pribbernow hearing

Comment on CAPTA - The Law That Started CPS in ‘74 - Do You Want to Protest Re-authorization? by LindaJoMartin
Posted: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:51:38 +0000
Manytears, I think the most important things to tell them is that the children are in more danger in foster care, that kinship care rights are being violated, that the federal funding is causing children to be drugged so fosterers and counties can get more money for ’special needs’ children, that children who aren’t abused are being taken from their families… that it is a huge financial racket with these counties using draconian measures to process families through the system (for trivial things) so the counties can get that federal money. Most of all, that families are being destroyed and children traumatized by unnecessary CPS removals during their formative years. How’s that for a start

Comment on New Jersey: Deaths of Children in Foster Homes - Will the Cover Up Continue? by Lawdoll
Posted: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:07:35 +0000
Faith:

I am so sorry for your loss, words cannot even begin to offer you comfort, for there are no words that can mend a mother’s broken heart…My heart goes out to you and your family in this most difficult time..

If you need to talk email me and I will give you my number, I will put Justin’s story on my blog, I will not allow him to be forgotten…I promise! lawdoll1[at]gmail.com

fight cps wrote:

Comment on New Jersey: Deaths of Children in Foster Homes - Will the Cover Up Continue? by Lawdoll
Posted: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:07:35 +0000
Faith:
I am so sorry for your loss, words cannot even begin to offer you comfort, for there are no words that can mend a mother’s broken heart…My heart goes out to you and your family in this most difficult time..
If you need to talk email me and I will give you my number, I will put Justin’s story on my blog, I will not allow him to be forgotten…I promise! lawdoll1[at]gmail.com

Lawdoll, I am a supporter of Faith as well. This foster/adoptive home has 7 children in it, or had. All 7 children have been hurt in some way.Faith needs all the help she can get, to secure a safe home for her two sons. Thank you for your interest in this case.

Independent expert to review child protectionBy Nick Mann

CHILD protection services face a Scrutiny review.

Significant changes are being introduced as part of the implementation of the new children’s law, which is expected to come into force early in 2010.

The committee’s latest progress report reveals that it will commission an independent consultant to investigate this area once the changes have bedded in.

It has set up a panel, led by Deputy Martin Storey (pictured), to draw up terms of reference.

‘In the light of high profile incidents such as Baby P and the Doncaster cases, no system of child protection should go without asking serious questions of itself to make sure that it can safeguard, as far as is possible, against such tragic events ever happening in their jurisdiction,’ said Scrutiny.

The committee says that the main aim of the investigation is to assure islanders that the Guernsey system for the protection of children is as robust as it can possibly be. In particular, Scrutiny wants to ensure that ‘on the ground’ service delivery is effective.

Any recommendations from the review would be aimed at strengthening arrangements for protecting children.

Article posted on 4th November, 2009 - 1.00pm

Anonymous said...
Faith Baden is a liar. She lost her children because she was molesting them. They were not kidnapped she lost them because she was abusing them. The people who adopted those boys are amazing people and do not deserve the hell that faith contuines to put this family through. You Faith need to leave these people alone!

5:17 PM
Anonymous said...
I think Anonymous is the same piece of trash that "adopted" these boys, for the MONEY I might add. Those adopted parents are the ones doing the abusing, yet CPS wont step in now, how messed up is that?

11:54 AM
Anonymous said...
I have a lot of questions about the people who adopted these children. Firstly, they are far to young, in my opinion, to parent teens.

And, the adoption took place when the adoptive mother was previously married and then re-married.

I have many many questions.

Also, why was there a fund established to bury Justin when apparently, the Marines handled same?

And the boy, Paul..........what was that about?

The adoptive parents do not pass muster with me and I thin kmight not pass muster with others.

