Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 3rd and final. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Part 3: The Hospital/Doctor
In what can only be characterized as an extreme miscarriage of justice, the Texas Department of Child Protective Services (CPS) got an emergency court order in Kaufman County to remove a 4-year-old boy from his family.
On June 20, 2019, the 4-year-old was forcefully taken by CPS with the assistance of law enforcement. Following that, on July 2, 2019, a Kaufman County judge upheld the order.
The doctor from Children’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the process which resulted in the forceful removal of a 4-year-old boy from his family by CPS, had no history of treating the child, had never seen the child, never spoke with the parents, and did not even make a complete review of all of the child’s medical records before submitting an affidavit simply expressing some concerns about the child’s medical history.
CPS then used (perhaps “misused” is more appropriate) this affidavit to get an “emergency” court order to remove the child from his home and start the process of permanently terminating all parental rights.
There are several problems with the affidavit submitted and the testimony of the hospital doctor who was responsible for the initiation of this CPS action.
The first problem is that all of her statements about the child and parents are pure speculation. She never saw or spoke with either parent or the child before submitting the affidavit.
All the “concerns” she expressed in her affidavit were simply “concerns.” She presented no firsthand or even secondhand knowledge of any wrongdoing by either parent.
Also, she did not express any urgency for an “emergency” action, and she made no recommendation related to a need for CPS to remove the child from his family.
Some of the highlights of inconsistencies between the affidavit, testimony, and the conclusions intended to be used are:
- In her testimony, she questioned the decision made by the cerebral palsy doctor to provide a wheelchair for the child. Yet she admitted that she did not know and had not talked with that doctor. In paragraph 2 of her affidavit, she said, “I do not have access to the child’s records from the cerebral doctor.”
- The doctor discussed several medical issues, doctor visits, treatments, and medications the child has faced in his short four years. These include a brain surgery; before allowing it, the family got four second opinions from other doctors regarding the necessity of the surgery. He was also diagnosed, tested, and treated for many issues. These included autism, sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, RSV viral lung infection, milk-protein allergy, cerebral palsy, and reflux. However, not all doctor-ordered treatments produced good results. According to the doctor’s seven-page affidavit, every medical diagnosis and treatment the child received was from a certified medical doctor. Yet under the medical findings on page four of the doctor’s affidavit, the doctor appears to criticize the mother by stating in Item 4, “. . . mother has expressed concerns for multiple problems over the years.” Wow. What loving, caring, and doting mother would not be “concerned” with so little progress being made by multiple doctors? But, the two big questions are:
- Why would CPS accept a sworn statement like this one when that doctor had never met nor talked with either parent or the child?
- Why would an allegedly impartial court system accept such a document as fact?
The only “significant” concern expressed by this doctor in her affidavit is directed at the competency of the other doctors, not at the parents.
In fact, almost all the “concerns” expressed by the doctor in her affidavit appear to be criticism of the previous doctor’s diagnosis and treatments.
On page 6, “Kaleb is a 4 yo male that is currently being seen by multiple doctors in the Dallas area. With much review, I have significant concerns about the accuracy of some of his diagnoses. I am very worried about medical abuse for this child.”
So, if this is truly her belief, why has she not reported these concerns to the Texas Medical Board for a malpractice investigation of the doctor for every procedure she questioned?
After all, it was the doctor, not the mother, that made the diagnosis and performed the procedure.
Even though there appeared to be some conflict in testimony between hospital doctor and the CASA representative, it was quite obvious that they had coordinated their testimony. They both used very similar words and scenarios to describe the child in the hospital.
However, one of them got their facts reversed on the issue of potty training. One said that “he only pooped in the toilet but he peed in his pull-ups,” while the other stated, “he only peed in the toilet but pooped in his pull-ups.”
Then, after the abduction but before the court hearing, the doctor did meet with the parents to discuss her concerns. It was noted by several people that attended the meeting, either in person or via telephone conferencing, that the doctor said her concerns had been answered and saw no reason for the child to remain in the hospital.
Why, then, does CPS insist on continuing to seek custody of the child and permanent termination of all parental rights?
These are just the highlights of the concerns with the doctor’s affidavit that began the persecution of this family.
In addition to the above, citizens should have serious concerns with the way that CPS and officers of the court twisted and misused her statements.
Next Article: Part 4 – “Was Justice or Injustice Served” will be a discussion of the role the court system played in assisting CPS in its mission to remove the child from its family.
