[FOR SALE] Your Children: WHAT "Child Protective Services" ISREALLY ABOUT...

In most cases, the children have been placed in the custody of an
abusive parent when a safe parent is available. It is a corrupt money
driven practice in which a parent seeking to protect a child from abuse
is forced to litigate constantly in an effort to rescue his/her child
from the abuser, which in turn provides a steady income for the family
court "industry."

It involves "case fixing" and it works like this:

During divorce when a child discloses abuse, the parent seeking to
protect the child (protective parent--"PP") is attacked with spurious
psychobabble labels of "emotional instability," and on that basis, with
NO evidence pursuant to evidence codes of any harm toward the child by
the parent who makes the complaint, the child is removed from that
parent's custody.

In most cases, again using phony psychobabble labels and/or non evidentiary
"syndromes," the parent seeking to protect the child is placed on
"supervised visitation," court ordered to mediation, counseling,
evaluations, parenting classes etc., The court is able to access state
and federal funds dependent on the "services" litigating families
"need." The court makes money, the attorneys make money, and all the
appendages of the court make money--the evaluators, mediators, attys.
for the minors, etc.

The court banks on (pun intended) the fact that a parent will do
anything to rescue their child from abuse, and so can be blackmailed
into submitting to all the services and litigation that will provide a
healthy, steady, income for those holding the child hostage from the
parent. The protective parent is forced to jump through hoops to regain
custody. The problem is that when they jump through one hoop, the court
simply puts up another. The anger and frustration of the legally abused
parent who is desperate to protect his/her child is used against the
parent to allege further "emotional instability."
When the "PP" uses publicity to expose the malfeasance, they are further
restricted from access to their child with allegations that the
publicity is "harmful" to the child. Of course, the publicity is
harmful to the court, not the child. This is merely a ploy by the
courts to silence the victims of their illegal scheme. The cycle is
never ending. The children live their entire childhoods caught in
litigation and continued abuse.

A preliminary survey indicates that this phenomenon is restricted to
middle and upper class parents who have money and assets. The parents
are financially raped with FORCED and EXTORTED court services, their
money and assets winding up in the hands of the attys., evaluators, and
courts (appeals, transcripts, filing fees, etc.)

There is also the added component of the well formed movement in America
to normalize pedophilia as an "alternate lifestyle." In the cases of
sexual abuse of the child, this is a prime opportunity to advance that
movement Psychologists who known to be "pedophile friendly" are
appointed by the courts to do the evaluations, and use pedophile
friendly "syndromes" to defend the alleged molesters. The most
prevalent "syndrome" used in cases of child sexual abuse is "parental
alienation syndrome" (PAS). PAS was made up (and I mean that literally)
by a child psychiatrist (Richard
Gardner) whose self published writings advocate pedophilia as well as
other forms of deviant sexual behaviors such as necrophilia and
bestiality, as having "societal benefits." Gardner believes the only
harm to a child in having sex with an adult is the guilt they feel
because of "society's over-reaction" to the sex.

Originally created as an "incest defense," PAS alleges that the child
disclosing incest during custody is merely "coached" by the PP to make
allegations of abuse to "alienate" the child from the other parent, and
therefore the parent who supports the child's allegation of abuse is
"emotionally harming" the child. Because the PAS label is so
indiscriminate, and cannot meet standards of evidence, anything a parent
says or does can be twisted to fit the "label." REAL evidence of abuse,
such as police reports and medical evidence, is barred from being heard
by the court in cases where PAS is alleged, since the PAS could not
stand up in the face of real evidence.

PAS, which is used almost exclusively against women, is now routinely
used to gain custody for men who simply don't want to pay child support,
by alleging (without evidence) that the mother is trying to alienate the
child from the father. The correlation between increased child support
and enforcement coinciding with increased father custody and the use of
PAS, provides prima facie evidence that PAS has mushroomed from an
incest defense to a legal tool being to escape child support.

On May 15, 2000 we are having a press conference at the Capitol to
unveil an investigative report of evaluators, judges, and the CA Board
of Psychology's involvement in the use of PAS to place children in the
custody of their identified molesters, despite medical evidence of the
abuse. The press conference is mainly directed toward the Sacramento
court system. A federal civil rights and RICO (racketeer influenced
corrupt organization) lawsuit filed on behalf of several parents and
children will also be unveiled.