3:39 PM

Michigan: Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Foster Children Endangered By DHS Negligence
A New York based advocacy group called Children’s Rights is suing the state of Michigan in federal court on behalf of 19,000 foster children who may be endangered by maltreatment in the foster care system.
The Michigan Department of Human Services refused to provide documentation on sixty-seven foster children who died in state care there since 2004. At least three of those children were killed in state licensed foster homes. Circumstances regarding the other deaths are unclear as the state refuses to release records.
At a hearing on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ruled that an expert must be hired to assess the Michigan foster care system’s adequacy. The expert, Christopher Baird of the Children’s Research Center, will study 460 random Michigan foster care files
Judge Edmunds also ordered the state to release certain foster care documents by August 31, 2007.
Sources:
Court fight over Mich. foster care system set for Tuesday by Jack Kresnak, Free Press Staff Writer
U.S. judge names expert to assess Michigan foster care system, an AP article posted at WoodTV.Com .
foster care foster children child abuse child maltreatment Michigan Filed under: CPS, Michigan, United States — Linda @ 11:27 pm
Comments (19)

Michigan Reforms, But Strong Leadership Needed to Ensure Continued Progress30 Sep 2009 / Posted by cr
DETROIT, MI — One year into a massive effort to reform the troubled Michigan child welfare system under a federal court order secured by Children’s Rights, a new progress report shows that the state has begun to break a logjam that has kept nearly 10,000 children in foster care waiting years to return home — and made structural changes that will be critical to continued improvements in the care and protection of the approximately 19,000 abused and neglected children who depend on it.
But Children’s Rights advocates representing Michigan’s children say the reform effort is on unstable footing — and that Governor Jennifer Granholm and the leadership of the state Department of Human Services (DHS) must act decisively now to shore up support and secure the resources necessary to complete the work they have begun.
“Important progress has been made in the first year of this sweeping reform effort, and some of Michigan’s longest-suffering children are beginning to see the results,” said Sara Bartosz, senior staff attorney for Children’s Rights.“But the state’s leaders have too often retreated from their commitments and set back the reforms under economic and other pressures, and they must now redouble their efforts to fulfill the promises they’ve made to Michigan’s vulnerable kids and families.”
A report (PDF) issued Wednesday by the Public Catalyst Group, a team of independent national child welfare experts appointed by the federal court to track the Michigan reforms, evaluates the state’s progress from October 24, 2008 — when the court order mandating the improvements went into effect — through March 31, 2009, the end of the first monitoring period.
The report credits the state with taking swift action to reorganize its child welfare system, creating a centralized Children’s Services Administration dedicated exclusively to providing child welfare services and implementing a new system for collecting data critical to its ability to monitor children and families’ progress, identify problems, and respond quickly.
DHS is also on track to meet ambitious targets for reducing the caseloads of the child welfare workers responsible for foster care, adoption, and child protective services to manageable levels. Fully 95 percent of the state’s foster care workers, some of whom previously labored under caseloads that reached as many as 50 children per caseworker, now carry caseloads of 30 children or fewer.(DHS must further reduce these caseloads to no more than 15 children per foster care worker by October 2011.) Training for child welfare workers has also improved, according to the progress report.
Most important, 1,719 children from a backlog of 5,052 who had been waiting at least a year to be reunited with their families — and sometimes much longer — either went home (1,596 children) or were placed with relatives or adopted (123 children). DHS appears to be on track to move half the children in that backlog into permanent homes by a September 2009 deadline.
But DHS struggled in implementing other reforms, pushed deadlines that it now must work even harder to make up as additional deadlines loom, and cut vital services despite the state’s commitment — and the court’s order — to increase funding for key child welfare programs, and Children’s Rights attorneys say the missteps could endanger further improvements.

The Oppressive Swath of Danger and Damage

The harm of the widespread CPS practice of removing or threatening to remove children from non-offending parents extends far beyond the dangers and injustices to individual mothers and children. The harm extends to nearly every poor, immigrant, or minority race mother who is trying to deal with family violence. Most have heard first hand stories of CPS removing children from other mothers in their neighborhoods. As a result, they become reluctant to seek help for their own situations for fear that the same thing might happen to them.

Though we include a fair amount of information about the structure and history of CPS, the purpose of this guide isn't to do policy analysis nor to make recommendations for change. The purpose of this guide is to give family violence victims, advocates, and mandated reporters information and tips that can help you, as best as possible, to understand and avoid the pitfalls and abuses of the CPS/Juvenile Court system as they pertain to the non-offending parent.

***

Both the Federal and State Welfare Law Governing the CPS/Juvenile court System are Full of Vague, Non-mandatory Language, a Fact Which Further Promotes the 'Anything Goes' Atmosphere of CPS Proceedings. In addition, these laws almost always refer to the parents as an undifferentiated single unit, "the parents', a fact which puts a legal lock on viewing the non-offending parent with as much culpability as the abusive parent. Only recently has the legal language begun to recognize the existence of the 'non-offending parent' as separate or unique from the offending parent.

