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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Addtl Congressional hearing to monitor $ to foster care & adoption
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I hope so, monetary gain is the sole reason why children are removed (I told you all 4 days ago)
(Anthony Smith) wrote in message . com...
Subj: Assault on American Civil Liberties growing at the expense of our children... Date: 11/9/03 10:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Tonyjsmith03 To: Mr Gore, please read this, as god is my witness I'm telling the truth about this matter. From one vet to another whom I have much respect for. Stealing children for federal money is the worst kind of abuse to children, parents, and to our system that was designed to help children that really needed it, not destroy families because of the monetary incentive. Subj: (no subject) Date: 10/29/03 5:20:09 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Tonyjsmith03 To: This is a letter that I have sent to attorneys, you get the idea. I'm reporting CPS abuse. I'm not just whining and complaining. My families constitutional rights were violated as well as my family was destroyed before my eyes. I am retaining an attorney next week. I will be filing a Federal suit. My attorney feels my case is very valuable and has merit as he has experience in suing in these proceedings. I have complained to the local social services office and was ignored. They are all covering up for each other and refused to correct the situation. They purposely did not include documents that were favorable to me that would have cleared up my situation after they seized my kids because they knew they screwed up when they yanked my kids out of their schools. I have never been accused of any sort of physical injuries to my children and there was never any evidence that my children were ever neglected. In fact I volunteered at my childrens schools. I had even gone to the local omsbudsmens office and her hands are tied. CPS seized my children from school,no warrant,court order,imminent danger of any physical harm, what danger would they be in while attending school? I'm a disabled vet getting 1300 a month disability.My constitutional rights have been violated I have no doubt. My case mirrors WALLIS VS. SPENCER in the 9th circuit Ca. I have a 3 year restaining order preventing me from any sort of contact with my children, for what I do not know? This is severing the family bond and relationship I have enjoyed. I had full sole legal custody of my children who were 7 and 4 at the time of the removal.My son was attending head start which is state funded and the teachers are mandated reporters who reported nothing. I have never been found guilty of hurting my children in any physical manner in the past.I have raised my children since birth. I cannot use dependency legal services to represent me as they will not appeal anything. Read this article which the owner gary proctor says just this. Here is a small portion of the injustice I have already endured! Please help. Below is an e-mail to the presiding judge in which I detail the incompetent counsel, the CPS abuse etc... and yet I get not one response to any of my many e-mails that I have sent him concerning this most important matter. (Children) Get a lot of complaints that the social workers lie or twist the truth? Gee...I wonder why...They can write whatever they want in those reports that you the judges look at and no one contests them. Waive. Waive. Waive. That is not Justice your Honor. That is wrong. Ethically and morally wrong. Do you get why parents would get angry when you have no representation? Ask any of them that have legal dependency or ADA...Why are there more parents with no money stuck in your system? Waive...Waive...Waive... Here's some advice (ask other parents who have ADA or DLS)....Two minutes before your first hearing after your children have been ripped out of your home you are advised by your "competent" attorney's assistant who is working in your "best interest" tells you to waive all of your rights. "You'll never win. If you want your kids back, just waive. And if they ask you about any medications that you are on just don't say anything. I understand that you were just released from the hospital and you're taking vicodin, but don't say anything. It will just hold things up. (Although you tell the attorney's assistant what is in the report is not true they tell you don't fight, you can't win.) Really? What they really should have told me is, that they can't win because they don't have time to fight for anyone. They are so overloaded with cases that they can't even return a phone call for two months. It's all about the money isn't it? It's not for the protection of the children. The system is abusing the parents and children. All it would have taken was the police report showing that I was the victim of a violent crime and had my back fractured. I was put on Demerol in the hospital and yes it made me loopy. It was not true what the social workers had written, that I was hospitalized for having delusions that gang members were after me and for back pains. Nice twist social workers to justify why they had no warrant, no court order, no interview with me or anyone else. Just an allegation made by my