Year: 2009

cps, family, healing, social worker, system failure, welfare reform
When CPS Workers Confuse Poverty w/Neglect..They Live Forever…

A single mother has  fallen on hard times with the sudden departure of her husband. He has recently abandoned her and her son for a woman, his mistress from a love affair.

This mother is distraught & undoubtedly depressed.  She was caught off guard and was left without a job after having been a housewife for many years.

This mother went  from an affluent wife to a single poverty stricken mother. She does not know where to begin her new life, for she is still in shock from the ending of her old life.  She is, as any woman would be, terribly depressed at the failure of her marriage, but,  one thing she knows for certain is that  she has a son to care for.

She musters up the strength of will to keep going, however difficult it is . Some days seem impossible to do what she has to, but she finds the will to take care of her boy. They are very close, even moreso since finding themselves alone. They are partners against the world, each night saying prayers and assuring one another that times will get better, just have faith.

One day, her electric bill came due.  In her newfound budget, she had mistakenly overspent at the grocery store and the lights get shut off.

Her soon to be ex comes by to surprise her with divorce papers .  He announces that he is on his way out of town for a “new job somewhere “.  When she asks where, he won’t disclose any details and it angers him.

The former couple begin to argue and he remarks of the mother and child living  in the dark with candles lit and a fire in the fireplace.

When she insists that it is his fault for leaving them without warning, insisting on knowing where he’s moving for this job, he threatens to take her son with him if she doesn’t stop badgering.

The next day calls CPS and a social worker comes out, and finds the home without electricity, and removes the child into foster care. The father has already left town and isn’t readily found, and the mother falls apart.

The child never comes home again.

This mother is sustained on a finding of ‘neglectful supervision’ because she “should have known” better than to allow her electricity to get shut off .  The social worker stated in her report that the mother failed to apply for assistance before it came down to that and if she overlooks something like electricity, she is probably overlooking  other needs of the child’s.  These  activities could leave the child at serious risk of harm.That’s what the report said.

Truth is though, she is poor and suffering at a tragic time in their life.   That does not mean she neglects her child, she just needs a boost to start their new life.  Maybe some assistance.  It was the only time their electricity was cut off, she never considered it before because it never happened.

The CPS worker jumped to immediate conclusions, and should have helped the mother find ways to improve her situation, request assistance, apply for legal aid and get child support. There were many ways the problem was easily remedied.

However, poverty was mistaken for neglect, and defined “at risk ” when there’s never been any risk to the child, the problems begin with the definitions of abuse/neglect. Then, the problems end with the willingness to remove children being stronger than the desire to keep the child at home.

A CPS social worker who is unable to familiarize herself with this poor but loving family that needs a little boost in life, offer some counseling maybe, or a support group for divorcing women is the first problem that should be solved.

Why is she unable to do this?  Most likely its due to the tremendous caseload she has stacked in front of her… Perhaps she does not mean to overlook this family… but because she has so much to do, she inadvertently tosses this family into the black pit of a child welfare system’s worst side, needlessly removes the child from the home, and places him in foster care.

Even worse, the shortage of foster homes takes this child too far away to visit regularly because there were no other openings.  Later, he gets abused there and nobody finds out until too late and permanent injuries are suffered.  The mother has fallen apart and can’t seem to get the help she needs, so she is labeled overly emotional.  CPS puts her through psychiatric evaluations one after the other, until finally she has a breakdown when she learns of the abuse her son has gone through. They terminate her rights.

It happens all the time in this system.

All this Mother really needed was some food stamps and assistance on her light bill for a month or two. Maybe temporary financial aid for a down payment on a new car, so she could get some job training and go back to work. Perhaps some temporary medical care to get them both back healthy again, with a flu shot, and some counseling over her divorce. and his loss of a father figure.

Instead, this mother lost her husband, then her lights, then her child, then herself, to grief.

An overzealous social worker received a spite referral from a cheating man who spent enough money on airplane drinks to pay her electric bill twice over.  Nobody tracks him down to file false allegation charges on him.

Her son no longer wants to make his Daddy proud, or thinks of  Daddy as a hero, but instead, loses his own future in drugs and alcohol.    It starts out with a beer can and a marijuana joint he smokes but eventually turns into cocaine and petty crimes in order to buy it.