Source: SenatorBobHall.com
end of article
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 2nd installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Part 2: CPS Caseworker
This government agency, Child Protective Services (CPS), is the genesis of this problem and others like it. As has been confirmed multiple times, CPS does not know when or under what circumstances it is in the best interest of the child to remove the child from parental custody.
All too often, it seems CPS errs on the side of “the parent is guilty of child neglect or abuse” instead of ensuring the protection of the child from the true evil in the world. Unfortunately, from the testimony given last week, there appears to be little or no supervisory oversight to ensure that overzealous case workers are actually working in the best interest of the child.
The sworn affidavit and testimony of the caseworker has several issues. Remember, she testified that she had never seen or talked to the child or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the statements that she swears to be true.
Some of the questionable statements in her affidavit in support of removal, dated June 20, 2019, are: (Her affidavit paragraph titles and numbers are below, in bold.)
- ALLEGATIONS (page 2)
Essentially, every statement is either untrue, a twisting of a similar statement, or just plain hearsay.
Examples of some of the misstatements:
“… referral alleging the physical abuse of Kaleb by Ashley Pardo.” – No such statement is in the hospital doctor’s affidavit.
“Ashley is displaying behavior associated with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.” – On what basis? The caseworker is not a doctor and has never seen Ashley.
“Ashley convinced a doctor to put in an NG tube … .” – There is no evidence or testimony to support this. How does anyone “convince” a doctor to do a medical procedure against his will?
“Ashley constantly wheels Kaleb around in the wheelchair.” – This statement is not in the hospital doctor’s affidavit, and the caseworker could not possibly have any firsthand knowledge.
“Ashley began telling everyone that Kaleb had epilepsy.” – There is no evidence or testimony to support this statement. Again, the caseworker is swearing this to be true, even though she has never heard Ashley speak.
- CPS HISTORY (page 4)
This is a particularly outrageous section in which the caseworker uses “allegations” against Ashley’s previous husband—who, it appears, has some real problems—to make it appear to the casual reader that the problems were with the current family; nothing could be further from the truth.
The caseworker began this section with the statement: “The family appears to have previous CPS history” – She then uses four pages to list several law enforcement allegations against Ashley’s first husband; none of which had any finding of neglect or child abuse.
In the second to last sentence of the 05/23/2014 allegation statement, the caseworker makes an outright lie when she states:
“Ashly Pardo said Daniel Pardo struck Ashly Pardo while Ashly Pardo was pregnant with Linzey Pardo.” This could not possibly be true. Ashly and Daniel did not meet until long after Linzey was born.
It appears that the caseworker knew her case against the Pardo family was extremely weak, therefore she chose to include these “red herring” allegations to mislead the court into thinking this was a really bad family with a lot of violent history.
- CONCLUSION (page 7)
The caseworker misquotes the hospital doctor’s affidavit and makes a statement that is contrary to courtroom testimony. One of the two statements has to be untrue.
“The Reach clinic has provided its findings as highly concerning for medical child abuse.”
The word “highly” is not in the hospital doctor’s affidavit. In fact, in testimony, the hospital doctor made it quite clear that she simply had “some” concerns after a partial review of the child’s medical files, and those concerns were resolved after discussion with the parents. (This discussion took place after the affidavit but before the court hearing.)
“The Department has attempted to identify safe family members or fictive kin with whom the child could be placed as opposed to placement in foster care, however, no such individuals could be found.”
“Reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of these children from the Prado’s home … .”
In the court hearing, the caseworker could not describe any effort made by CPS to resolve the concerns without removing the child from the home.
In fact, her testimony confirmed that the only action CPS pursued was that of an “emergency.”
However, the “emergency” was allowed to go on for two weeks between the time the CPS worker put a business card on the family’s door and the time the child was removed—more than ample time for parents to be allowed to address the allegations without further traumatizing the child.
The court hearing testimony and behavior of the caseworker can only be described as strange or bizarre. On almost every question that could be answered with a “yes” or “no,” the caseworker would first look down and appeared to be shuffling through papers, looking for the answer.
Then she would look up at the CPS attorney who would be nodding her head in either a “yes” or a “no” movement. The caseworker would then answer accordingly.
Even though there was an exhaustive series of questions asked, the caseworker refused to answer why the first and only official action by CPS had to be an “emergency” order for removal.
The only thing close to an explanation the caseworker would give for refusing to tell the parents or their lawyer the allegations was that she was afraid the parents would run and hide.
