A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services[CPS]



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 07, 06:00 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
fx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,848
Default Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services[CPS]

Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS]

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=5126

Improving Proctection for Children Beyond CPS

The most helpful proposal to improve protection for children—as distinct
from the failed “child protective services” (CPS) system—is to encourage
and support nurture and rearing of children within natural families in
spirit and in deed.

“A proper investigation from the beginning” applies infinitely more to
actions and consequences of CPS investigations on behalf of under-age
Americans than to the rightly criticized methods of Aruba, cruise lines
and other nations fumbling to “find” young adult Americans missing
beyond our borders.

SWAP (Social Work Again Proposal) was presented officially on July 26,
1994 to the Health and Human Resources Subcommittee of then Gov. George
Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee in Richmond, Virginia.

It distills what can be done to replace what CPS has become: a
parapolice arm of the prosecution. Results of its faltering
focus—little interest in preserving natural family, the smallest but
most vital building block of American society—were proved by Child and
Family Service Reviews, failed by every state

A crystallized version of SWAP follows:

When families needing help do not ask, afraid it will hurt

For children hurting in foster care whose cries are ignored

Knowing not every child abuse report requires intervention

A SOLUTION for elected representatives at all government levels

1. Return Social Services to traditional family-supportive practice.
2. Have trained law enforcement, using due process and standard
rules of evidence, investigate. (No more 3rd party, financially-
interested hearsay to justify family-injuring interventions.)
3. ONLY if a child has no natural extended family willing or able to
provide temporary housing should courts separate families.

Making “Paper Orphans” of children--especially babies marketable for
adoption and post-adoption subsidies--is an unworthy contemporary
American practice. It is enabled by federal and state legislation and
funding. It encourages needless out of home and family placement.
Taxpayers are defrauded and never harmed children are traumatized. Lady
Justice is strangled as good people, entering social work with concern
for children and families, learn to practice a parapolice type child
saving that hurts children, families, taxpayers and justice.

There is a simple and right way to solve problems created because an
adoption agenda and funding opportunities overshadowed best practice,
Constitutional, and moral treatment of children and families. There is
a just and rational way to return both science and common sense to child
abuse investigations of the presumptively worst “crimes” (if one has
been committed wittingly and intentionally). SWAP is the answer.

Barbara Bryan

First proposed officially 7/26/94 in Virginia to HHR Subcommittee of
Gov. Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee

When there are reasons that a child cannot be reared in his or her home
by one or both birth parents, and there are no relatives supported
sufficiently (always less expensively than with strangers) to accept and
keep the children close to grandparents and siblings, then open adoption
should be the order of the day “in the best interests of” children
already traumatized.

If slowing the rampant removal and reallocation of children reported as
abused or neglected cannot be achieved by restoring basic human and
civil rights and Constitutional law to all dealings with America’s
parents, those children purported to benefit from continued funding
under PSSF reauthorization will thank those who let it die in 2006.

More money for a program that has performed perversely for three decades
for children and families is not a reasonable or fiscally sound solution.

Counterproductive Services

Through many years I brought documented misfortunes to the attention of
the appointed State Board of Social Services in the Commonwealth of
Virginia at its public meetings, wherever they were throughout the
Commonwealth and always at my own expense.

There were times, on behalf of beleaguered and broken-hearted officially
injured families, when I described CPS as “counterproductive services”
because it so often achieved the opposite effect assured under State law
by its policies and regulations. That was because “practice” by agents
with varying degrees of knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as
mental health, often matched none of the above.

Nevertheless, local agencies, the Central office of Department of Social
Services, the Secretariat, “family” courts (most not courts of record)
and up the ladder—and too well served by the Office of the Attorney
General, both attorney for the errant agency as well as the
Commonwealth’s top law enforcer)—backed the errors. The sad seal of
approval for local, hands-on child protection was given to agencies
acting helpfully or ignoring a child to known battering in DeShaney.

Why? Most state laws, although legal because they are statutory, also
are extraconstitutional and known to be so. Amending State
Constitutions, as Virginia did, to claim “all laws are presumed to be
constitutional” is no help to children and families literally
dis-membered by agents of the state.

The burden to overturn a CPS agency error, and with more difficulty an
extra-constitutional State law, is on the injured and/or affected
citizen, obligated to go childless (a presumptive perspective itself) to
the US Supreme Court with private resources. That person has a
minuscule chance of ever having such a case heard to upend decades of
allowed and funded CPS practice.

