The Kids Aren't alright!!!!!
Document # 029.14.0.0 # 26 >>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used
as you will except: If you change anything in the text, remove my name and
other Ident. You may use it without my identification also if you wish...I
only ask that people read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not
in the text will be found on the last page of Doc 000.0.0.1 and 000.0.6.
CLMsr.<<<<
We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free. Right? Then visit:
http://www.trimonline.org
http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com
http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://nca.mybravenet.com
http://www.jbs.org
Then take a look at these sites:
http://www.dixierising.com
http://www.dixienet.org
http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org
http://www.spofga.org
http://www.southern-style.com
Subject: The kids aren't alright. Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:11
PM
Excerpts:
"But officials may be snatching some kids for no other reason than that
there's money to be made at the bottomless trough of federal goodies.
In 1999, five Utah families sued state officials in federal court, charging
them with maintaining "a systematic reign of terror for the purpose of
qualifying for federal subsidies." The families claimed that child
protective officials were taking kids from their homes in order to qualify
for subsidies offered by the feds -- roughly $500 million between 1994 when
Utah law was tailored to qualify for federal money and the date of the suit.
"
"Children are eleven times more likely to be sexually abused in state care
than they are in their own homes, according to NCCAN. While 59 out of
100,000 children in the general population are alleged to be physically
abused, 160 -- more than twice as much -- were physically abused in the
foster care population. "
The kids aren't all right!
Those of us who like to run our own lives often refer to bothersome
bureaucrats as representatives of the "nanny state." Well, now it looks like
those bureaucrats are taking the whole "nanny" thing too seriously. While
busybodies on the government payroll haven't quite got around to planting
themselves in children's bedrooms 24 hours per day, they're starting up a
nasty game of tug-of-war between parents and politicians over who gets to
mind the kids. The spur for all of this official interest in childhood has
been legitimate concern, growing in recent years, over the long overlooked
issue of child abuse. There's no doubt that abusing children is a bad thing,
and ferreting out abusers has called on the diligence of a host of child
protective agencies tasked with protecting the nation's kiddies.
But, once in action, even the most innocent of agencies tends to suffer
mission creep and see the need for their talents under every couch and in
every corner.
Writing for TCB Chronicles, a publication of the Missouri-based CPS Watch,
a group that keeps its eyes on officials who keep their eyes on kids, social
worker Teresa Cunio detailed how agencies sometimes come to see threats to
children in even innocent conduct. "Some of the children that I have seen
wrongfully removed, were children who had been physically disciplined rather
than physically abused. ... At the time I worked for CPS, their stance on
physical punishment was that if there were any markings left on a child then
it was considered physical abuse."
Cunio admits that corporal punishment, such as spanking, is a controversial
practice, but it remains widely accepted in American society. That leaves
parents open to ongoing relationships with child protective agencies -- or
even the seizure of their children -- for using traditional punishments on
their offspring.
Actually, parents don't have to raise their hands to their children to
bring the social workers around. Disputes over the treatment of ill or
injured children can draw threats that the state will confiscate the kids.
In an article for Reason, Brian Doherty detailed several cases in which
government employees countered parents' apparently rational decisions about
medical care with or-else demands for alternative treatment.
In one case, agents of Indiana's Child Protective Services were called in
when a child was brought to a hospital after stepping on what was first
mistakenly believed to be a needle. Even after the matter was clarified and
the offending sharp object identified as a nail, CPS agents insisted that
the child be put on an unnecessary and unpleasant regimen of AZT, a drug
considered just a bit less dangerous than the AIDS it's intended to treat.
When the child's mother refused to give her son the drug on the grounds
that he'd never been exposed to HIV, officials "sent over police squad cars
and special police dog units, blocking the front and back doors of the house
where Anderson lived with her sons."
The family escaped official wrath only with threats of law suits. Even diet
can be a point of contention between mom, dad and the folks at child
protective agencies. In August of 2000, agents from Albuquerque's Children,
Youth, and Families Department grabbed three-year-old Anamarie
Martinez-Regino from her parents during a regularly scheduled doctor's
appointment.
The reason for the grab? The girl was a positively obese 120 pounds - which
was why she was at the doctor's office to begin with. Her parents had been
consulting with medical authorities and attempting to abide by apparently
contradictory instructions on diet and exercise.