It was also quite clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s ego led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order to show the family’s lawyer that she was from the government and she could do anything to that family that she wanted to do.
(end of second installment)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 1st installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Texas Senator Exposes Corruption with CPS and Child Abuse Doctors Over Medical Kidnapping of 4-Year-Old Child
Commentary: CPS Heavy-Handed Overreach
When the overreaching heavy hand of the government leads to even one instance of injustice, a little bit of liberty is lost for all citizens.
On July 2, 2019, in Kaufman County, Texas, another piece of liberty was chipped from our society. Once again, in a very sad courtroom scene, the “legal” abduction of a 4-year-old child by the Texas Child Protective Service (CPS) was upheld by what can only be described as an egregious miscarriage of justice.
During a hearing, that lasted more than six hours, little to no evidence was presented that indicated either parent, of the 4-year-old boy, had actually done anything remotely close to child abuse. In fact, no one involved in the whole prosecution process had ever met or talked with either parent, or met or talked with the child.
The doctor from Children’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the forceful removal, had no history of treating the child, had never seen the child, and did not make a complete review of all of the child’s medical records.
The CPS caseworker, responsible for initiating the legal process, as an “emergency” necessity, had no firsthand knowledge of any of the alleged charges she levied against the parents, had never met or talked with the child, and had made no attempt to complete a background investigation, as required by CPS policy.
Yet, the courtroom judge insisted that the process to permanently terminate parental rights be continued, that no further interaction between the child and the parents be allowed except with CPS approval and supervision, and that CPS be granted total control over all needs of the child.
Yes, that is the same Texas CPS that is notorious for the extensive abuse and high rate of suicides of children, in their care and in their foster child care system.
How Could This Have Happened?
Each of the four parties (Hospital/Doctor, CPS, Court System and Child’s Ad Litem Attorney) involved failed in its primary responsibility to act in accordance with its role of “protecting the child first”.
While all four parties failed their responsibility, CPS is the root of the failure.
This government agency is the real genesis of this problem and others like it. There has been multiple confirmed cases that CPS does not know when or under what circumstances it is in the best interest of the child to be removed from parental custody.
All too often it seems CPS errs on the side of the parent is guilty of child neglect instead of ensuring the protection of the child from the true evil in the world.
Unfortunately, from the testimony given last week, there appears to be little or no supervisory oversight to ensure that overzealous caseworkers are actually working in the best interest of the child.
In this instance, the CPS caseworker had:
1. never seen or talked to the child;
2. not seen or talked to the parents;
3. not seen or talked to family members;
4. not seen or talked to neighbors;
5. not conducted a background investigation;
6. not attempted to resolve the issue without removal;
7. refused to disclose the allegations to the parents or to their lawyer;
8. misquoted and misrepresented a hospital doctor’s affidavit to obtain the court order and;
9. had no firsthand knowledge of any wrong doing by the parents;
By declaring it an “emergency”, the caseworker was able to forcefully remove the child by requiring his father to put him in a waiting police vehicle without having to first complete any of the procedural steps which were supposedly put in place to ensure that removal from the home was done as a last resort action.
The court hearing testimony and behavior of the caseworker can only be described as strange or bizarre. On almost every question that could be answered with a “yes” or “no”, the caseworker would first look down and appeared to be shuffling through papers looking for the answer.
Then she would look up and at the CPS attorney who would be nodding her head in either a “yes” or a “no”movement. The caseworker would then answer accordingly. After a while, I began watching the judge and it appeared to me that he, too, was watching the CPS attorney appearing to be coaching the witness, but he never called them out.
Even though there was an exhaustive series of questions asked, the caseworker never gave a reason why the first and only official action by CPS had to be an “emergency” order for removal.
It was also quite clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s personal push led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order.
Doing so, in essence, showed the family’s attorney that she was from the government, she could do anything to that family that she wanted to do, when he indicated he was going to take the case up the CPS chain of command.
Knowing that judges, for self-protection, almost always side with CPS was the only path to ensure that she got a pelt-for-her-belt.
(end of first installment)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
So the lawyer and I had to talk. The talk, of course, cost me money, three-quarters of an hour’s worth, or on toward three hundred dollars.
First, he told me he thought maybe we ought to see if they would offer some kind of settlement. He said I might think about copping to neglect if they would return my children.
In essence, then, we could talk about this at the next court date and if everyone were amenable, within about a month after that I could have my kids back.