As you read through the federal and state law governing child protective services you can see features of the law that further help explain the frequent arbitrary and biased actions of these agencies. Here are just two.

Federal and state welfare law governing child protective services are vague, nonspecific, and use mostly non-mandatory language. For example, federal law 'encourages' child welfare agencies to provide their materials in languages other than English. It does not mandate that they do so. As such, many, if not most, non-English speaking mothers receive their CPS reports, their service plans, and notices in English only. Another example is that welfare law states a 'preference' for family reunification, and says social workers shall make 'reasonable efforts' to provide services that allow the family to stay together.

This kind of language in the law leaves so much wiggle room that virtually anything the system decides will fall within the law, a fact which further magnifies the difficulties for a non-offending parent trying to defend herself or appeal these decisions.

A second feature that runs throughout child welfare law is that it constantly refers to 'the parents' as an undifferentiated entity. There's very infrequent distinction in child welfare law between the offending and non-offending parent. In fact, if you were an alien from outer space reading this law, it would be a while before it even dawned on you that "the parents" are two separate human beings. This dubious framework stems from the archaic patriarchal view of marriage of not very long ago that the two become one and the one is the man.

Naturally, this constant reference to "the parents" helps cement the system's huge blind spot to a woman's predicament when her partner is abusive. Clearly, the law can't see her more as a victim of the abuser, if the legal language lumps her in with the abuser. If the father is a domestic violence perpetrator, the mother, too, is automatically "engaging in domestic violence", which is precisely the language the system has used to justify taking the children from mothers who are victims of domestic violence. Legal recognition and distinctions between the offending and non-offending parent are coming at a snail's pace

The CPS/Juvenile Court System Operates in Secrecy Off the Public Record. This secrecy fans the flames of the system's other tendencies to abuse.

The reason that CPS/Juvenile Court findings, proceedings, mandates, and actions take place off the public record is ostensibly to protect the privacy of the child and family in what is viewed as a private family matter. But one certainly must ask, who really has been more protected by this secrecy, the CPS system or the families it serves?

Nothing fans the flames of governmental abuse like governmental secrecy. Secret files, secret evidence, secret accusations, secret proceedings are a sure fire formula for allowing abuses to thrive and expand throughout the system. Since its inception, CPS/juvenile court activities have been off the public record with the exception of only a few states. The involved parents are informed. But, to date, neither the public nor any public watchdog has been allowed scrutiny or oversight of the handling of these cases.

Fortunately, it looks like there is the possibility this may change. In 2005, The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges voted approval of presumptively open hearings with discretion of courts to close. This isn't yet law, but it's a big step in that direction. As part of the resolution the judges wrote the following,

Open court proceedings will increase public awareness of the critical problems faced by juvenile and family courts and by child welfare agencies in matters involving child protection, may enhance accountability in the conduct of these proceedings by lifting the veil of secrecy which surrounds them, and may ultimately increase public confidence in the work of the judges of the nation's juvenile and family courts."

We would probably word this a little differently,'Open court proceedings will increase public awareness of the critical problems faced by children and non-offending parents in matters involving child protection,.....'

Most all CPS/juvenile court Systems deal ONLY with Intra familial Child Abuse. This schism between the way society deals with child abuse perpetrated by a family member versus child abuse perpetrated by an 'outsider' points out a staggering hypocrisy in the rhetoric about treating child abuse seriously. Behind the rhetoric is a child welfare and police system that in reality works hand in hand to let most child abusers walk free.

Many people are very surprised when they call CPS to report a child abuse case perpetrated by a neighbor, a priest, a stranger, or by any one outside the family. CPS tells the caller they don't handle these cases. They only respond to cases in which the perpetrator is a family member. So in most cases in which the perpetrator is not a family member, CPS tells the caller they'll need to report to police.

Another thing that may surprise you is that if you call police to report a case of child abuse perpetrated by a family member, police will often tell you should report the case to CPS. Granted police could take the report if they wanted to, and they should take the report. But police themselves are all too often on the same philosophical page as CPS. They too often believe that when fathers 'grow their own victim', the fathers shouldn't be held accountable like other offenders.