sister in law who was angry with me because my brother had sex with a girlfriend I had. They said that the police were concerned. The only police concern was that they asked the police to accompany them to remove my children from their schools. Really...where was the imminent danger of great bodily injury? Thanks to my DLS lawyer who never informed me that once we waived my rights, although something that wasn't true was now true and forever true. I tried calling repeatedly and I wanted to appeal. I finally found out my public "defender" no longer worked there and by that time it was too late to appeal. Then the social workers painted me violent. I "threatened" them and frightened the entire office. What does that sound like? Does it sound anything close to the truth? I threatened to sue them. That is all. Wouldn't they have slapped a restraining order on me if I threatened them with anything else? In a review hearing that they held a restraining order was thrown in. Here's how the "hearing" went. First there was nothing filed as to why they were filling a restraining order. I wasn't given notice nor shown any paperwork concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz just asked me if I minded. I said, I dunno. (As my public "defender" is telling me to say no you don't mind)I guess not. There was something said that I was a flight risk, because I moved from Oregon to California with my children. I had sole legal and physical custody of my children which of course my divorce paperwork was never presented by my attorney or by my social worker who had the information. They said my ex-wife said I ran off with our children. I thought they were restraining me from taking my children out of California. Not some three year full blown ridiculous restraining order to keep me away from my babies. Is this justice? (I have never been found to abuse my children. I also went through a battery of psych exams which I never should have had to have done. They showed I wasn't delusional. Something so simple turned into something ridiculous. Have you ever been on Demerol? We wouldn't be having this problem if I had been properly defended. We wouldn't have this problem if the social workers knew that they couldn't just make stuff up. It's true that they do that. They're out of control because there's no one to keep them in check. I wouldn't be writing you if things were just. I understand that you must have a lot of angry people out there. But please, look into this matter no just for me, but for the other parents. If I would have known what I know now and what I didn't know then, I think the outcome of this situation would have been 100% different. What if they had written that I was a heroin addict (which I'm not)? I would have then been considered a heroin addict because I was advised to waive my rights. Even after I hired Mr.Guerin Provini, it was too late. He could tell by then that the social workers hated me. He knew I was being railroaded. We tried to present new and material evidence such as the police report showing I was a victim of a violent crime which Commissioner Schwartz refused which denied me due process. (Which the social workers had but would never present evidence that was favorable to me, which is wrong.)Knowing that I was going to lose, I tried to fire my attorney because I couldn't afford him any longer. Commissioner Schwartz made him proceed in my behalf. I had hoped that she would stand by her word in the beginning of the trial, that she would make sure there was a visitation order. But I guess I was punished for not showing up. I just couldn't take the humiliation anymore. I had been beaten down. The only excuse that I can understand as to why things are so wrong is because of money. I'm sure there are other families, father's, mother's that have been railroaded also. This needs to be investigated. Why do you think the social workers never give you their reports in advance? So you can't defend yourself and the public defenders won't stick up for you or fight for you. Thank you for your compassion and justice. Subj: here is the article...nothing has changed Date: 9/17/03 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Tonyjsmith03 To: PARENTS LACK SAVVY LAWYERS DEPENDENCY COURT: THOSE TRYING TO REGAIN CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OFTEN ARE REPRESENTED BY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS. December 5, 1999 Section: Local Edition: Morning Final Page: 1B HOWARD MINTZ, Mercury News Staff Writer Memo: RELATED STORY: page 6B Illustration: Photos (2), Chart Caption: PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS Santa Ana lawyer Gary Proctor, above, secured a contract to provide legal representa-tion to parents trying to regain custody of their children in Santa Clara County. PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS Left, Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards says Proctor's project is doing a good job with limited resources. On most mornings, the three waiting rooms in Santa Clara County's juvenile dependency court are a jumble of activity. Social workers huddle with families. Mothers and fathers, accused of neglect or abuse and facing the prospect of losing their children, sit and listen. Some bury their heads in their hands. Others, like one mother who keeps