But I didn’t do anything, I told him. My boy was hit with a baseball that his friend threw with competitive exuberance against one of those “return the ball” screens. Except he was distracted and missed it.
The lawyer said he knew what happened and how it happened and he said he knew I wasn’t guilty of anything. He said that sometimes we find ourselves in a position where someone else is holding all the cards and at times like that it’s usually better to fold.
What does that mean? I asked him.
It meant that they had me beat financially, that they could drag the case on for maybe eighteen months or so which would cost me a fortune and during which time they would file a permanency plan which in all likelihood would recommend the judge terminate my rights as a parent and that my children be kept in foster care until such time as they were adopted by loving, caring people who wanted them.
So my lawyer stopped the clock then, so to speak, and said he wanted to tell me a story, but that he wouldn’t charge me for his story. He had his paralegal pull out a court transcript — apparently it was one she was familiar with because she knew exactly what he was referring to and where to find it.
It was a case that had seventeen court dates. His client hadn’t done anything wrong, nothing, but they managed to make it seem as if the client was about ten shades worse than Jeffrey Dahmer.
The bottom line of the case and what was in the transcript was a simple spoken line where the DAG said to the judge that the truth didn’t matter. Straight out. She said the truth didn’t matter. She said this after my lawyer claimed that what she had presented was simply not true, that it was an outright lie, a pure fabrication and he could prove it. The DAG held to it, that the truth didn’t matter, that the only thing that mattered was the presumption, or the mere possibility that it might be true.
My lawyer went off. He told the judge that if the truth didn’t matter it could not be a serious court. He said he had presented and was again presenting truth, facts and records that showed the truth and which totally belied what the DAG was claiming.
So my lawyer looked at me when we finished reading and said that the judge peered out kind of blank-eyed, that he stared out into nowhere off beyond where they all were. Then he yawned and put his hands up in the position of “what should I say?”
He didn’t stop what was going on. He didn’t find for my lawyer at all. He just, as my lawyer told it, “looked at me kind of sheepishly, and let it all go on.”
It’s all fixed, my lawyer said. So think about making a deal. The worst that we would accept is your going on the registry, but at least you’d have your kids back.
I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t do anything.
So I sat there in his office and cried.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in two installments due to length. This is the 2nd and final installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: see entire story here all at once including video
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
continued…
Reguli goes on to explain the order from DCS to remove the children was not even signed by a judge in their county. They went to a different county to get the ex parte emergency order, and even then Reguli states that the order was not even signed by the judge.
These kangaroo courts, this donkey justice system that is going on – there is not another type of litigation that goes through this.
If I have a contract case, and I want to go get a restraining order against somebody or some other business, I have to file the document with the court, and then it goes to the judge, and then the judge makes the decision.
This being able to cart your documents off by DCS workers to another county, under the claim that they’ve got some freakin emergency – it has got to stop!
Reguli goes on to explain that the rationale behind ex parte orders is to deal with emergency situations where there is no time to wait for a court to convene and hear the case. The standard is supposed to be: “There is a risk of irreparable harm before a court hearing can be held.”
But DCS workers abuse the system by using ex parte orders to immediately remove children from homes when there is no emergency.
“They’re making these ex parte orders on antonymous tips, on vague allegations that they have no substance, they’re doing no investigation.”
Concerning the case where she is being charged with criminal charges of “Facilitation of Custodial Interference and Accessory after the Fact” Reguli states:
They made allegations that mom was a drug dealer. They never showed mom was a drug dealer. And that was last August.
The kids are home with mom. And DCS dismissed their case.
I filed four different complaints with the Department of Children’s Services, showed them all the violations. They had taken these children, they had shipped them 300 miles away in foster homes in which there were needles, and bars on the windows in a culturally inappropriate setting that was totally not the setting that foster care was supposed to be.
They have been in six placements in less than a year.
They told these kids that they would never go home to their mom.
Retaliation Against Attorney for Exposing Corruption?
When asked if she thinks this criminal charge against her is retaliation, Reguli states
Absolutely. And they know in this case it is a federal “case” – it has civil rights violations, it is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. And in Tennessee we have a very short statute of limitations. I already have the complaint about 80 percent drafted. This is just a distraction to steal my time..
So we’re going to make it a distraction for everybody.
When we have a preliminary hearing, I’ll get cameras in the courtroom, and we’ll video tape it.
I’m going to have my opportunity to cross examine some of these people, including the judges, the caseworkers, the police officers – we’ll get them up there and cross examine them.
