go against what you were told.

Supervisors who don't supervise because they think
their deliberate ignorance will shield them are getting
some REALLY BAD legal advice!

Nope. It doesn't work that way. If they were officially and or
according to standards of practice not informed or couldn't know, by
virtue say of extenuating circumstances, like absense, making it
physically impossible for them to know. Then they weren't ignorant for
deliberate intend to be, but because they could NOT know.

If you think otherwise, pop up some proof other than innuendo.

No one, least of all I, is defending a supervisor that KNOWS what is
going on and yet does not act correctly on that information. You don't
read what I write, you just see what you want, instead of what, from my
statements, you "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN."

Point out where I defend the supervisor that knew what was going on and
failed to act properly.

0:-

"Michael" wrote in message
g.com...
On Thu 14 Apr 2005 08:25:43p wrote in
alt.support.child-protective-services


Greegor wrote:
Kane excused supervisory chain of command at CPS agencies for not
being aware of what takes place on their watch?

Where?

Any supervisor, and any level, bears a responsibility to supervise the
activities under their supervision.

That's true.

Responsibility is an after the fact event in supervision. Supervisors
are not paid for, nor allowed to, constantly follow workers minute by
minute.


After the fact? That's asinine! LOL.

Supervise :

1. Oversee activity - to watch over a particular activity or task being
carried out by other people and ensure that it is carried out correctly.

2. Oversee people - to be in charge of a group of people engaged in some
activity and to keep order or ensure that they carry out a task
adequately.

So you're only responsible after someone ****s up? LMAO. Maybe in CPS
though! You're supposed to prevent ****ups before they happen.


Hmm.... I always took the position I was responsible before, and after. The
best
plans do not always work out... maybe even because someone dropped the ball
I think a good manager will have an alternative plan, sometimes in
anticpation
of preparing for the worse case, and he should always be ready to pick up
the
pieces. It is well known managers/supervisors are not always the gifted,
too.
Often the employees will make up for deficient bosses.

The plans of a bad manager will often be sucessful because of good
employees...but even a great manager cannot succeed with bad employees.

bobb







In law suits, the phrases are "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" and "Failure
to supervise".

That's right, but of course has not point in this instance.

Supervisors who don't supervise because they think
their deliberate ignorance will shield them are getting some REALLY
BAD legal advice!

And you would apply that to this situation how again?

Are you in fact saying that if a supervisor didn't know that there was
a paedophile involved they 'should' have? How should they have known?

Psychic hotline?

I love when sidewalk superintendants babble on about what other's
should have done, but would themselves never be able to come near doing
the job, even if they could get hired, which of course they couldn't.

So tell us greegor, how does one spot a paedophile, outside the very
few that wear a placard stating, "I **** little kids?"

Go ahead. Show us how CPS SHOULD have done this job you have for them
in spotting paedophiles.

We'll wait.

When you are done, explain why you think Criminal charges against
management are in order, rather than other charges or penalties.

If I hire someone for my company, that I sent out to do a pickup order
for me, and they shoot the people at the Will Call desk, should I be
charged with murder?

Of course I should if I told him to shoot them, and I should be
charged, possibly, with something considerably lessor if he said he was
going to and I believed him, but didn't call, and less if he said he
was and I laughed and didn't believe him, (probably nothing at all as a
charge).

And if he didn't tell me he was going to. And his crim background check
showed no murder or attempts before?

What criminal charge would you say would be sufficent to punish me for
my ignorance of his past and his intent? What if he had NO past
whatsoever of violence?

So, tell us, what are you babbling about?

0:-





--
Michael

Notice: The preceding has been entirely my opinion
and does not constitute legal advice.

Notice: I don't see cross-posted posts.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.