The boy is a teenager in foster care.  He’s been moved so many times from home to home, facility to facility, that now, he doesn’t care anymore.  He runs away from the home often so he can do his drugs and eventually goes to jail.

Of course by then he doesn’t have anyone to call so he does time, about a year in juvenile detention.  In that year  he gets sexually abused and in fights.  A few months after being released on his 18th birthday, he gets arrested again for stealing a car.  That sentence, he gets caught up in the prison gang life and learns to hurt people, after years he spent in foster care and juvenile detention, doing a lot of fighting.  He is very angry.  It was only a light bill past due.

He is angry at his father who divorced his mother and leaving them in a shabby apartment with no lights.

He knows his father made the phone call that destroyed their life. He knows his father so cowardly ran away with another woman, and he is angry at how that hurt them.

He is angry that he lost his mother who was his best friend. He is angry that he can’t find her, and that she was taken away from him. 

He is angry that it made her fall apart, because he knows she loved him so much.

He is angry that now she is gone, and he is angry that he is behind bars, and so he fights life, and everyone in it. 

He sits and thinks about it all the time.  He thinks about the social worker who took him away from home.

3a1ff59156e57f08

Are you a caseworker for CPS? 

Do you volunteer for CASA while you go to school?

Do you hope to be a social worker and help abused kids one day?

Do you want to be a social worker when you graduate college? 

Do you work for the advocacy center doing forensic interviews?

Is that you?

Okay, next question… do you want to live forever?

Carry on a legacy?

Make a difference in someone’s life?

Change history?

Well, here this caseworker did it without a lick of effort and didn’t even know it.  Its amazingly easy to live forever.

This way though, its what happens, when you confuse poverty with neglect.  You live forever.

Exactly what is abuse and neglect? 

Why is it so important to define these two words?

Abuse and neglect are the defined allegations used as justification for removing children from their natural homes.

They are the acts of parents that CPS has “reason to believe”  did occur which gives them the right to remove a child from the home.

The parents are then expected to jump through hoops working their (“services”) which are outlined in the “family service plan” made to “protect”  the children from the “abuse and “neglect” …  right?

Child Protection Services. CPS – Services to Protect the Children from abuse and neglect. That is why it is so important to define Abuse & Neglect.  That is why we should not confuse poverty with neglect.

Abuse is defined as the prolonged maltreatment of another; the continued misuse of something, the mishandling thereof, the ill-handling of something.

Abuse is intentional – with forethought and deliberate action – It is causing or threatening to cause physical, mental, emotional, psychological, financial or sexual harm against a person, or a person’s beloved … (pet, family member, friend, or other loved one). Abuse is not only causing harm or injury to that person but also controlling them by placing them in fear of harm or injury against  themselves or another person.

An abuser often uses fear to control or manipulate that person into acting or performing in a certain manner bending to a will not his or her own.

Definition of Child Neglect

Child neglect is the failure to provide for the shelter, safety, supervision and nutritional needs of the child. Child neglect may be physical, educational, or emotional neglect:

  • Physical neglect includes refusal of or delay in seeking health care, abandonment, expulsion from the home or refusal to allow a runaway to return home, and inadequate supervision.
  • Educational neglect includes the allowance of chronic truancy, failure to enroll a child of mandatory school age in school, and failure to attend to a special educational need.
  • Emotional neglect includes such actions as marked inattention to the child’s needs for affection, refusal of or failure to provide needed psychological care, spouse abuse in the child’s presence, and permission of drug or alcohol use by the child.

How often is poverty confused with neglect ?   Many times.

That is why the social worker’s assessment is so valuable a tool, if used properly.  But most of the time, it is not.

The assessment identifies the services that might be able to assist a family out of a tough situation that has placed the family at risk.

Perhaps the recent loss of a job has led to hard times, and the stress has caused some issues in the parenting skills of the mother or father with their children.

Assistance with applying for financial aid, unemployment benefits, housing or food, and parenting classes, could prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from the home.

Avoiding placement in foster care when the risk is low enough that needs can be met through a service plan that keeps the family in tact, is definitely best for the family unit. So why do children enter foster care? !

Children enter foster care because of abuse and/or neglect.