And another thing. Even if police do take a report of sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member, chances are very good that the perpetrator, even if convicted, will get off lightly compared to an outside-the-family perpetrator. California law, like the law in many states, maintains gaping legal loopholes where, prosecutors can, and frequently do, charge intra familial child sex abuse under different codes which allow the family offenders much lighter sentences. In addition, the law allows convicted intra familial child sex offenders to be given probation, different from outsider child sex offenders who must go to prison. And the law allows convicted intra familial child sex offenders to stay off the state's public registered sex offenders lists, also unlike 'outside'.(For a good discussion of the legal loopholes for fathers and other family members who sexually molest their children see Child Sexual Abuse and the State by Ruby Andrew at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm... )

There isn't a civic leader out there that doesn't publicly rage to the heavens about what monsters child molesters are, and how these 'animals' should be strung up at the crack of dawn. But, remember, the overwhelming majority of all child sex abuse is perpetrated by family members. What this means is that, in reality, we have a system that publicly beats its chest over the small percentage of child molesters who attack someone else's child, while by legal slight of hand that same system lets the vast majority of child molesters go free. Not by accident, but by legal and institutional design. What's perhaps most telling is that, at least in California, these legal loopholes for intra familial perpetrators have been widened over recent years, rather than tightened.

Or to put it another way, the more women and children have made demands on the system to stop family violence, the more the system has created ways to look good while paving the perpetrator's escape. The patriarchy with all its bluff and bluster to the contrary, still supports the notion that a man's home is his castle, and that his children are his to do with as he pleases. Unfortunately, CPS, with its hold-no-perpetrators-accountab le system, is a vital part of the machinery for perpetuating these archaic and oppressive beliefs.

To Part 2

Whether you are a mandated reporter, an advocate, or a non-offending parent who suspects child abuse, DO NOT report to child protective services unless other options have failed.(see above note.) Make your child abuse report to police or other law enforcement agency, at least initially.

The best way to protect the non-offending parent and the child victim from the inherent risks and abuses of the CPS system is to stay as far away from CPS as possible. If you are a mandated reporter, or any individual wishing to make a child abuse report, we highly recommend that you choose to make your report to law enforcement (i.e. to police or sheriff), and not to CPS.

Remember, most state laws give mandated reporters a choice of where they can make their mandated reports. Contrary to widespread mistaken belief, mandated reporters in these states do not have to make their reports to CPS.(To see the text of California state law and earlier discussion of this point go to:
In California and Many Other States,
Mandated Reporters Do NOT Have to Report to Child Protective Services

Here's an abbreviated review of why we strongly recommend that you make child abuse reports to law enforcement rather than to CPS.(For more discussion of these points go back to Part 1 here.)

In broad summary, the criminal justice system responds to family violence, including child abuse, as crime. The criminal justice system aims to hold the offender accountable for the acts of child abuse, and to do so using a rigorous standard of evidence. At the same time, the criminal justice system does not and cannot assert any authority or control over the non-offending parent's life because under the criminal system the non-offending parent has not committed any crime. The criminal system strives to remove the abuser from the home, and not the child victim. Thus, by reporting to the criminal justice system, the primary response will be an effort to hold the perpetrator accountable. There will be virtually no risk that the non-offending parent will be investigated. And there will be a lower risk that the child will be removed from the non-offending parent, thus avoiding an event that is extremely traumatic and unjust for both the child victim and the non-offending parent.

In contrast, the CPS/juvenile court system is not designed to treat child abuse, or any family violence, as crime. The CPS system does not seek to hold the child abuse offender accountable, and has virtually no power to do so. CPS does not have the power to open, nor to carry out, a criminal investigation, does not have the power of arrest, nor does CPS have the power to prosecute perpetrators. The only significant power CPS has is the power to remove children from one or both parents.

Furthermore, the CPS system, unlike the criminal system, will frequently target the non-offending parent; i.e., will likely investigate the non-offending parent for non-criminal behavior such as 'failure to protect','knowing or should have known','instability','parental alienation','failure to cooperate', and other such vague, arbitrary, and non-criminal accusations. CPS will likely mandate the non-offending parent into a host of programs, and will do so using the threat of taking the child from the non-offending parent, or of not returning the child, which determination the CPS system makes on the lowest judicial standard of evidence with minimal due process protections for the parent. In general, the CPS system is geared to treat the non-offending parent more as a co-perpetrator than as an additional primary or secondary victim of the abuser. So, by reporting to CPS, there is no possibility CPS will hold the perpetrator accountable, and a serious risk that the child victim will be removed from the home and/or from the non-offending parent, and that the non-offending parent will be unjustly put under CPS investigation, controls, and threat of losing their child.