Anonymous Reporting

Although the old “evil empire,” the USSR outlawed anonymous reports in
1984 because of their unreliability, the Act that launched CPS under
CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) more than three decades
ago required states to accept and act on anonymous reports and to
maintain Central Registries of those reports of suspicions. Our nation
has criticized Third World countries for similar practices in the “rule
of suspect,” only in CPS cases we legally take and hold the children
until “cooperation” or a confession is forthcoming.

No one wearing a black robe or sitting on a bench anywhere, and
certainly not the US Surpremes who have penned the bitter words of
DeShaney, wants to open the lid on the Pandora’s box in which CPS buries
its mistakes.

With inferior resources to the purse and sword of the State, families
often “give up” children, sometimes in exchange for promised health or
mental health care, sometimes in the frequently vain hope they may be
allowed to keep one or more of them, and sometimes only to learn per
1997 ASFA that subsequent newborns will be removed from the delivery
room and handed over to pre-adoptive homes and there is financial
incentive involved.

What is the difference between a now denounced ill-conceived official
policy of sterilization and constructive serial sterilization: taking
away children, one by one, only after a mother has conceived, nurtured
and given birth to them, if through actions of its CPS agents “the
people” and agents and courts are wrong as too often occurs?

Feigning concern for children and “family preservation” while giving
equal and often greater weight to testimony of pre-adoptive foster
parents, even in the cases of wrongful removals that will not be
repaired if “Oh, well, the child has been there for 15 of the past 22
months so we HAVE to terminate your parental rights,” is a shell game
practiced for decades and refined following ASFA

Legal Child Trafficking

Anywhere else on the planet that kind of trafficking in children would
be decried. America made it legal, major media glorify it and promote
the practice in subtle and blatant ways by extolling adoption minus
particulars on the origins of infant availabilities as the smallest
prizes. Far from telling the whole story of what CPS has been allowed
to do, glory stories are played up and errors and horrors suggested as
aberrations with proposed solutions of the usual mantra: “More money,
more workers, more training.”

Multiple Response Systems (MRS) or “differential response” is CPS hiding
behind a happy face mask. There are times when parents, most familiar
with their own children and more protective than transient child
protectors working under state laws purposefully disconnected from
either State or US Constitutional Law, should say “No, thank you” to
“parenting classes” and other seeming “services” such as coerced
anti-Fifth Amendment mental health evaluations.

But, that makes them “uncooperative” re “participation in services”
which “documents” a reason for proceeding with termination of parental
rights.

“Preservation,” sometimes redefined as finding or creating a “forever
home” somewhere with somebody, is a word meaning one thing to a natural
parent trying desperately to liberate a child from system overreach and
something quite different to CPS and State agents computing how many
more children must be “adopted out” to exceed last year’s quota to
qualify for an agency federal bonus.

Some tragic stories of agency-overloaded, if not
we-just-can’t-say-no-to-the-child-and-the-check couples, also compute
the fame (“Aren’t they the most amazing and good-hearted people.”) and
gain. The work as well as the rewards go up in bottom line value if the
child arrives with the right labels of “special needs” and “at risk,”
near guaranteed labels for a “substantiated” abused or neglected child,
accurate or not.

Government has been scammed enough through the years by CPS agencies to
have HHS/IG auditors who know the whole truth and, prayerfully, have
tried to convey it to large-hearted and level headed members of Congress.

Children and Taxpayers Cheated

There was Contra Costa County’s refusal to proceed with adoptions, even
ones that natural parents approved, because money for various services
but unshared with those who actually cared for the children could be
used otherwise by the agency. There was the interesting exposure in
Texas: labeling children along CPS and education lines and billing for
counseling done by a psychologist in a distant state who never had a
clue. Double-dipping against the taxpayers was simple and this was not
by a white collar criminal in the private domain.

Taxpayers paid all. Children did NOT receive the benefits. Families
were hurt. Agents of the state and monitors at federal levels danced
with each other while Government supposedly watchdogs Government to
explain the effectiveness and efficiency of spending federal
appropriations FOR THE CHILDREN.