You may call me at home for any additional information (209) 295-1542. The
press is our best and most needed tool to expose this holocaust that is
destroying children in ever increasing numbers. While the below article
is not precisely on the subject, but related, it does an excellent job
of describing the how and why of the sacrificing of children's lives for
the profit of the "system." The motivation is the same as in the cases
we deal with.




No happy ending for these children.
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness. DSS and affiliates
rewarded for breaking up families.
By Nev Moore © 2000, Massachusetts News

Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the
country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. The money goes to tens of
thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as
lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians,
judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists,
more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster
parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc.
This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state
who have a job, draw a paycheck,
or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that
provides the motivation for DSS to take people's children - and not give
them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act
which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set
up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child
"Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed,
Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried
that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe
Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to
help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for
years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a
real home and family.

In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton's
initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who
are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." It all sounded so
heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy
stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother,
bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the
source."

In the stereotype that we've been sold about kids in foster care,
we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us
beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up
old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s.
We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like
Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the
little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to
meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into
their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke's eyes growing as
big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys
and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

Now it's time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are
hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the
projects. [Oh. you thought those were the children they were saving?
Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a
desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be
nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An
interesting point is
that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of
processing kids
into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city
areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting.

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is
responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of
this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child
they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their
adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They
actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption
of children.

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing
scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of
apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going
to do?

Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services
administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the
President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled
Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services.
The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states,
it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the
children turn eighteen.

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people
are doing
this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I've got some bad news
for you.

The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the every
top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response
from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration
cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS,
and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes.
They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I've
talked to
for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I'm preaching to
the already damned.

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who
they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn't the
President. It's us.

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given
a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For
every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to
$6,000. But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical
formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage
that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The
states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like
compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be
multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child
adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions
for the State for the fiscal year."

In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that,
"the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts,
provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to
reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in
foster care."

The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging
more adoptions
out of the foster care system; the development of best practice
guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the
development of special units and expertise in moving children toward
adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of
children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive
placements; and the development of programs that place children into
pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."

In the November press release from HHS it continues, "HHS awarded
the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption
of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other
incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to
adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families,
making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and
tax credits.

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy
Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States
rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective
care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the
Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an
Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families."
So we will be able to window shop for children on a government
website. If you don't find
anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe."

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just
looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS's quaint "Adoption
Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around
and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to
take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking."

The incentives for government child snatching are so good that
I'm surprised we don't have government agents breaking down people's
doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids.
But then, if you need more apples you don't chop down your apple trees.

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let's have a look at
how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies
continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the
child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age
of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through
the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for
State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from
$410-$486 per month per child.

Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of
course, they all can.

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special
needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability,
emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster
parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or
more years and separation would adversely affect the child's development
if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with
their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]

Additional "special needs" designations a a children twelve
years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings
or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston's
Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner
extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been
broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children
may also
get an additional Social Security check.

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a
clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption
fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and
"reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents
when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the
Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption
services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including
"daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services
such as housekeeping,
and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow!
Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] The subsidy profile
actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to
accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling
could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to
remove barriers to adoption" section.

The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based
solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the
family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the
welfare program that the same child's mother may have been on before
losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove
that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or
bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over
$1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two
children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We
spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the
taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding
ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and
foster parents aren't subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot
tests, MMPI's, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the
parents are.

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis.
[Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There
are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how
to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail
list:

"We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another
$500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens
and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills."

I can't help but wonder why we don't give this same level of
support to the children's parents in the first place? According to
Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not
involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are
for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural
parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above
that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn't it stand to reason
that the causes for removing children in the first place would be
eliminated?

How many less children would enter foster care in the first place?

The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to
around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers,
administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and
foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe,
healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

That's just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we
will. See Kathleen Crowley's children on the
governmenthome-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can
buy them.

May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption2002," the
U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they
don't feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to
boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office. I
know that I'm feeling pretty smug and superior about being part
of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

Note from CPPA: These cases are NOT aberrations, and they are NOT
due to incompetence. They are about a well orchestrated corrupt
enterprise; the trafficking of children for profit. We have all the
evidence necessary to prove this. We only need to find someone
intelligent enough to understand the scheme and honest enough to do
something about it. In the meantime, we continue to expose everything
we can, pull the covers off those who are hiding under the blankets of
"confidentiality," and the invisible armor that covers black robes.