The removal of Anamarie from her home was rapidly publicized and wildly
unpopular, eliciting a quick round of petitions and protests in support of
the girl's parents. The judge in the case responded with a gag order on the
family -- they'd get their kid back only if they kept their mouths shut.
The child was held by the state for two and a half months, and the gag
order lifted two months after that by order of the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Perhaps the biggest current battle between parents and child welfare
authorities is over the best way to achieve a long-coveted goal: getting
kids to sit down and zip their lips.
According to USA Today, "[s]ome public schools are accusing parents of
child abuse when they balk at giving their kids drugs such as Ritalin, and
as judges begin to agree, some parents are medicating their children for
fear of having them hauled away."
Salon had a similar take on the same phenomenon, offering that: [P]ublic
schools have begun to issue ultimatums to parents of hard-to-handle kids,
saying they will not allow students to attend conventional classes unless
they are medicated. In the most extreme cases, parents unwilling to give
their kids drugs are being reported by their schools to local offices of
Child Protective Services, the implication being that by withholding drugs,
the parents are guilty of neglect. So much for "just say no."
Frightening as all of the incidents above are, they're at least based in
concern for children. Social workers face real cases of abusive families and
neglectful parents often enough that they can be assumed to intend the best
for kids -- even when those intentions misfire.
But officials may be snatching some kids for no other reason than that
there's money to be made at the bottomless trough of federal goodies.
In 1999, five Utah families sued state officials in federal court, charging
them with maintaining "a systematic reign of terror for the purpose of
qualifying for federal subsidies." The families claimed that child
protective officials were taking kids from their homes in order to qualify
for subsidies offered by the feds -- roughly $500 million between 1994 when
Utah law was tailored to qualify for federal money and the date of the suit.
Of course, any group of malcontents can launch a lawsuit. But TCB
Chronicles backs up the Utah families' case. That publication reported that:
Child protective agencies nationwide are forcibly removing more children
from their homes even when the agencies' own investigations establish that
the children have not been abused or neglected, according to reports
submitted by state agencies to the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect ...
According to statistics published in the recently released government
publication, "Child Maltreatment 1998: Reports from the States to the
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect," 18% of children placed in
foster care were taken from homes with unsubstantiated reports of child
maltreatment. The article attributed the groundless removal of children
from homes to "financial incentives offered through new federal
legislation."
Now, with all of this snatching and grabbing going on, how do those
agencies that mistake their responsibility for children for a fund raising
operation know which kids are likely marks? Many of the children taken by
child protective agencies are reported by concerned doctors, or teachers or
other well-meaning folks who honestly intend the best for the kids. But with
so much federal money to be had, that's an awfully slapdash way to find
targets of opportunity.
Sometimes, concerned authorities need to be a bit more methodical. Writing
for the Heartland Institute, Twila Brase, President of Citizens' Council on
Health Care, charged that "[h]ome visiting, the rapidly advancing child
abuse prevention strategy, is actually a family surveillance mechanism."
Home visits are intended to assess children's surroundings, health and
families as part of a federally funded program to combat child abuse, and
are voluntary so far. Nobody must participate and most families don't even
hear about the program -- unless they draw the authorities' attention
because of a child's trip to the hospital or some similar reason.
Once that attention is drawn, though, Brase warns, "if a family simply
refuses on the basis of opposition to government surveillance, they may
automatically be under suspicion." In other words, damned if you do or if
you don't. And as scary as the prospect of drawing the official notice of
child welfare authorities may be to folks who aren't abusing their kids,
such attention may also be unhealthy for the little ones. There's a good
reason why removal from the home ought to be a last resort. Says TCB
Chronicles: Children are eleven times more likely to be sexually abused in
state care than they are in their own homes, according to NCCAN. While 59
out of 100,000 children in the general population are alleged to be
physically abused, 160 -- more than twice as much -- were physically abused
in the foster care population.
So, what's the solution? How do you keep the nanny statists from literally
playing nanny? Some members of Congress thought they had a solution a few
years ago. They offered up The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act to,
in the words of a Heritage Foundation study by Patrick F. Fagan, "give
parents the standing in law to protect their rights to direct the education
and to protect and form the moral character of their children."