The majority, however, is due to neglect, which, when neglect is a stand-alone problem (not in combination with abuse), it is often the result of inadequate housing, poor child care, or insufficient food or medical care. For example – lets take a look at poverty and an example of how it can mistakenly destroy lives with the misapplied help of CPS at its worst… so this example can remain just that – an example to learn from.

Poverty is not neglect, but the two get tied together in a tragic knot.

So if you ask the grown up little boy who could have changed it all…  he’ll tell you … He will say the social worker could have made a difference.

He says it quickly and matter of fact – Ms. Too-Busy-To-Pay Attention social worker is who could have, and should have helped. But didn’t.

Its the social worker he blames – even more than he blames his  father. Why? Because she had the training, the power, and she was in the role,that  SHOULD HAVE helped them.

Instead she failed them.

He says “her decision killed my Mom and me, we’ll never recover.”

BUT – If you ask the caseworker about the same little boy…

She will stop, and pause, and shake her head before she walks away telling you she hasn’t the time to discuss a case that was “over so long ago.”  

Besides, she could not even remember which one he was – the boy without electricity.

She laughs, “How much more vague can you be?”

She will carry on as if he never existed.  That case was 0ne of many to her. Hell, she hasn’t even worked for CPS now for years – that was only a summer job she had once.

To him, though, his case, and this social worker is everything.

She is the reason he has no home, no life, no mother, no education, no wife or children.

She is the reason he is nothing, a statistic, with no goals, no dreams, no hope, no will to live.

She is the reason he is angry with an addiction to drugs.

To him, the CPS Social Worker is a face he cannot forget.

She has the name that haunts him.

She is the woman that he seethes, day in and day out.

But to the social worker, he was a number on a file she might recall if she dug it up and looked again. Maybe.

To him, she has ripped a hole in the bond between his mother & him.

She destroyed his family unit that probably will never be repaired.

Because of her, he quits school & lives on the streets.

That’s not child protection. That’s child sabotage.

the social worker now lives forever…

to that little boy …

(c) 2009 Forever May, J.Murphy

cps
Successful Alternatives to Taking Children from their Parents
(source: National Coalition for Child Protection Reform)
Picture_1-1

At the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, they are often asked what can be done to prevent the trauma of foster care by safely keeping children with their own families.

There are many options, and some are listed below.

None of the alternatives described below will work in every case or should be tried in every case.

Contrary to the way advocates of placement prevention often are stereotyped, the NCCPR do not believe in “family preservation at all costs” or that “every family can be saved.”

But these alternatives can keep many children now needlessly taken from their parents safely in their own homes.

Similarly, even communities that have turned their child welfare systems into national models still have serious problems, and often much progress still needs to be made.

All of the things that go wrong in the worst child welfare systems also go wrong in the best – but they go wrong less often.

Alternatives to Taking Children

from their Parents

Doing nothing. There are, in fact, cases in which the investigated family is entirely innocent and perfectly capable of taking good care of their children without any “help” from a child welfare agency.  In such cases, the best thing the child protective services worker can do is apologize, shut the door, and go away.

Basic, concrete help. Sometimes it may take something as simple as emergency cash for a security deposit, a rent subsidy, or a place in a day care center (to avoid a “lack of supervision” charge) to keep a family together.

Intensive Family Preservation Services programs. The first such program, Homebuilders, in Washington State, was established in the mid-1970s.  The largest replication is in Michigan, where the program is called Families First. The very term “family preservation” was invented specifically to apply to this type of program, which has a better track record for safety than foster care.  The basics concerning how these programs work – and what must be included for a program to be a real “family preservation” program — are in NCCPR Issue Papers 10 and 11.  Issue Paper 11 lists studies proving the programs’ effectiveness.

CONTACTS:

  • Susan Kelly, former director, Families First (734) 547-9164, susan.kelly @cssp.org

The Alabama “System of Care.” This is one of the most successful child welfare reforms in the country. The reforms are the result of a consent decree growing out of a lawsuit brought by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. The consent decree requires the state to rebuild its entire system from the bottom up, with an emphasis on keeping families together. The rate at which children are taken from their homes is among the lowest in the country, and re-abuse of children left in their own homes has been cut sharply.  An independent monitor appointed by the court has found that children are safer now than before the changes.

CONTACTS:

  • Ira Burnim, Legal Director, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (202) 467-5730, ext. 129. Mr. Burnim also is a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors. The Bazelon Center also has published a book about the Alabama reforms.