jabbing a finger at her case file, become animated and angry. It is usually in one of these drab waiting rooms, or in the hallways outside court, that the mothers and fathers first meet their lawyers. Parents thrust into the child welfare system, most of them poor and unfamiliar with the legal terrain, might then get a few minutes to tell their story before they find themselves in front of a judge. To juvenile law experts, this fleeting encounter between parents and their court-appointed lawyers illustrates a serious problem provoking debate in Santa Clara County and across California. Critics say overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced lawyers are shortchanging parents in a near-invisible but crucial corner of the justice system. ''The memory for me will always be that we weren't represented in a way we should have been,'' said a Campbell mother who has been fighting since early 1998 to get her four children back, and who spoke on condition of anonymity. ''I've had three different attorneys who come in and don't know anything about your case, and then tell you they can't do much. It's scary.'' The account is all too common in the secret world of child dependency law, according to experts. Whether it is Silicon Valley or the Central Valley, in today's legal system a lawyer is likely to spend more time with a client involved in a lawsuit over an auto accident than with a parent who might be forced by the state to surrender a child. ''It's safe to say that too often, the very worst representation in juvenile court is the representation provided to parents,'' said Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law. ''That's an issue that has to be addressed.'' Legal representation for parents -- many of them accused of the type of neglect society despises most -- has taken on unprecedented importance in recent years as a result of tough new child welfare laws. Private program Debate flares over hiring of law firm Concerns about such representation have percolated to the surface in Santa Clara County, where the local judges this fall renewed a contract for acontroversial, for-profit Santa Ana-based outfit hired three years ago to handle the task. To its supporters, including Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards, perhaps California's leading expert on juvenile law, Santa Clara Juvenile Defenders is a successful, cutting-edge experiment that is doing a good job with limited resources. Juvenile Defenders handles about 2,500 cases a year with 14 attorneys who are working in a tense legal environment many lawyers shun. ''Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised by what we've seen,'' Edwards said. ''It's clear to me that (the dependency firm) has delivered legal services better than any entity we've had in this county.'' But to its critics, the experiment has failed hundreds of parents filtering through the system each year. It is difficult to evaluate individual cases because of strict confidentiality laws governing dependency proceedings. Attorneys are reluctant to speak on the record because of those laws, as are parents who fear they will jeopardize their cases. But there are widespread reports of frazzled, ill-prepared lawyers who don't have the resources or training they need to protect their clients' rights. Complaints range from failing to challenge the findings of social workers to declining to appeal cases. And some of these reports are from lawyers who once worked for the dependency firm, which has been plagued by high turnover. Five former members of the office interviewed for this article described frustration with the operation and admitted that they could have done more for their clients. ''We had so many clients at one time that I didn't know my clients' names until I'd look in the file just before court,'' said Elisabeth Hansen, who worked for Juvenile Defenders in 1997, shortly after law school. ''I didn't feel they were getting the representation they deserved.'' Added another recently departed lawyer: ''(The) way dependency legal services is set up, no one is keeping the system honest.'' The new federal and state child-welfare laws make it is easier than ever for agencies to take a child away from parents in cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect. Parents who choose to fight for their rights now face an uphill climb, and experts say they need good lawyers to protect them in court. It is against this backdrop that the debate over legal services is taking place. If nothing else, experts say, these parents -- most of whom don't have the means to hire a lawyer on their own -- need a savvy legal guide to walk them through the process. Although Santa Clara County's dependency court as a whole is considered a model in the state, there is profound disagreement over one aspect: whether the lawyers most often representing parents here are doing an adequate job. The system changed in 1997, when the board of supervisors, on a 3-2 vote, approved a little-noticed $1.3 million contract for Juvenile Defenders, a group headed by Gary Proctor, a prominent Santa Ana lawyer. The county, among other things, picked Proctor's group because it would save nearly $1 million a year. The contract rankled local lawyers. For one thing, it involved abandoning the old system of using the public