When CFSR auditors were stiffed in their initial efforts to gain
supporting documentation for spending claims from Virginia’s CPS and
foster care (and just maybe the tiny “preservation services” lumped in
under foster care and adoption), they went back and had essentially the
same welcome and result. No one connected with CPS (“confidential” and
presumed to be on the side of angels) expects to be bothered or ever
really held accountable.

After all, the nice judge nearly always accepts CPS recommendations (if
he/she likes remaining on the bench) and a stroke of a judge’s pen
immunizes all. Then there is that nice coverage from risk management
and a taxpayer-provided lawyer in the form of an assistant DA,
prosecutor, Commonwealth’s attorney. Why keep and show HHS/IG auditors
annoying (and evidentiary) paperwork?

Why honor requests from Congress to prove that anyone really protected
children or “served” them and preserved families when one is covered
every which way by courts, free lawyers and is assumed by the public to
be in there fighting “for children?”

Served or Severed?

IF members of Congress learned the language of child protection agencies
and apparent “child (as distinct from “family”) advocates, the ones
shamelessly covered by “the United States,” six other states and others
defending government error at all costs (i.e., protecting tax coffers
from taxpayers who know preventable error when they see it), they would
welcome DeShaney redux as an illumination from the highest bench of the
Judicial branch.

In that decision, a justice speaks for “poor Joshua,” noting that Child
protective services, or CPS the agency, is the sole “support” and help
for known injured children. When its agents are allowed to ignore a
battered child to death—with the blessing of even the US Supremes—there
are meanings shrouded in all the writings related to the quite often
predictable travesty of a child death. Nothing truly “slipped through
the cracks.”

We hear post-homicide statements from NYC’s CPC agency Commissioner
(must be translated by the aware) that “We have no reports” on Lisa
Steinberg or Nadine Lockwood or Elisa Isquierda. The actual meaning,
among other possibilities is: (a) we declined to accept reports (we are
required to investigate), (b) we never wrote down details of the calls
we were planning to ignore anyway or (c) maybe they were written down
but we’ve shredded them.

There must immediately be returned to the nation, through rational
choices and educated awareness of its elected representatives, a
presumption in favor of birth and natural family in all but true orphan
status for babies and children.

Newborns should not be whisked from delivery rooms because a 1997
federal law enables trafficking in tiny human flesh because a mother has
“lost” prior children to the system. For all the families who’ve had
children succumb serially to once-unidentified genetic disorders, for
all who’ve seen children react to overloads of vaccines (5-9 shots at
one time for many welfare or military children whose brains swell,
retinal hemorrhages are caused and suddenly their parents are accused of
becoming angry, violently shaking them, never mind the law of physics
proves there MUST be accompanying severe neck injury), an official
policy that creates trauma where often there provably was little or none
prior to CPS “intervention,” MUST CEASE AND DESIST.

So, someone goes to prison, a mother becomes childless, children are
scattered from family and each other, and no one dares tell the whole
story of overloads for some in situations, of too many shots at one time
in relation to the current health status of a child, some of whom were
preemies and given shots anyway by the “chronological” rather than
gestational age.

Capital Punishment Equivalent

Mistakes are made. More child protection reports than anyone chooses to
believe are not supportable IF those accused received the courtesies
given serial killers under justice system options that include a death
sentence.

Attorneys who bravely try standing between the feelings of the lowest
line CPS worker and a never-abusive but about-to-be fractured family in
purposely extraconstitutional courts (see pre-1899 comments about the
first juvenile courts) correctly equate turning a family’s child into a
“legal stranger” by a judge’s pen the civil (or supremely Uncivil)
parallel of capital punishment under criminal justice. But, aren’t
child abusers even WORSE than murderers? So why are not they—and
alleged “evidence,” too often state-purchased hearsay—under the most
carefully scrutinized rules of solid evidence?

Instead families have a choice: simply give up children—or watch them
taken anyway under color of law—and maybe you get to live. What is life
without the children that parents wanted, loved and for whom strong
advocacy may have meant unwarily “starting something”?

That “something” may have been annoying a doctor, an educator, a
professional with too many questions, quoting law or policy, or offering
or challenging an opinion that did not match the child or what the
parent knew of the child. For busy and annoyed and sometimes arrogant
professionals a call to CPS to report “suspicions” has proved to be an
almost guaranteed diversion and assurance any threats or costly or
bothersome advocacy for a child will stop (“under color of law”).