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...

Rebuke this Kane!

On Mar 26, 11:04 pm, fx wrote:
In most cases, the children have been placed in the custody of an
abusive parent when a safe parent is available. It is a corrupt money
driven practice in which a parent seeking to protect a child from abuse
is forced to litigate constantly in an effort to rescue his/her child
from the abuser, which in turn provides a steady income for the family
court "industry."

It involves "case fixing" and it works like this:

During divorce when a child discloses abuse, the parent seeking to
protect the child (protective parent--"PP") is attacked with spurious
psychobabble labels of "emotional instability," and on that basis, with
NO evidence pursuant to evidence codes of any harm toward the child by
the parent who makes the complaint, the child is removed from that
parent's custody.

In most cases, again using phony psychobabble labels and/or non evidentiary
"syndromes," the parent seeking to protect the child is placed on
"supervised visitation," court ordered to mediation, counseling,
evaluations, parenting classes etc., The court is able to access state
and federal funds dependent on the "services" litigating families
"need." The court makes money, the attorneys make money, and all the
appendages of the court make money--the evaluators, mediators, attys.
for the minors, etc.

The court banks on (pun intended) the fact that a parent will do
anything to rescue their child from abuse, and so can be blackmailed
into submitting to all the services and litigation that will provide a
healthy, steady, income for those holding the child hostage from the
parent. The protective parent is forced to jump through hoops to regain
custody. The problem is that when they jump through one hoop, the court
simply puts up another. The anger and frustration of the legally abused
parent who is desperate to protect his/her child is used against the
parent to allege further "emotional instability."
When the "PP" uses publicity to expose the malfeasance, they are further
restricted from access to their child with allegations that the
publicity is "harmful" to the child. Of course, the publicity is
harmful to the court, not the child. This is merely a ploy by the
courts to silence the victims of their illegal scheme. The cycle is
never ending. The children live their entire childhoods caught in
litigation and continued abuse.

A preliminary survey indicates that this phenomenon is restricted to
middle and upper class parents who have money and assets. The parents
are financially raped with FORCED and EXTORTED court services, their
money and assets winding up in the hands of the attys., evaluators, and
courts (appeals, transcripts, filing fees, etc.)

There is also the added component of the well formed movement in America
to normalize pedophilia as an "alternate lifestyle." In the cases of
sexual abuse of the child, this is a prime opportunity to advance that
movement Psychologists who known to be "pedophile friendly" are
appointed by the courts to do the evaluations, and use pedophile
friendly "syndromes" to defend the alleged molesters. The most
prevalent "syndrome" used in cases of child sexual abuse is "parental
alienation syndrome" (PAS). PAS was made up (and I mean that literally)
by a child psychiatrist (Richard
Gardner) whose self published writings advocate pedophilia as well as
other forms of deviant sexual behaviors such as necrophilia and
bestiality, as having "societal benefits." Gardner believes the only
harm to a child in having sex with an adult is the guilt they feel
because of "society's over-reaction" to the sex.

Originally created as an "incest defense," PAS alleges that the child
disclosing incest during custody is merely "coached" by the PP to make
allegations of abuse to "alienate" the child from the other parent, and
therefore the parent who supports the child's allegation of abuse is
"emotionally harming" the child. Because the PAS label is so
indiscriminate, and cannot meet standards of evidence, anything a parent
says or does can be twisted to fit the "label." REAL evidence of abuse,
such as police reports and medical evidence, is barred from being heard
by the court in cases where PAS is alleged, since the PAS could not
stand up in the face of real evidence.

PAS, which is used almost exclusively against women, is now routinely
used to gain custody for men who simply don't want to pay child support,
by alleging (without evidence) that the mother is trying to alienate the
child from the father. The correlation between increased child support
and enforcement coinciding with increased father custody and the use of
PAS, provides prima facie evidence that PAS has mushroomed from an
incest defense to a legal tool being to escape child support.

On May 15, 2000 we are having a press conference at the Capitol to
unveil an investigative report of evaluators, judges, and the CA Board
of Psychology's involvement in the use of PAS to place children in the
custody of their identified molesters, despite medical evidence of the
abuse. The press conference is mainly directed toward the Sacramento
court system. A federal civil rights and RICO (racketeer influenced
corrupt organization) lawsuit filed on behalf of several parents and
children will also be unveiled.