defender's office and a panel of local lawyers to represent parents. The small circle of dependency lawyers in the county also viewed Proctor as a carpetbagger who would spend more time on his law practice in Santa Ana than in San Jose. And Proctor was chosen over local candidates, including the Legal Aid Society. ''Any time you have an outsider coming in and displacing the local (system), there is going to be anger and discontent,'' said Howard Siegel, a former chief of the public defender's dependency unit who was hired by Proctor to supervise one of his two offices. ''In this case, I'm satisfied most of the criticism is sour grapes.'' With Edwards' endorsement, the Superior Court in September decided to renew Proctor's contract. The three-year deal is worth roughly $1.76 million per year, although it may be cut short if more state funding does not come through in 2000. Legal Aid left out Lack of public debate draws criticism Critics say the Superior Court judges should have opened up the matter for public debate before renewing Proctor's contract. Legal Aid, which now has the local contract to provide court-appointed lawyers in criminal cases, wanted the dependency work, but didn't know about the renewal until told by the Mercury News. ''We were interested in doing that work,'' said Susan Sutton, president of Legal Aid's board of directors. ''I'm not sure we've got the circumstantial guarantee that (the current setup) is the best we can do.'' Judge Edwards, asked about the bidding issue, replied: ''I think (Legal Aid) would be a good contract bidder next time. But we just decided to go ahead and roll it over this year.'' Sutton and other dependency experts say Proctor's office has cut too many corners, leaving parents without recourse against the findings of social workers. Opposing lawyers also express concern that Proctor's staff, while energetic and dedicated, often is overburdened and green. The county counsel's office, which represents the social services department, and the district attorney's office, which represents children, both staff dependency court with experienced lawyers who make substantially more money than the attorneys appearing for parents. Starting salaries for Proctor's lawyers are often $10,000 a year less than a starting salary for DAs or a county counsel. Until recently, Proctor's office was staffed primarily with lawyers fresh out of law school or with little legal experience. By comparison, other counties, such as San Mateo and San Francisco, have panels of lawyers with years of experience in dependency court. ''The individual attorneys ar very bright, very conscientious, but they don't have the type of experience I think would make for better representation,'' said Deputy District Attorney Penny Blake, who has represented children in dependency matters for 11 years. ''There is a problem with a lack of visible advocacy,'' adds Michael Kresser, director of a San Jose appellate project that inherits cases from Proctor's office and reviews their work. ''We see a lot of these cases submitted . . . without any evidence or any argument in favor of the client. They are not contesting anything.'' Admitting problems More experienced lawyers added Proctor concedes his original plan backfired. As a result, he has gradually replaced rookies with more experienced lawyers, although many of them still have limited experience in dependency work. ''It didn't work out up here,'' Proctor said. ''This is a much more adversarial, litigious courthouse than Orange County.'' Proctor and his supporters say he is getting a bum rap. In many quarters he is considered an innovator in the world of dependency law. He has embraced a philosophy that judges such as Edwards and San Diego Superior Court Judge James Milliken, another juvenile-law leader, consider groundbreaking. Proctor maintains lawyers for parents should act as social workers to help reunify families, many torn apart by drug addiction; he pushes his staff to abandon the confrontational approach used in other areas of the court system. While critics say this approach leads to poor advocacy, Proctor insists it benefits parents and their children if his lawyers can get services for clients instead of spending their time fighting in court. ''There is no question in my mind that across the board (this program) is providing a higher level of representation than the old (panel of attorneys),'' said Siegel. ''It is working as well as it possibly can with our budgetary restraints.'' For better or worse, Proctor's experiment in Santa Clara County may not last much longer if those budgetary restraints don't loosen. Sounding frustrated, Proctor says the courts must find a way to provide better funding for legal representation or he might pull out of the county next year, which the contract allows him to do. ''This isn't a cash cow,'' says Proctor. ''The court has got to do everything it can to get the money from the state. If it doesn't happen, they may need to find a different way of doing business. It's not fair to our parents to be in a battleground where we're so outnumbered.'' (Fern5827) wrote in message ... Expect tighter Federal regulations. http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov Subject: Los Angeles Protest Activities, Victory! LA County Authorities Move for Title IV-E Wavier!, LA