  • Paul Vincent, Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group, Montgomery, Ala. (334) 264-8300.  Mr. Vincent ran the child protection system in Alabama when the lawsuit was filed.  He worked closely with the plaintiffs to develop and implement the reform plan.

  • Ivor Groves, independent, court-appointed monitor, (850) 422-8900.

Family to Family. This is a multi-faceted program developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (which also helps to fund NCCPR).  One element of the program, Team Decisionmaking often is confused with the entire program, which has many more elements.  The program is described at the Casey website .

A comprehensive outside evaluation of the program, found that it led to fewer placements, shorter placements, and less bouncing of children from foster home to foster home – with no compromise of safety.

CONTACT:

  • Gretchen Test, Annie E. Casey Foundation (410) 547-6600.

Community/Neighborhood Partnerships for Child Protection. These partnerships, overseen by the Center for the Study of Social Policy in Washington, are similar to the Family to Family projects. They mobilize formal and informal networks of helpers to prevent maltreatment and avoid needless foster care placement.  Partnerships in Florida’s Duval County, St. Louis, Mo. and Georgia  have reduced placements and improved safety.

CONTACT:

The turnaround in Pittsburgh. In the mid-1990s, the child welfare system in Pittsburgh and surrounding Allegheny County, Pa. was typically mediocre, or worse.  Foster care placements were soaring and those in charge insisted every one of those placements was necessary.  New leadership changed all that.  Since 1997, the foster care population has been cut dramatically.  When children must be placed, nearly half of all placements are with relatives and siblings are kept together 82 percent of the time.

They’ve done it by tripling the budget for primary prevention, more than doubling the budget for family preservation, embracing innovations like Family to Family and adding elements of their own, such as housing counselors in every child welfare office so families aren’t destroyed because of housing problems.  And children are safer.  Reabuse of children left in their own homes has declined and there has been a significant and sustained decline in child abuse fatalities.

CONTACT:

  • Karen Blumen, Allegheny County Department of Human Services, Office of Community Relations (412) 350-5707.

Reform in El Paso County, Colorado. By recognizing the crucial role of poverty in child maltreatment, El Paso County reversed steady increases in its foster care population.  The number of children in foster care declined significantly – and the rate of reabuse of children left in their own homes is below the state and national averages, according to an independent evaluation by the Center for Law and Social Policy.

CONTACT:

  • Barbara Drake, El Paso County Department of Human Services, (719) 444-5532.

The Bridge Builders, Bronx, New York. Combine the giving and guidance of ten foundations with the knowledge and enthusiasm of eight community-based agencies, then partner with the child protective services agency and what do you get?  A significant reduction in the number of children taken from their homes, with no compromise of safety, in a neighborhood that is among those losing more children to foster care than any others in New York City.  That’s the record of the Bridge Builders Initiative in the Highbridge section of The Bronx.  (NCCPR has received a grant to assist the Bridge Builders with media work).

CONTACTS:

  • Mike Arsham, executive director, Child Welfare Organizing Project, co-chair Bridge Builders Executive Committee, mike@cwop.org, 212-348-3000.

Throughout the City, the Administration for Children’s Services has made significant progress in safely keeping children in their own homes.  Since 1998, even with backsliding since 2006 in the wake of highly-publicized deaths of children “known to the system,” the number of children taken from their parents over the course of a year has been cut significantly, with no compromise of safety. Though child abuse fatalities garnered extensive media attention in 2006, such fatalities have declined during the reforms, only to increase in the wake of the backsliding.  Overall re-abuse of children left in their own homes declined significantly when entries into foster care were reduced.

Contact:

  • Sharman Stein, Administration for Children’s Services 212-341-0999

The transformation in Maine. After a little girl named Logan Marr was taken needlessly from her mother only to be killed by a foster mother who formerly worked for the child welfare agency, the people of Maine refused to settle for pat answers about background checks and licensing standards.  They zeroed in on the fact that Maine had one of the highest proportions of children in the country trapped in foster care.  The combination of grassroots demands for change from below and new leadership at the top led to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken away over the course of a year.  And while the state still has a long way to go in using kinship care, the proportion of children placed with relatives has more than doubled.  It’s all been done without compromising safety, earning the support of the state’s independent child welfare ombudsman.