Never mind the child, truly “in need of services,” is now subject to
removal by CPS and near instant pre-adoptive placement? Who cares that
adopters will likely have to promise not to pursue similar advocacy,
even after they learn what the parent/s always knew: the child needed
help and parents went to the agency that promised it.

Just as with Congressional interest in improving foster care, one can
aim at “improv(ing) child protective services,” as one can attempt to
reform or improve Frankenstein. The end result remains: a monster.

Barbara Bryan





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 THEIR
"FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...
  #2  
Old March 18th 07, 03:27 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
0:-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS]

....ah whatever would we do without the dim but vocal ranters.

Let's take just one of these bogus claims...."life insurance for
foster children."

The assumption would be that all children in foster care would be
covered....but there's an odd little kink the poster seems to have not
noticed. See "**" :


http://www.opm.gov/insure/life/65-64529.txt
[[[ See my end piece after this insert ]]]

Sec. 870.306 Are foster children eligible as family members under my
Option C coverage?

(a) Effective October 30, 1998, foster children are eligible for
coverage as family members under Option C.
(b) To qualify for coverage as a foster child, the child must meet
the following requirements:
(1) The child must live with you;
(2) The parent-child relationship (as defined in Sec. 870.101)
must
be with you, not the biological parent;
(3) You must be the primary source of financial support for the
child; and
(4) You must expect to raise the child to adulthood.
(c) A child does not qualify as a foster child if:
** (1) A welfare or social service agency places the child in your
home; and
** (2) There is an agreement by which the agency retains control of
the child or pays you for maintenance.
(d)(1) If you want to cover a foster child, you must sign a
certification stating that the child meets all the requirements. The
certification must also state that you will notify your employing
office if one of these situations happens:
(i) The child marries;
(ii) The child moves out of your home; or
(iii) The child stops being financially dependent on you.
(2) Your employing office must keep the signed certification in
your file, along with other life insurance forms.
(e) If your foster child moves out of your home to live with a
biological parent, the child loses eligibility. The child cannot again
be covered as a foster child unless:
(1) The biological parent dies;
(2) The biological parent is imprisoned;
(3) The biological parent becomes unable to care for the child due
to a disability; or
(4) You get a court order taking parental responsibility away from
the biological parent.

Why did I notice this, in particular? Some of you may recall I've said
there that for about 14 years I helped RELATIVE foster families
involved with CPS.

In that time I met a number of folks that were NOT fostering children
placed by CPS. CPS was simply the expediter FOR the relatives, and had
NOT placed the child with them. The child's own parents had in an
inter family agreement. In some instance people were fostering
someone's child that was NOT related by blood, but by marriage only.

That is all the COVERAGE is about.

NO life insurance policies are taken out with CPS as beneficiaries.

And if a family has sole financial responsibility for a child, as
often the case in private arrangements, then they should be able to
treat the child just as the rest of the children in their household.

NOTHING to do with the state, just insurance coverage FOR POSTAL AND
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

In other words, just folks, not FOSTER FAMILIES CERTIFIED AND
SUPERVISED BY CPS:
"[Federal Register: October 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64529-64553]
[[Page 64529]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Office of Personnel Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CFR Part 870
Federal Employees' Group Life Program: Miscellaneous Changes and
Clarifications and Plain Language Rewrite; Proposed Rule
[[Page 64530]]
.............................


Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Can't help but wonder what else fx is shooting out his ass.

Amazing what shows up here in socks.

This one kind of reminds of one from the past....R R R R R

0;]



On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:00:37 -0700, fx wrote:

Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services [CPS]

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=5126

Improving Proctection for Children Beyond CPS

The most helpful proposal to improve protection for children—as distinct
from the failed “child protective services” (CPS) system—is to encourage
and support nurture and rearing of children within natural families in
spirit and in deed.

“A proper investigation from the beginning” applies infinitely more to
actions and consequences of CPS investigations on behalf of under-age
Americans than to the rightly criticized methods of Aruba, cruise lines
and other nations fumbling to “find” young adult Americans missing
beyond our borders.

SWAP (Social Work Again Proposal) was presented officially on July 26,
1994 to the Health and Human Resources Subcommittee of then Gov. George
Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee in Richmond, Virginia.