Radio & News Coverage Dr. Shirley Moore was unable to make the original scheduled KPFK 90.7 FM Radio broadcast on Nov 11th, but it was taped and will now be broadcast on, DATE: Friday, November 14, 2003 TIME: 8:30 AM RADIO STA: KPFK 90.7 FM GUEST: Dr. Shirley Moore Persons out of the LA Broadcast Area can tune in via the Internet at www.kpfk.org. This requires Real Player Radio which can be downloaded free via the internet. Included below is information on Planned Protest Activities for the LA Area, and following that a message I received from Dr. Moore on Our Recent Victory with the LA County Board Of Supervisors and a New's Article by Troy Anderson in regards to the Protest Held at the Nov. 5th LA Supers Meeting. We are also planning gatherings at the Board of Supervisor Meetings in San Diego County, Riverside and San Bernadino Counties in the very near future. An Action Alert will be sent on these protest in the near future. Dennis Dr. Shirley Moore AFRA Director for the Los Angeles Area will be on the air to talk about Department of Children and Family Services in the Los Angeles area and the Planned AFRA Demonstrations scheduled for Nov 16th, Sunday, in Liemert Park, Crenshaw Blvd. at Vernon Ave. DATE: Sunday, November 16, 2003 TIME: 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM PLACE: Liemert Park in Los Angeles on the corner of Crenshaw Blvd and Vernon Avenue. Dr. Shirley Moore (a former MTA employee) won a decision by the 4th appellate court with regard to the conflict of interest between the Judges and County Counsel. Dr. Shirley Moore is running for State Assembly. Protest this Sunday at Liemert Park in Los Angeles concerning the abuses of the legal system by the county. Financial incentives have resulted in a sharp increase in the number of citizens involved in the legal system. The grant money, the court fines, the court filing fees, plus are supporting the construction of new courthouses. We will have petitions on hand to be signed asking Honorable Ashcroft to come into this state and place a consent decree upon the court system. All cases both criminal and civil that involved the county need to be reviewed with regard to conflict of interest. We are certainly in a state of emergency. A statewide is being planned in the near future. Please pass this on! Please plan to attend the Protest on November 16th 2003, and December 6th, 2003! DATE: Saturday, December 6th, 2003 TIME: 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM EVENT: The Juvenile Justice Centennial Celebration PLACE: The Renaissance Hollywood Hotel 1755 Highland Avenue, Hollywood, CA This event is where all the alleged professionals in the Juvenile Justice system will be gathering. The parents and concerning citizens about the abuses of the Juvenile Court system will hold a protest outside the event. PRESIDENT'S DAY WEEKEND MARCH PLANNED A statewide march will take place in February in front of the federal Building. This will be held over the President's day weekend. A follow up event of the same nature will take place in Northern California in May. Please make arrangements to attend these noteworthy events. This outcry will certainly get the attention of Honorable Ashcroft. Remember, we have to act as the people did during the civil rights movement. Dr. Shirley Moore America's Family Rights Association Director AFRA Los Angeles Area Report from Dr. Moore On Results of LA County Board of Supervisiors Nov 12th 2003 Meeting As a result of our persistence, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor;s voted today to ask the Federal Government it they could in fact use a Federal waiver called title IV-E funds in an effort to keep the children in their homes as opposed to sending them to foster homes. (The reporter then asked the director Dr. Sanders if in fact they are going to revisit the past cases like Dr. Moore had requested. Dr. Sanders said that at this time, he would go from this point today.) I personally am waiting on the response from Washington, DC. This has been done in Illinois, and as a result, the foster care system has been cut in half. I am hoping County seeking waiver $250 million would be targeted for families By Troy Anderson Staff Writer A recent state report that found counties earn more money putting children in foster care than in keeping them out prompted Los Angeles County supervisors to seek federal approval to use $250 million in child welfare funds to help solve family problems. The vote allows the troubled Department of Children and Family Services to begin negotiating for a waiver that would allow the nation's largest child protective system to spend a good chunk of its annual $1.4 billion budget on services to help troubled families. DCFS now spends less than $30 million a year to help families with financial difficulties, substance abuse and other problems that bring them to the attention of child protection services. The vast majority of the budget goes to pay for the average $30,000 a year cost of keeping a child in foster care. In some cases, the costs exceed $150,000 per child. But the system has long been criticized for the poor care it provides children in foster care, who are six to seven times more likely to be mistreated in the system than in the general population. DCFS officials don't expect a decision from Washington until