Because there was never a finding that this mom was a drug dealer. And that was their whole basis for running off and snatching these kids.
Based on her phone call with the police, Reguli knew that they were charging the mom with “Custodial Interference” and charging her, as the mom’s attorney, for “facilitating a crime.”
And yet, the case had already been dismissed, and the children were already back home with the mom.
Reguli then goes on to give her perspective as to why they are so upset with her to the point of filing (bogus) criminal charges.
Here’s another reason they are mad at me. So, I record everything. I have Olympus digital recorders that plug into your computer. I carry them with me all the time. I lay them down on the desk. There is no secret. Everybody knows it.
When I go into a courtroom, I lay a recorder on the table.
When we had a hearing on February 26th, I got my recorders out on the table, we take a short break to do something, and I left my recorder on. I just left it on. I didn’t turn it off as I walked out.
I came back in, and we finish what we are doing.
When I get back to my office, I’m downloading my audios and I was trying to find something on my audio.
So I pull up my audio, and I realized what I had done by keeping it on.
Well, during the break, the DCS attorney and DCS workers were talking smack about me. Along with the court officer, the judge’s court officer who works for the sheriff department, is talking smack about me and my client. They’re sitting over there giggling and laughing it and I posted that online as well.
They are livid about that. They’re absolutely livid that they’re basically saying that the barrier to reunification is Connie Reguli.
Well, that shows you that it was personal right then.
This was a personal vendetta.
end of article
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in two installments due to length. This is the 1st installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: see entire story here all at once including video
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Attorney Connie Reguli turned herself into authorities in Brentwood, Tennessee today (July 17, 2019) after learning that there was a warrant out for her arrest. She was released the same day without bail, on her own recognizance.
Attorney Connie Reguli is well-known to the readers of Health Impact News and our MedicalKidnap.com website. She is the head of the LawCare Family Law Center in Tennessee, and also the founder of the Family Forward Project, which advocates for the rights of parents and children nationwide on matters related to abuses in Child Protective Services and Foster Care.
She is a frequent speaker nationally, and educates legislators on matters related to family law and child welfare. She has been practicing law defending the Constitutional rights of parents for over 25 years.
Yesterday she received a phone call informing her that there was a warrant out for her arrest, encouraging her to turn herself in rather than having police come in to storm her office or home to arrest her.
After informing her Facebook followers of this fact, Raymond Schwab, a military veteran and father who had his own children medically kidnapped in Kansas (more info), called Reguli and interviewed her the night before she turned herself in where she explained the case related to the warrant.
Attorney Reguli begins by stating that she has:
never broken the law and never been arrested for nothing. I am 67 years old, I’ve never had a DUI… never had a single criminal charge. And here we are because I tried to get a parent due process, which means notice and opportunity to be heard. I am now going to be criminally charged for that.
At a recent legislative session in Tennessee before a committee that provides oversight for Tennessee’s Department of Children Services (DCS) Attorney Reguli says:
I told them that this system is so broken, and that parents’ rights are being violated, that nobody will stand up for them. There’s no oversight, there’s nobody looking over their shoulder. I’ve been an attorney for 25 years. I know the law. I know what Constitutional rights are for parents, and I have been a thorn in their side.
Reguli explains that the heart of the case involved with her criminal charge revolves around ex parte orders being used by DCS to take children out of homes, where no emergency exists, and sometimes, they don’t even have a valid court order signed by a judge to do so. With ex parte orders, there is no hearing before a child or children are removed from the home.
She goes on to explain that she represents a mom in Dekalb County, which is a small rural area about an hour away from where she lives. She has known and represented the mom, Wendy Hancock, for several years.
She’s been harassed by the Department of Children Services many many times. They’ve gone to school and pulled her kids out of class and harassed her.
In 2015 when they came after her, I represented her in court, and they dismissed the case with an email. I mean once I got in the case and I said they were violating the Constitution, and I was drilling him down to get me records and set the case for hearing, they sent me an email and said the case was dismissed.
In 2017, however, they allegedly started harassing the mom again.
This time, I called the DCS worker up on the phone and I recorded it, and this is what pissed them off in this case. I recorded it, and I said “Deedee,” Deedee Miller, that’s her name, Deandra Miller, I said “I want you to know that I represent this mom and you are not to call her again. You are to call me.”
And she goes, “I don’t think I can talk to you,” and she hung up on me.