It distills what can be done to replace what CPS has become: a
parapolice arm of the prosecution. Results of its faltering
focus—little interest in preserving natural family, the smallest but
most vital building block of American society—were proved by Child and
Family Service Reviews, failed by every state

A crystallized version of SWAP follows:

When families needing help do not ask, afraid it will hurt

For children hurting in foster care whose cries are ignored

Knowing not every child abuse report requires intervention

A SOLUTION for elected representatives at all government levels

1. Return Social Services to traditional family-supportive practice.
2. Have trained law enforcement, using due process and standard
rules of evidence, investigate. (No more 3rd party, financially-
interested hearsay to justify family-injuring interventions.)
3. ONLY if a child has no natural extended family willing or able to
provide temporary housing should courts separate families.

Making “Paper Orphans” of children--especially babies marketable for
adoption and post-adoption subsidies--is an unworthy contemporary
American practice. It is enabled by federal and state legislation and
funding. It encourages needless out of home and family placement.
Taxpayers are defrauded and never harmed children are traumatized. Lady
Justice is strangled as good people, entering social work with concern
for children and families, learn to practice a parapolice type child
saving that hurts children, families, taxpayers and justice.

There is a simple and right way to solve problems created because an
adoption agenda and funding opportunities overshadowed best practice,
Constitutional, and moral treatment of children and families. There is
a just and rational way to return both science and common sense to child
abuse investigations of the presumptively worst “crimes” (if one has
been committed wittingly and intentionally). SWAP is the answer.

Barbara Bryan

First proposed officially 7/26/94 in Virginia to HHR Subcommittee of
Gov. Allen’s Regulatory Review Committee

When there are reasons that a child cannot be reared in his or her home
by one or both birth parents, and there are no relatives supported
sufficiently (always less expensively than with strangers) to accept and
keep the children close to grandparents and siblings, then open adoption
should be the order of the day “in the best interests of” children
already traumatized.

If slowing the rampant removal and reallocation of children reported as
abused or neglected cannot be achieved by restoring basic human and
civil rights and Constitutional law to all dealings with America’s
parents, those children purported to benefit from continued funding
under PSSF reauthorization will thank those who let it die in 2006.

More money for a program that has performed perversely for three decades
for children and families is not a reasonable or fiscally sound solution.

Counterproductive Services

Through many years I brought documented misfortunes to the attention of
the appointed State Board of Social Services in the Commonwealth of
Virginia at its public meetings, wherever they were throughout the
Commonwealth and always at my own expense.

There were times, on behalf of beleaguered and broken-hearted officially
injured families, when I described CPS as “counterproductive services”
because it so often achieved the opposite effect assured under State law
by its policies and regulations. That was because “practice” by agents
with varying degrees of knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as
mental health, often matched none of the above.

Nevertheless, local agencies, the Central office of Department of Social
Services, the Secretariat, “family” courts (most not courts of record)
and up the ladder—and too well served by the Office of the Attorney
General, both attorney for the errant agency as well as the
Commonwealth’s top law enforcer)—backed the errors. The sad seal of
approval for local, hands-on child protection was given to agencies
acting helpfully or ignoring a child to known battering in DeShaney.

Why? Most state laws, although legal because they are statutory, also
are extraconstitutional and known to be so. Amending State
Constitutions, as Virginia did, to claim “all laws are presumed to be
constitutional” is no help to children and families literally
dis-membered by agents of the state.

The burden to overturn a CPS agency error, and with more difficulty an
extra-constitutional State law, is on the injured and/or affected
citizen, obligated to go childless (a presumptive perspective itself) to
the US Supreme Court with private resources. That person has a
minuscule chance of ever having such a case heard to upend decades of
allowed and funded CPS practice.

Anonymous Reporting

Although the old “evil empire,” the USSR outlawed anonymous reports in
1984 because of their unreliability, the Act that launched CPS under
CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) more than three decades
ago required states to accept and act on anonymous reports and to
maintain Central Registries of those reports of suspicions. Our nation
has criticized Third World countries for similar practices in the “rule
of suspect,” only in CPS cases we legally take and hold the children
until “cooperation” or a confession is forthcoming.

No one wearing a black robe or sitting on a bench anywhere, and
certainly not the US Surpremes who have penned the bitter words of
DeShaney, wants to open the lid on the Pandora’s box in which CPS buries
its mistakes.

With inferior resources to the purse and sword of the State, families
often “give up” children, sometimes in exchange for promised health or
mental health care, sometimes in the frequently vain hope they may be
allowed to keep one or more of them, and sometimes only to learn per
1997 ASFA that subsequent newborns will be removed from the delivery
room and handed over to pre-adoptive homes and there is financial
incentive involved.