As that description of the proposed measure suggests, the bill's goal was a
bit more ambitious then simply trimming the sails of over-zealous social
workers. With hot-button terms like "education" and "moral character" tossed
in, the measure quickly became caught up in America's culture wars between
the "religious right" and the "secular left." The would-be law was DOA.
Since then, Congress has made little effort to revisit the matter.
Which is why innocent folks across America are still nervously keeping
their eyes out for those self-appointed nannies, like those bureaucrats are
taking the whole "nanny" thing too seriously.
[The name and state of this old friend, about to retire from the teaching
profession in disgust, has been deleted to protect that person.]
"This couldn't have come at a more interesting time. Today, had two kids
brought to school by a neighbor, in bad shape. Had not eaten since school
lunch yesterday, crying, etc. They had missed the bus and their father beat
them with a baseball bat. Guess where the kids are tonight? Not with these
governmental nannies. He has sole custody. I'm sure you can imagine what a
bat across the kidneys of a six yr. old can do. A while back, an 11 yr. old
was raped by her biological father then he held her down while a one-legged
man had his way with her for a $40 piece of rock cocain. She had to face
her father in court, on the stand. Otherwise his rights would have been
violated, since she was the accuser. No, I'm not a big fan of Child
Protective Services either. End.
Subject: When the state becomes parent. Date: Thursday, February 08, 2001
10:44 PM
[Note: This is from the 1999 archives, and things have only gotten worse
since then. - Tony]
TUESDAY JULY 06, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990706_xex_when_state_b.shtml
When the state becomes parent Child protection services agencies accused of
abuse By Mollie Martin, 1999 WorldNetDaily.com.
Five-year-old Deborah Hasson was pulled out of her kindergarten class and
taken to the nurse's office. Her ears were bright red, and the child
constantly complained of an intense pain. The school, required by law to
report anything of this nature, called Child Protective Services in
Fromberg, Mont.
CPS immediately concluded that the child was being abused at home, and so
that same hour picked her up from school and arranged to place her into a
foster-care situation. Deborah's mother, Grace, was horrified upon hearing
this and immediately produced a doctor's report, which explained that
Deborah had an ear infection. CPS chose to ignore this information and
insisted that Deborah was being abused. That was the fall of 1992. The
incident launched a violent custody battle that lasted for two and a half
years.
In 1995, the very night Deborah came home, Grace, a single mother, was
awakened at 2 a.m. by a harsh rapping at the door. Through the window she
could see four police officers and a social worker. In a state of panic she
called her friend Betty for help.
When Betty arrived she found a hysterical Grace handcuffed downstairs with
a police officer, and the male social worker upstairs with the three
frantic, young girls. The social worker said nothing more than that he had
received an anonymous report of abuse. Grace was arrested and the children
were put into foster homes. It was to be another four and a half years of
bitter court battles before Grace would clear her name and regain custody of
her daughters.
Too outrageous to be true? According to Dr. Marc Einhorn, a forensic
psychologist in Atlanta, Ga., these types of cases are prevalent throughout
child protection agency suits across the country. Einhorn has been involved
in several hundred cases across five states.
Einhorn said that Child Protective Services started in 1974 with the best
of intentions. Back then the definition of child abuse was narrow -
consisting of what reasonable people thought of as abuse. Over time,
however, that definition has broadened to include anything and everything
you can imagine -- whatever the state deems appropriate.
Many states now have very broad definitions of abuse. For example Utah's is
simply "actual or non-accidental harm." This leaves grounds for the removal
of children up to the discretion of the social worker.
Einhorn recalls a case he worked on involving a family in Salt Lake City.
The family had four handicapped children, one being severely autistic. The
parents decided to apply for Social Security benefits for the autistic
child, and had him examined as a part of the standard application process.
The child protection agency of Utah got wind of the application and removed
all four children from their home. The grounds? The parents were exploiting
the handicapped children for money.
Matthew Hilton, the family's attorney commented, "It's not the happiest
area to deal with ... these are real fights, some are black and white, but
most are in the gray." The guidelines are very vague. Juvenile court has its
own set of rules and laws, which are very informal. A lot of "protections"
are put up around the children.
"The problem with the system is that Child Protective Services has quotas
to fill," Einhorn said. "If a certain number of children are not removed
from their homes each year, the agency will lose status and
funding --causing people to lose their jobs." He said that this causes
children to be removed on the flimsiest of terms.