CONTACTS:

  • Dean Crocker,Vice President for Programs,Maine Children’s Alliance,  (207) 623-1868 ext. 212, dcrocker@mekids.org;

  • Mary Callahan, founder Maine Alliance for DHS Accountability and Reform, (207) 353-4223, maryec_98@yahoo.com

Changing financial incentives. While not a program per se, making this change spurs private child welfare agencies to come up with all sorts of innovations. This is clear from the experience in Illinois. Until the late 1990s, Illinois reimbursed private child welfare agencies the way other states typically do: They were paid for each day they kept a child in foster care.  Thus, agencies were rewarded for letting children languish in foster care and punished for achieving permanence.

Now those incentives have been reversed, in part because of pressure from the Illinois Branch of the ACLU, which won a lawsuit against the child welfare system. Today, private agencies in Illinois are rewarded both for adoptions (which often are conversions of kinship placements to subsidized guardianships) and for returning children safely to their own homes.  They are penalized for prolonged stays in foster care.  As soon as the incentives changed, the “intractable” became tractable, the “dysfunctional” became functional, and the foster care population plummeted.  And children are safer.

Today, Illinois takes away children at one of the lowest rates in the country. Independent, court-appointed monitors have found that child safety has improved.

CONTACT:

Due process of law. Even the best programs are no substitute for due process.  That means court hearings in child welfare cases should be open.  But that also means  it’s urgent for accused parents to have meaningful legal representation from well-trained attorneys with low caseloads and solid support staff.  It’s not a matter of getting “bad” parents off, it’s a matter of challenging case records that often are rife with error, countering cookie-cutter “service plans” that provide no services and ensuring that families get the help they need.  A pilot project to provide such representation in some counties in Washington State has had such success in safely keeping families together that even the Attorney General’s office, which represents the child welfare agency in these cases, favors expanding it.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACTS are available from the Washington State Office of Public Defense at this website.

cps
Man accused of beating his 5-week-old son to death

I cannot imagine this person is being held with any kind of bail at all.  How does someone get so angry at a 5 week old to do this sort of thing? This is unimaginable!

Shelton Keith Alexander, 20, was booked into the county jail early in the morning on September 26th, 2009 and is being held on $1,000,000 bail.

He faces a charge of capital murder.

Dallas police say his 5-week-old son was taken Sunday to Children’s Medical Center with rib fractures, bruises to his abdomen and multiple liver lacerations. He was pronounced dead early yesterday. The Dallas County medical Examiner’s officer ruled the baby died from blunt force trauma, a police report says. During an interview at police headquarters, investigators say, Alexander admitted to detectives that he punched the baby twice in the abdominal area.

A police report says Alexander works at Pilgrim’s Pride, the chicken processing plant. He has not yet responded to a DMN request to be interviewed in jail.

children, cps, crime, death, domestic violence, haiti, social workers, tampa florida
Florida Mom Slain With Her 5 Children Endured Abuse

ist1_2685442-domestic-violence

September 21, 2009    Filed at 11:09 p.m. ET TAMPA,Fla. (AP)

A Florida woman slain along with her five children endured regular abuse from her husband but seemed overwhelmed by trying to raise the kids herself and wanted him around as a father figure, Department of Children and Families records show. Police in Haiti on Monday detained Mesac Damas, wanted for questioning in the slayings of his wife, Guerline Damas, and the couple’s three boys and two girls in their Naples, Fla., apartment. A relative said detectives told them their throats had been slit. Collier County Sheriff’s deputies have called Mesac Damas a person of interest in the slayings. The 33-year-old boarded a flight to Haiti from Miami International Airport on Friday, a day before police found the bodies. Mesac Damas told The Associated Press at the police station where he was being held in Port-au-Prince that he had planned to surrender and that he returned to his native Caribbean nation ”to say goodbye to my family.”

”I was going to turn myself in. You see I’ve got my suit on and everything,” Demas said as police led him from a backroom where he was interrogated to a jail cell.

He did not respond when asked if he killed his wife. Just days before he left the country, a Department of Children and Families caseworker assigned to the family had made an unannounced visit to the apartment and noted in a report that the children, ages 11 months to 9 years, seemed healthy and safe. Mesac Damas was home and dinner was cooked. The toddler was wearing a sundress and playing with her doll while the older daughter, dressed in pink, asked the caseworker if she had brought her a pink book bag, because she was going to school next year. The boys were in T-shirts and shorts and the worker didn’t see any bruises or marks.