I posted that recording on our Facebook Group, The Family Forward Project. I put it up there, that this is what it is like to talk to a DCS worker when you have counsel.
In 2018 there was allegedly another referral against the mom, Wendy Hancock, and again Reguli tried to work with the case worker, but this time she would not even take her call. She left a message stating she wanted to work with the department on behalf of her client and come up with a “safety plan,” a fact she says is not in dispute.
Because an investigation had been started, Reguli called the detective.
I say “don’t talk to my client again without me present.” He said “Okay.”
She asked the police detective if there was any emergency she needed to know about, and he allegedly said “no.” This was on a Friday, August 10, 2018.
On Monday morning, according to Reguli, she called the court and asked the clerk if anything had been filed against her client yet, and they said “no.”
They finally did file a case at 3:43 p.m. that Monday, just minutes before the court closed at 4 p.m.
She asked the clerk to fax her the file, and the clerk reportedly said “sure.”
But after waiting some time, Reguli called back and was informed they could not fax it to her, and that she needed to drive out to Dekalb County courthouse to retrieve it.
Being over an hour and a half away, Reguli had to take a half day off just to drive out there.
They had not served my client. I did not know at that time, but they had already had another hearing behind her back. They didn’t call her and tell her they had a hearing. They didn’t call her and tell her they had filed anything.
They did everything ex parte.
(To be continued)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in four installments due to length. This is the 4th and final installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete article
by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff
The Destruction of the American Family: Federal Funds Available for Foster and Adoptive Parents, but NOT Birth Parents
Nev Moore explains how federal money is available to help foster and adoptive parents, but not the birth parents:
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.
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.
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. (Source Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness)
As shown in the chart from page 57 of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Child Maltreatment 2014 Manual, three-quarters (75.0%) of victims were neglected, 17.0 percent were physically abused, and 8.3 percent were sexually abused.
Image Source: page 57 of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Child Maltreatment 2014 Manual
The System is Beyond Repair – Federal Funding Must Stop
I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free. – The Late Congresswoman Nancy Schaefer of Georgia
Many assert that CPS has become a business based on moving children from one home (the birth home) and into another (state custody foster care, group home, or adoptive home) in order to turn on the tap to get the federal funds flowing, and is not a system concerned with protecting children from abuse. Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, refers to this as state-sponsored “child trafficking.”
Nancy Schaefer summarizes:
I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in Child Protective Services system. I have come to the conclusion:
- that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (sometimes parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children to their parents;
- that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;
- that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold “the system” together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the “system’s” psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.
- that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;
- it is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect; (Source: The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Service
See:
Senator Nancy Schaefer: Did her Fight Against CPS Child Kidnapping Cause her Murder?
Nev Moore argues:
Although CPS has always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they are involved with families due to some sort of horrific child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate among national policy makers, researchers, and federal agencies that the vast majority of CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement, rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such. P.L. 96-272 came into effect partly because Congress determined that a large number of children were being unnecessarily removed from their homes, and, once removed, they were lost in the limbo of foster care for years, many until they just grew too old, when they were then put on the streets at the age of 18.
By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent. CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office. They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E. I have discussed this issue with the Inspector Generals Office and they felt it could possible be prosecuted under RICO, yet they have also failed to act, possibly because it isn’t just CPS/DSS who is committing federal fraud, but also the judges who are signing the documents.
In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child “protection,” and stated:
“What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it’s illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse.” (Source. State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government)
According to Jim Barrus of Constitutional Concepts Foundation:
EVERY CHILD WHO HAS EVER BEEN REMOVED FROM THE HOME OF ITS PARENTS HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.
Eventually the people will reach the point our Founders Fathers described and demand redress for the unconstitutional actions that have been perpetrated against them by the government.
There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for the pain and suffering. And, it’s not just the parents and the kids who have suffered, it’s the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles, and the cousins. (Source: Kidnapping for Profit by Child Protective Services)
(end of article)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in four installments due to length. This is the 3rd installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete article
by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff
Financial Incentives for States to Adopt Out More Children
There are 4 main streams of funding a state can receive from adoption incentives, according to the Adoption Incentives Awards by Category for Earning Years 2008–2012 (Updated September 2013):
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law [P.L.] 110-351) reauthorized the Adoption Incentives payment program under part E of the Social Security Act. Under this reauthorization, states can earn incentive funds for increasing the number of children adopted in certain circumstances. There are four categories under which states can earn Adoption Incentive awards:
Exceeding a baseline number of foster child adoptions: States must exceed their 2007 baseline number of foster child adoptions to be eligible for incentive awards in this category. States earn $4,000 for each foster child adopted that is above the baseline number.