Suzanne Shell, author of "Profane Justice" and president of the Family
Advocacy Center, affirms the idea of a quota. Shell said for the agency to
receive the amount of money it does, each social worker must complete a
certain number of cases. Therefore, social workers are pushed to remove
children from their homes on very questionable grounds. For example, Shell
cited several instances where children are removed for "safety
reasons" --the house was not clean, or instances of "neglect" because there
was not enough food in the refrigerator. The reports neglected to show that
it was spring cleaning day or it was the end of the month when the food
supply was low.
In response to the question of a quota, Patricia Montoya, commissioner for
Children, Youth and Families in Washington, D.C., said that "child
protective services are the responsibility of the state. Funding is provided
by the federal government ... but the system itself is designed and operated
by the states." She went on to say "the quota is not the goal -- the goal of
CPS is to protect the child, make sure they are safe, and help provide
intervention. That's what the laws that are in place are all about."
Dianne Warner-Kearney, a Utah child protection specialist, says, "A quota
for children to be removed from their parents into foster care is absurd.
In fact, if at a multi-disciplinary staffing which occurs within 24 hours
after the child is removed from the parents, should it be determined at that
point that there were no legal grounds for removal, the child would be
returned immediately."
Einhorn recalled many social workers he worked with in the past who left
CPS in sheer disgust of the corruption of the system. According to the
caseworkers, executives would "sit back and lick their chops" while deciding
which family to harass next. One caseworker quit after working with the
agency for 12 years. He said 95 percent of the children should never have
been removed from their homes.
Many of these "atrocities" are done in the name of "the best interests of
the child," a term abundant throughout several states' CPS web sites.
Einhorn said that ironically the agencies are seriously disturbing and
frightening the very children whose interests they are trying to protect.
Shell is very skeptical of whether the state should be given the benefit of
the doubt when the child's well being is at stake. She says that social
workers would not be willing to do their job without pay or give their lives
for the children, whereas parents would -- "So, who has the child's best
interests in mind?"
According to the FAC web site, "Children in foster care numbered more than
520,000 in March 1998, up from 340,000 in 1988." Montoya accounts for the
increase in foster care as "a combination of different things ... an
increase in child abuse and neglect due to the added stresses of the
changing world we're in -- with better reporting systems we've brought the
issue to a higher limelight: kids are often self-reporting if they are being
abused or neglected at home ... family and neighbors have also started
reporting. ..."
Pamela and Wilbur Gaston, of Mount Angel, Ore., have been fighting the
courts for nearly four years in an effort to regain custody of their
daughter, Melissa. Melissa was taken at the age of five on the false report
that her 72-year-old father had inappropriately "touched" her. The Gastons,
who have meticulously documented evidence refuting the charges, are outraged
at the lack of due process in the justice system. At a hearing in May 1998,
the Gastons claim that the presiding judge stated twice on the record that
"I will not allow you to make an offer of proof because facts are not an
issue."
Einhorn commented that in CPS cases, the accused are most often guilty
until proven innocent. "There is a serious accountability problem in the
Child Protective Services ... CPS answers to no one."
According to a statement by the office of Oregon Attorney General Hardy
Meyers, "claims against defendant judges, district attorneys and assistant
attorney generals are barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity ...this
immunity applies even when a judge is accused of acting maliciously and
corruptly."
"Parents have no legal right to stand in the court for the protection of
their children when the children are being knowingly abused in state
custody, even though their parental rights have not been terminated," Gaston
claims.
Betty Asplin of Laurel, Mont., who was the eyewitness in the Hasson case,
counsels people in these types of situations. "This is allowed to go on
because people don't know their rights, if they understood the law this
would be over, it wouldn't happen ... people see the law at their door and
they assume they have to abide by whatever the officer says -- but they
don't."
"This is a child stealing business," Asplin told WorldNetDaily. "They don't
keep families together, they pull them apart."
"The fundamental theory upon which all governments in this Union repose
excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children. "The
child is not the mere creature of the state." -- United States Supreme
Court, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
029.14.0.0 # 26 End
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. USAToday. 11 Mar 93. Pg 2A. "You
know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to
have their fair say." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. 28 May 93. The Courtyard.
City Hall, Philadelphia. "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing
through our papers. We are the President." Comrade Hillary Diane Klinton.