Mesac Damas was due to finish a court-ordered battery intervention course in November. ”There is no safety concern,” the file reads. ”Children are doing fine.” But relatives of Guerline Damas, 32, said her husband was a ”loose cannon” who would take away his wife’s cell phone and be rude to her family. ”You’d never know what he’d do,” said her younger brother, Mackindy Dieu, 23, who lived with the couple several years ago. Dieu said his sister wasn’t open about the details of her personal life and her family didn’t know she was being abused until January, when Mesac Damas was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery after he hit his wife as she held their baby daughter in her arms. According to DCF records, he choked her and ripped her shirt off.

”As this is occurring, the child slipped out of the mother’s hand and fell to the floor,” the report states. It was one of a handful of times that sheriff’s deputies had been called about domestic disputes between the couple.

But this one was different: Mesac Damas was taken into custody and a restraining order filed. The other children had been outside playing and were terrified by what had happened, a caseworker noted. In interviews, two of the older boys described seeing their parents fight regularly. The oldest, 9-year-old Michzach, told the caseworker that he would try to take all the children in a bedroom when the abuse happened. ”If he tries to call 911, dad hits him on the hand or in the head,” the file noted. When it was especially bad, Guerline Damas would sleep in her car. She hadn’t had an easy life — she immigrated to Florida from Haiti as a teenager after her father was murdered in their home. She went to high school and later found work in a Publix supermarket.

”What are you doing with this guy?” Dieu said the family told her when they learned about the abuse.

”You need to leave.”

The couple separated — for two months. Guerline Damas began counseling at a shelter for abused women. A caseworker noted she seemed overwhelmed at the thought of raising five children by herself. She started pushing for the restraining order to be lifted.

”She believes that a father should be with his children and she has faith in him, that he will not repeat domestic violence against his wife,” records from a visit in late March state.

Mesac Damas pleaded no contest to the battery charge and was given 12 months probation and ordered to take parenting classes and enroll in a battery intervention program. Around April, he moved back in. The family seemed to make progress. Mesac Damas said he was learning to control his anger and talk with the children more. The children said they had missed their father. The caseworker described observing a ”loving relationship” between the father and children.

”This clinician believes that this family will be a solid family unit once again,” the file states. —- Associated Press writer Jonathan M. Katz reported from Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.

domestic violence, parental alienation syndrome, system failure
When he kills me…

Dear Presiding Justice, Police Officers, Senators, Legislators, Doctors, Clergy, Parish Members, Family and Friends:

I am a battered woman.

Do you remember me?  I was your neighbor.  I sat next to you in church every Sunday.

I was your patient in the emergency room. I was the woman who dialed 911 and begged for your help. I sat in your court room and pleaded with you to protect me and my children. I came before you and asked you to make laws to ensure our safety.

I was the loving young mother you noticed playing tag with some children in the park.

Do you remember me now?

I am writing this letter for I know that he will surely kill me and I don’t want to be forgotten. My advocate has promised to give you this letter if I should die.

I feel as though I should apologize. Maybe for not being a good enough person or for not readily admitting how my face was bruised or bones broken.

Maybe if I would have tried a little bit harder he wouldn’t have had to beat me.

Maybe if I was smarter I wouldn’t have fallen in love with someone like him.

Maybe if I was stronger I would have left sooner. But maybe, maybe if you would have helped me I would never have to write a letter like this.

I would not have to worry about whether or not today would be the day that he would kill me and you would not be inconvenienced by having to read this letter because I would still be alive. (But I am not.) Do you understand?

If you should come to read this letter -I am dead.

He killed me!

So what happens now?

I don’t want to be another statistic.

I don’t want to be blamed any longer. I don’t want you to make excuses or justify my death because it never should have happened. I was a good person. I was a devoted wife and a loving mother. I did leave. I tried to protect my children and myself, but I knew I couldn’t do it alone.

I asked for your help. I told you that he would kill me. You saw the bruises. You knew that he was dangerous but you wouldn’t help. It wasn’t your problem. You turned your back on me and my children.

Oh my children.

My sweet little children. I don’t know if they will survive because he promised to kill them also, but if they still are alive who will take care of them?