Exceeding a baseline number of older child (age 9 or older) adoptions: States must exceed their 2007 baseline number of older child (age 9 or above) adoptions to be eligible for incentive awards in this category. States earn $8,000 for each older child adopted that is above the baseline number.
Exceeding a baseline number of special needs child (under age 9) adoptions: As provided in the law, states that exceed their special needs adoption baseline do not earn an incentive for this increase unless, in that same fiscal year, they separately earned an incentive for increases in foster care or older child adoptions, or they exceeded their highest ever adoption rate. States earn $4,000 for each special needs child adopted that meet this criterion.
Exceeding the state’s highest ever adoption rate: A state is eligible for an adoption rate incentive award if they achieve their highest ever foster child adoption rate between FY2002 and the most recent FY. If the current earning year’s adoption rate is the highest, that rate is multiplied by the number of children in foster care on the last day of the preceding fiscal year. That result is then subtracted from the number of foster child adoptions in the state in the current earning year. The difference is then rounded to the nearest whole number and multiplied by $1,000. However, Adoption Rate incentive awards may only be paid if there are sufficient funds remaining after the awards are made for increased numbers of adoptions in the other three award categories (Foster Child Adoptions, Older Youth Adoptions, and Special Needs Adoptions).
The following chart shows the Adoption Incentive Awards History by State from 1998-2014.
Image Source: Adoption Incentive Awards History by State from 1998-2014
“Abused” Children or Just Poor? Are We Punishing Poverty?
Many of the children entering foster care (and subsequently being adopted) are not children in imminent danger of being victimized by sexual or physical abuse, but are children branded as “neglected” or deprived of “necessities” due to poverty.
According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway:
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree that the child’s health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm. Approximately 25 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect. The States that define “failure to educate” as neglect include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Nine States and American Samoa specifically define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child. Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. In addition, four States define medical neglect as the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.
According to one frequently cited federal study, children in families earning below $15,000 a year are 22 times more likely to be considered maltreated as kids in families with incomes above $30,000. It is also well known that these parents cannot afford private attorneys to represent them and fight to get their children back. They must rely on court-appointed attorneys who are generally quick to encourage them to settle with the State, and lose all custody of their children.
Nancy Schaefer, who died advocating for families’ rights against a corrupt CPS system, agreed saying:
Poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers. (Source: The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services)
End 3rd installment
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in four installments due to length. This is the 2nd installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete article
by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff
Picking Your Child: The Child Trafficking Business
With the passing of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 (ASFA), came the Title IV-E funds, which now limited the amount of money available for each child in foster care, and instead encouraged incentives for adoptions, creating a cash stream that was loosely regulated and could be easily siphoned into the state’s general budget. Critics of ASFA claim that abused children are often returned home after their foster care funds are maxed when they become a liability to the state’s coffers (since abused children are not considered adoptable), and that more children who aren’t in imminent danger of abuse are being placed into foster care since they are more attractive adoption commodities.
According to Nev Moore:
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.
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 web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the ‘Adopt Shoppe.’ (Source: Adoption Bonuses-The Money Behind the Madness)
There is no shortage of children entering foster care and subsequently being adopted out, as one can see from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFACRS) below:
Image Source: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFACRS)
From Foster Care to Adoption, Lots of Money to be Made
In the article Where the Money Comes From: Paying for Child Welfare Services, Tim Ross declares:
The United States spent almost $26 billion on child welfare services in federal fiscal year 2006, the last year for which detailed information is available. The federal government provided over $12 billion, state governments almost $11 billion, and local governments almost $3 billion. This money comes from numerous programs: at least 43 separate federal funding streams can be used to pay for child welfare services.
Most federal funding, however, comes from five sources: Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, the Social Services Block Grant, and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and Medicaid. Because federal regulations require that states provide matching funds to claim reimbursement for most of these programs, federal funding plays a large role in how states and localities spend their own child welfare dollars.
Title IV-E is the largest source of federal funds, accounting for $6 billion of spending. Title IV-E is an entitlement program that provides states with funding for foster care, adoption assistance, youth transitioning out of foster care to adulthood (funded through the Chafee Act) and administration. Generally, IV-E funding is based on the number of children receiving assistance and for children in foster care, the number of days in care. Only children from families that meet the eligibility criteria for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, which ended in 1996, are eligible for Title IV-E.