You may call me at home for any additional information (209) 295-1542. The
press is our best and most needed tool to expose this holocaust that is
destroying children in ever increasing numbers. While the below article
is not precisely on the subject, but related, it does an excellent job
of describing the how and why of the sacrificing of children's lives for
the profit of the "system." The motivation is the same as in the cases
we deal with.

No happy ending for these children.
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness. DSS and affiliates
rewarded for breaking up families.
By Nev Moore © 2000, Massachusetts News

Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the
country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. The money goes to tens of
thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as
lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians,
judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists,
more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster
parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc.
This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state
who have a job, draw a paycheck,
or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that
provides the motivation for DSS to take people's children - and not give
them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act
which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set
up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child
"Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed,
Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried
that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe
Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to
help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for
years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a
real home and family.

In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton's
initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who
are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." It all sounded so
heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy
stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother,
bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the
source."

In the stereotype that we've been sold about kids in foster care,
we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us
beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up
old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s.
We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like
Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the
little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to
meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into
their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke's eyes growing as
big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys
and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

Now it's time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are
hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the
projects. [Oh. you thought those were the children they were saving?
Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a
desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be
nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An
interesting point is
that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of
processing kids
into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city
areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting.

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is
responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of
this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child
they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their
adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They
actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption
of children.

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing
scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of
apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going
to do?

Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services
administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the
President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled
Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services.
The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states,
it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the
children turn eighteen.

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people
are doing
this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I've got some bad news
for you.

The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the every
top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response
from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration
cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS,
and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes.
They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I've
talked to
for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I'm preaching to
the already damned.

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who
they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn't the
President. It's us.

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given
a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For
every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to
$6,000. But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical
formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage
that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The
states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like
compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be
multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child
adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions
for the State for the fiscal year."

In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that,
"the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts,
provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to
reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in
foster care."

The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging
more adoptions
out of the foster care system; the development of best practice
guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the
development of special units and expertise in moving children toward
adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of
children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive
placements; and the development of programs that place children into
pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."

In the November press release from HHS it continues, "HHS awarded
the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption
of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other
incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to
adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families,
making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and
tax credits.

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy
Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States
rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective
care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the
Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an
Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families."
So we will be able to window shop for children on a government
website. If you don't find
anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe."

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just
looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS's quaint "Adoption
Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around
and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to
take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking."

The incentives for government child snatching are so good that
I'm surprised we don't have government agents breaking down people's
doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids.
But then, if you need more apples you don't chop down your apple trees.

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let's have a look at
how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies
continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the
child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age
of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through
the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for
State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from
$410-$486 per month per child.

Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of
course, they all can.

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special
needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability,
emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster
parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or
more years and separation would adversely affect the child's development
if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with
their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]

Additional "special needs" designations a a children twelve
years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings
or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston's
Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner
extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been
broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children
may also
get an additional Social Security check.

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a
clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption
fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and
"reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents
when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the
Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption
services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including
"daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services
such as housekeeping,
and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow!
Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] The subsidy profile
actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to
accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling
could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to
remove barriers to adoption" section.

The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based
solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the
family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the
welfare program that the same child's mother may have been on before
losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove
that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or
bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over
$1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two
children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We
spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the
taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding
ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and
foster parents aren't subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot
tests, MMPI's, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the
parents are.

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis.
[Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There
are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how
to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail
list:

"We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another
$500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens
and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills.."

I can't help but wonder why we don't give this same level of
support to the children's parents in the first place? According to
Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not
involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are
for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural
parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above
that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn't it stand to reason
that the causes for removing children in the first place would be
eliminated?

How many less children would enter foster care in the first place?

The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to
around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers,
administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and
foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe,
healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

That's just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we
will. See Kathleen Crowley's children on the
governmenthome-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can
buy them.

May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption2002," the
U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they
don't feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to
boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office. I
know that I'm feeling pretty smug and superior about being part
of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

Note from CPPA: These cases are NOT aberrations, and they are NOT
due to incompetence. They are about a well orchestrated corrupt
enterprise; the trafficking of children for profit. We have all the
evidence necessary to prove this. We only need to find someone
intelligent enough to understand the scheme and honest enough to do
something about it. In the meantime, we continue to expose everything
we can, pull the covers off those who are hiding under the blankets of
"confidentiality," and the invisible armor that covers black robes.

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...