March. DCFS Director David Sanders said experts have estimated that as many as half of the county's 75,000 children in foster and adoptive homes could have been left in their parents' care if the appropriate services had been provided. He said the way the system is now funded is inflexible and forces the agency to provide "ineffective and overly intrusive" services that are "often detrimental" to children and families. "Right now, if a family is referred to the child abuse hotline and it turns out they need some support services, they are often put on waiting lists," Sanders said. Several states are also seeking renewal of their waivers, including Illinois, which was granted a similar waiver in the late 1990s that helped it reduce its foster care population in half and improved the care children receive. "I think it's a very innovative proposal," said Virginia Weisz, directing attorney of the Children's Rights Project in Los Angeles. She said the "Title IV-E" waiver would help DCFS implement a 1980 federal law that requires states and counties to make "reasonable efforts" to keep families together if possible. "Ironically, the federal mandate has not provided funds to do that," Weisz said. Miriam Krinsky, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represents 20,000 foster children, said there is no doubt child advocates have "tremendous challenges" in changing a system that has been in place for decades. "There are too many children and too many families we bring under the jurisdiction of the court simply to get services they need," Krinsky said. "We don't do enough to look at how to give assistance to children and families." "There should not be a financial disincentive that causes us to remove children from their home simply to get them help," she said. Tony Bravo, president of Service Employees International Union, Local 535, which represents the county's social workers, said in his 23 years with the department he has seen far too many children unnecessarily placed and kept in foster care. "We feel this initiative is a bold and innovative concept that will provide a win-win for our clients and the Board of Supervisors," Bravo said. "By shifting funds to community resources, it will result in a reduction of (children) that come into the system and lower our caseloads so we have more time to visit with families and children." Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985 Parents rip county foster care system By Troy Anderson Staff Writer Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - In emotionally charged testimony Tuesday before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, parents whose children have been placed in foster care called for an investigation into whether thousands of youngsters should have been taken from their parents. The testimony follows the release of a state Department of Social Services report in September that found too many children have unnecessarily been placed in foster care because of "perverse financial incentives" that encourage local governments to earn money by bringing children into the foster care system. David Sanders, director of the county Department of Children and Family Services, said experts have estimated that as many as half of the county's foster children could have been left in their parents' care if appropriate services had been provided to the families. Some of the dozens of parents gathered in the Hall of Administration hearing room also questioned whether Los Angeles County judges could fairly hear their cases because the county pays each judge about $30,000 a year in benefits on top of the state salaries and benefits they receive. "We believe that every case has been tainted," said Shirley Moore, a state Assembly candidate and a member of the California Black Republican Council. A court spokesman did not return a reporter's phone call seeking comment late Tuesday. In the supervisors' hearing, no public official spoke in defense of the child protective services system. Moore said she and others have gathered nearly 100,000 signatures they plan to submit to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in a request to place the county's courts under oversight of a federal consent decree. The petition alleges the courts have lost their integrity due to "intrinsic fraud and financial conflicts of interest" in civil and criminal cases involving children's services, eminent domain and probate. "Too many black children are being taken from their homes in the name of grant money," Moore said. "This criminal enterprise must stop." The Rev. Ruby Lynn Brown, an associate minister from Pasadena and a 34-year employee at County/USC Medical Center, said "relative caregivers" who take care of grandchildren and other relatives in the foster care system are concerned about the large number of children they believe were wrongfully seized from their families. "There are too many minority children being transported through the system because of the arrogance of children's services," Brown said. Brown and Moore said they intend to ask Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger for a state investigation of the child protective services system. Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985 The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. DATE: Friday, November 14, 2003 TIME: 8:30 AM RADIO STA: KPFK 90.7 FM GUEST: Dr. Shirley Moore Dr. Shirley Moore AFRA Director for the Los Angeles Area will be on the air to talk about Department of Children and Family Services in the Los Angeles area and the Planned AFRA Demonstrations scheduled for Nov 16th, Sunday, in Liemert Park, Crenshaw Blvd. at Vernon Ave. DATE: Sunday, November 16, 2003 TIME: 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM PLACE: Liemert Park in Los Angeles on the corner of Crenshaw Blvd and Vernon Avenue. Dr. Shirley Moore (a former MTA employee) won a decision by the 4th appellate court with regard to the conflict of interest between the Judges and County Counsel. Dr. Shirley Moore is running for State Assembly. Protest this Sunday at Liemert Park in Los Angeles concerning the abuses of the legal system by the county. Financial incentives have resulted in a sharp increase in the number of citizens involved in the legal system. The grant money, the court fines, the court filing fees, plus are supporting the construction of new courthouses. We will have petitions on hand to be signed asking Honorable Ashcroft to come into this state and place a consent decree upon the court system. All cases both criminal and civil that involved the county need to be reviewed with regard to conflict of interest. We are certainly in a state of emergency. A statewide is being planned in the near future. Please pass this on! Please plan to attend the Protest on November 16th 2003, and December 6th, 2003! DATE: Saturday, December 6th, 2003 TIME: 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM EVENT: The Juvenile Justice Centennial Celebration PLACE: The Renaissance Hollywood Hotel 1755 Highland Avenue, Hollywood, CA This event is where all the alleged professionals in the Juvenile Justice system will be gathering. The parents and concerning citizens about the abuses of the Juvenile Court system will hold a protest outside the event. PRESIDENT'S DAY WEEKEND MARCH PLANNED A statewide march will take place in February in front of the federal Building. This will be held over the President's day weekend. A follow up event of the same nature will take place in Northern California in May. Please make arrangements to attend these noteworthy events. This outcry will certainly get the attention of Honorable Ashcroft. Remember, we have to act as the people did during the civil rights movement. Dr. Shirley Moore Director over the Los Angeles AFRA America's Family Rights Association Parents rip county foster care system By Troy Anderson Staff Writer Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - In emotionally charged testimony Tuesday before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, parents whose children have been placed in foster care called for an investigation into whether thousands of youngsters should have been taken from their parents. The testimony follows the release of a state Department of Social Services report in September that found too many children have unnecessarily been placed in foster care because of "perverse financial incentives" that encourage local governments to earn money by bringing children into the foster care system. David Sanders, director of the county Department of Children and Family Services, said experts have estimated that as many as half of the county's foster children could have been left in their parents' care if appropriate services had been provided to the families. Some of the dozens of parents gathered in the Hall of Administration hearing room also questioned whether Los Angeles County judges could fairly hear their cases because the county pays each judge about $30,000 a year in benefits on top of the state salaries and benefits they receive. "We believe that every case has been tainted," said Shirley Moore, a state Assembly candidate and a member of the California Black Republican Council. A court spokesman did not return a reporter's phone call seeking comment late Tuesday. In the supervisors' hearing, no public official spoke in defense of the child protective services system. Moore said she and others have gathered nearly 100,000 signatures they plan to submit to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in a request to place the county's courts under oversight of a federal consent decree. The petition alleges the courts have lost their integrity due to "intrinsic fraud and financial conflicts of interest" in civil and criminal cases involving children's services, eminent domain and probate. "Too many black children are being taken from their homes in the name of grant money," Moore said. "This criminal enterprise must stop." The Rev. Ruby Lynn Brown, an associate minister from Pasadena and a 34-year employee at County/USC Medical Center, said "relative caregivers" who take care of grandchildren and other relatives in the foster care system are concerned about the large number of children they believe were wrongfully seized from their families. "There are too many minority children being transported through the system because of the arrogance of children's services," Brown said. Brown and Moore said they intend to ask Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger for a state investigation of the child protective services system. Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|