Title IV-B provides about a tenth of the annual funding of IV-E ($637 million) and can be used for services to prevent child maltreatment, to help reunify families, and to maintain a qualified workforce, among other uses. Unlike Title IV-E, Title IV-B funding is capped—a fixed amount is allocated to each state each year.
Both the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security Block Grant (SSBG) programs can be used by states for many social services, of which child welfare is only one. The amounts allocated by states to child welfare from TANF and SSBG vary from year to year. Arkansas, for example, more than doubled its TANF spending on child welfare services between FY2004 and FY2006, while New Mexico eliminated TANF funds for child welfare during the same period. In 2006, states spent $2.3 billion from TANF and $1.6 billion from SSBG on child welfare.
Medicaid also covers some child welfare services, above and beyond standard health care expenditures for regular checkups, dental work, and the like. These services include targeted case management or rehabilitative services, such as behavioral health and some residential care services. Medicaid spending on child welfare services came to almost $1.4 billion, though some states were not able to break out this spending from other Medicaid expenditures.
The structure of federal financing provides strong support to some types of child welfare services and comparatively little to others. Federal funding, for example, may provide up to 83 percent of the cost of foster care in some states, as well as significant subsidies to families who adopt children from foster care. Funding for services to prevent placement in foster care and to help children already in foster care reunify with their families is much less.
To see how your state spends these funds, click the link on the map below:
End 2nd Installment
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
The lawyer asked for another $10,000 minimum. He said, and he said this with a straight face too, from what he’d seen so far in the case this one was going to cost somewhere near $100,000 or maybe more.
A hundred-thousand dollars! I sat up at night all alone in the house crying and crying and crying. On top of being all alone and not having my kids there with me, on top of all the worry of what was happening to my kids, and the fears associated with not knowing where they were and not being able to find out where they were or how they were being cared for, now I had to worry about money.
My father was no happy camper. He and my mother had worked all their lives to save for retirement. They had put away what they thought was enough money for a comfortable retirement that would be supplemented by Social Security and his pension, but such an expenditure was never figured in. When we spoke, he asked me where he was supposed to get that kind of money, if I understood what that could do to his and my mother’s retirement. He was talking about selling his house. I was talking about selling my house. Suddenly, out of the blue, we were talking about me and my kids maybe moving to where they live and all of us living together in a downsized house.
I cried even more after I hung up the phone every night with my father. CPS had messed up my life and I had done nothing wrong, nothing! I had never laid a hand on my children. I had taken care of them, not adequately, but superbly as I saw it. They never went hungry. They never went without clothes, even a big selection of clothes. They had toys. My son, a bit older, had appropriate electronics. They wanted for nothing. He played in Little League, went to Boy Scouts, they both went to the doctor any and every time it was needed.
On the fourth day in court, the fourth one I was paying for, but really the third actual day we were there before the judge, none of this seemed to matter. The judge didn’t want to hear anything. He looked at me with sleepy, disinterested eyes and saw — I can’t imagine what he saw. I simply can’t imagine what was going on in his mind, what he thought, what he truly believed.
He listened to everything they presented. They had that original doctor’s report, their doctor. We showed them our doctors’ reports, ours of course presenting the whole history of my children, a history which showed only care and concern, physicals and checkups every year, all vaccinations up-to-date, appropriate physicals for school, for Little League and Boy Scouts. All my reports showed nothing but healthy, well-taken care-of children.
I would find out later that their doctor was one who made his living from CPS. I would find out that he had a long history of testifying in cases in court on CPS’s side, and my lawyer would petition the judge saying that he was a biased witness because in over thirty cases that he had testified in, he had never once found anything other than what CPS wanted him to find. He was, as my lawyer said it, their go-to guy.
And with my kids, they went to him.
So the judge sat with his cheek on his elbow his elbow on his desk or whatever they call that thing the judge sits in front of. The bench? He dozed off a couple of times as they presented the school report from that day, the doctor’s report from that day, the nurse’s opinion that it was possible he was hit in the eye.
Hello! He was hit in the eye. But not by me. By accident.
About an hour went by. Finally the judge asked CPS to begin formalizing a plan for my children, and to submit within thirty days their recommendations in the case. He banged down the gavel and once again remanded my children, for no real reason that anyone could discern, into CPS custody.