What is the difference between a now denounced ill-conceived official
policy of sterilization and constructive serial sterilization: taking
away children, one by one, only after a mother has conceived, nurtured
and given birth to them, if through actions of its CPS agents “the
people” and agents and courts are wrong as too often occurs?

Feigning concern for children and “family preservation” while giving
equal and often greater weight to testimony of pre-adoptive foster
parents, even in the cases of wrongful removals that will not be
repaired if “Oh, well, the child has been there for 15 of the past 22
months so we HAVE to terminate your parental rights,” is a shell game
practiced for decades and refined following ASFA

Legal Child Trafficking

Anywhere else on the planet that kind of trafficking in children would
be decried. America made it legal, major media glorify it and promote
the practice in subtle and blatant ways by extolling adoption minus
particulars on the origins of infant availabilities as the smallest
prizes. Far from telling the whole story of what CPS has been allowed
to do, glory stories are played up and errors and horrors suggested as
aberrations with proposed solutions of the usual mantra: “More money,
more workers, more training.”

Multiple Response Systems (MRS) or “differential response” is CPS hiding
behind a happy face mask. There are times when parents, most familiar
with their own children and more protective than transient child
protectors working under state laws purposefully disconnected from
either State or US Constitutional Law, should say “No, thank you” to
“parenting classes” and other seeming “services” such as coerced
anti-Fifth Amendment mental health evaluations.

But, that makes them “uncooperative” re “participation in services”
which “documents” a reason for proceeding with termination of parental
rights.

“Preservation,” sometimes redefined as finding or creating a “forever
home” somewhere with somebody, is a word meaning one thing to a natural
parent trying desperately to liberate a child from system overreach and
something quite different to CPS and State agents computing how many
more children must be “adopted out” to exceed last year’s quota to
qualify for an agency federal bonus.

Some tragic stories of agency-overloaded, if not
we-just-can’t-say-no-to-the-child-and-the-check couples, also compute
the fame (“Aren’t they the most amazing and good-hearted people.”) and
gain. The work as well as the rewards go up in bottom line value if the
child arrives with the right labels of “special needs” and “at risk,”
near guaranteed labels for a “substantiated” abused or neglected child,
accurate or not.

Government has been scammed enough through the years by CPS agencies to
have HHS/IG auditors who know the whole truth and, prayerfully, have
tried to convey it to large-hearted and level headed members of Congress.

Children and Taxpayers Cheated

There was Contra Costa County’s refusal to proceed with adoptions, even
ones that natural parents approved, because money for various services
but unshared with those who actually cared for the children could be
used otherwise by the agency. There was the interesting exposure in
Texas: labeling children along CPS and education lines and billing for
counseling done by a psychologist in a distant state who never had a
clue. Double-dipping against the taxpayers was simple and this was not
by a white collar criminal in the private domain.

Taxpayers paid all. Children did NOT receive the benefits. Families
were hurt. Agents of the state and monitors at federal levels danced
with each other while Government supposedly watchdogs Government to
explain the effectiveness and efficiency of spending federal
appropriations FOR THE CHILDREN.

When CFSR auditors were stiffed in their initial efforts to gain
supporting documentation for spending claims from Virginia’s CPS and
foster care (and just maybe the tiny “preservation services” lumped in
under foster care and adoption), they went back and had essentially the
same welcome and result. No one connected with CPS (“confidential” and
presumed to be on the side of angels) expects to be bothered or ever
really held accountable.

After all, the nice judge nearly always accepts CPS recommendations (if
he/she likes remaining on the bench) and a stroke of a judge’s pen
immunizes all. Then there is that nice coverage from risk management
and a taxpayer-provided lawyer in the form of an assistant DA,
prosecutor, Commonwealth’s attorney. Why keep and show HHS/IG auditors
annoying (and evidentiary) paperwork?

Why honor requests from Congress to prove that anyone really protected
children or “served” them and preserved families when one is covered
every which way by courts, free lawyers and is assumed by the public to
be in there fighting “for children?”

Served or Severed?

IF members of Congress learned the language of child protection agencies
and apparent “child (as distinct from “family”) advocates, the ones
shamelessly covered by “the United States,” six other states and others
defending government error at all costs (i.e., protecting tax coffers
from taxpayers who know preventable error when they see it), they would
welcome DeShaney redux as an illumination from the highest bench of the
Judicial branch.

In that decision, a justice speaks for “poor Joshua,” noting that Child
protective services, or CPS the agency, is the sole “support” and help
for known injured children. When its agents are allowed to ignore a
battered child to death—with the blessing of even the US Supremes—there
are meanings shrouded in all the writings related to the quite often
predictable travesty of a child death. Nothing truly “slipped through
the cracks.”

We hear post-homicide statements from NYC’s CPC agency Commissioner
(must be translated by the aware) that “We have no reports” on Lisa
Steinberg or Nadine Lockwood or Elisa Isquierda. The actual meaning,
among other possibilities is: (a) we declined to accept reports (we are
required to investigate), (b) we never wrote down details of the calls
we were planning to ignore anyway or (c) maybe they were written down
but we’ve shredded them.

There must immediately be returned to the nation, through rational
choices and educated awareness of its elected representatives, a
presumption in favor of birth and natural family in all but true orphan
status for babies and children.

Newborns should not be whisked from delivery rooms because a 1997
federal law enables trafficking in tiny human flesh because a mother has
“lost” prior children to the system. For all the families who’ve had
children succumb serially to once-unidentified genetic disorders, for
all who’ve seen children react to overloads of vaccines (5-9 shots at
one time for many welfare or military children whose brains swell,
retinal hemorrhages are caused and suddenly their parents are accused of
becoming angry, violently shaking them, never mind the law of physics
proves there MUST be accompanying severe neck injury), an official
policy that creates trauma where often there provably was little or none
prior to CPS “intervention,” MUST CEASE AND DESIST.

So, someone goes to prison, a mother becomes childless, children are
scattered from family and each other, and no one dares tell the whole
story of overloads for some in situations, of too many shots at one time
in relation to the current health status of a child, some of whom were
preemies and given shots anyway by the “chronological” rather than
gestational age.

Capital Punishment Equivalent

Mistakes are made. More child protection reports than anyone chooses to
believe are not supportable IF those accused received the courtesies
given serial killers under justice system options that include a death
sentence.

Attorneys who bravely try standing between the feelings of the lowest
line CPS worker and a never-abusive but about-to-be fractured family in
purposely extraconstitutional courts (see pre-1899 comments about the
first juvenile courts) correctly equate turning a family’s child into a
“legal stranger” by a judge’s pen the civil (or supremely Uncivil)
parallel of capital punishment under criminal justice. But, aren’t
child abusers even WORSE than murderers? So why are not they—and
alleged “evidence,” too often state-purchased hearsay—under the most
carefully scrutinized rules of solid evidence?

Instead families have a choice: simply give up children—or watch them
taken anyway under color of law—and maybe you get to live. What is life
without the children that parents wanted, loved and for whom strong
advocacy may have meant unwarily “starting something”?

That “something” may have been annoying a doctor, an educator, a
professional with too many questions, quoting law or policy, or offering
or challenging an opinion that did not match the child or what the
parent knew of the child. For busy and annoyed and sometimes arrogant
professionals a call to CPS to report “suspicions” has proved to be an
almost guaranteed diversion and assurance any threats or costly or
bothersome advocacy for a child will stop (“under color of law”).

Never mind the child, truly “in need of services,” is now subject to
removal by CPS and near instant pre-adoptive placement? Who cares that
adopters will likely have to promise not to pursue similar advocacy,
even after they learn what the parent/s always knew: the child needed
help and parents went to the agency that promised it.

Just as with Congressional interest in improving foster care, one can
aim at “improv(ing) child protective services,” as one can attempt to
reform or improve Frankenstein. The end result remains: a monster.

Barbara Bryan





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 THEIR
"FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE DEAD FOSTER CARE CHILDREN COVERED UP! [Child Protective Services] fx Spanking 7 March 18th 07 06:23 PM
Improving Proctection for Children Beyond Child Protective Services[CPS] fx Spanking 1 March 18th 07 03:27 PM
child protective services overhaul.... Greegor Foster Parents 3 February 9th 07 04:49 AM
Who Does 'Child Protective Services' Protect? xXBlondieGyrlXx Foster Parents 2 March 20th 05 02:25 PM
NG alt support child protective services Fern5827 Spanking 0 December 9th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.


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