Who will love them? Who will sing to them at night? Who will hold them and wipe away their tears when they cry for their mommy?

This isn’t right. I should be alive. You should have helped me. Why didn’t you help me?

I know that if he kills me it will be extremely painful and violent. He promised to use a knife. Oh I am so afraid to die that way.

Please don’t let my death be in vain.

Please help the others.

Please protect their children…

And please don’t forget me…

Holly Collins – Letter 1990

cps
A Child’s Journey Through the Child Welfare System

by Sue Badeau and Sarah Gesiriech

Download Printable Version (80k .pdf, use this link for a printable version, rather than the Print button above)

* Throughout the paper, the following bullets are used:

! for facts or statistics;

! for federal law and state regulations;

and

for a child’s experience.

Its Almost Tuesdays’ Editors’ Notes are in purple.


This paper describes the typical progression a child makes through a state’s child welfare system. Each state’s child welfare agency1 is responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of children.

Child  welfare systems have several chief components:

• Foster care – full-time substitute care for children removed from their parents or guardians and for whom the state has responsibility. Foster care provides food and housing to meet the physical needs of children who are removed from their homes.

• Child protective services (CPS) – generally a division within the child welfare agency that administers a more narrow set of services, such as receiving and responding to child abuse and neglect allegations and providing initial services to stabilize a family.

• Juvenile and family courts – courts with specific jurisdiction over child maltreatment and child protection cases including foster care and adoption cases. In jurisdictions without a designated family court, general trial courts hear child welfare cases along with other civil and criminal matters.

• Other child welfare services – in combination with the above, these services address the complex family problems associated with child abuse and neglect.

They include family preservation, family reunification, adoption, guardianship, and independent living.

! While 542,000 children were in foster care on September 30, 2001, 805,000 spent some time in care over the course of that year.

! Children in care in 2001 had been in foster care for an average of 33 months. More than 17 percent (91,217) of the children had been in care for 5 or more years.

Once a child is known to the child welfare agency, he and his family become subject to a series of decisions made by judges, caseworkers, legal representatives, and others, all of whom have an important role to play.

A child may encounter dozens of other new adults including foster parents, counselors, and doctors.

! Most children (60%) enter foster care when removed from their homes by a child  protective agency because of abuse and/or neglect.

! Others (17%) enter care because of the absence of their parents, resulting from illness, death, disability, or other problems.

! Some children enter care because of delinquent behavior (10%) or because they have committed a juvenile status offense (5%), such as running away or truancy.

! Roughly 5  percent of children enter care because of a disability.

For many, it represents their only access to disability services, for example, mental health care for a child with severe emotional disturbance. In these rare instances, in states that allow such placements, a child is placed in foster care voluntarily at the request of his parents.

Foster care is intended to provide a safe temporary home to a child until he can be reunited safely with his parent(s) or adopted. However, being removed from home and placed in foster care is traumatic for a child and the period of time he may spend in care can be filled with uncertainty and change.

A child in foster care is affected by a myriad of decisions established by federal and state laws designed to help him.

At each decision point, any action or inaction can profoundly influence the child’s current circumstances and future prospects.

The discussion that follows highlights typical decision points on a child’s journey through foster care.

Although the format is based on federal and common state law and practice, nevertheless it is only a model. Laws vary across states, as does the capacity and practices of child welfare agencies and courts to manage their caseloads. These factors can and often do create delays that complicate a child’s journey through the child welfare system and often extend his time there.

1st DECISION POINT –

Abuse or neglect is reported and the CPS agency responds.

The child’s journey through foster care usually begins when a mandated reporter6 or concerned citizen makes a report of abuse or neglect to a state agency. For example, a doctor delivers a baby who has drugs in his system; a neighbor notices bruises on a child; a toddler is found abandoned in a public place; or a teacher notices a student who is unclean, unfed or severely ill.

! Child abuse and neglect, or maltreatment, are defined in both federal and state law.

Federal law provides a foundation for states by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse.

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect, at a minimum, as “any recent act or failure on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm” to a person under age 18.

States can and do expand on or clarify definitions in a variety of ways that are particular to local needs. Although any of the forms of child maltreatment may be found separately, they often occur in combination.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that in 2001, CPS agencies received nearly three million referrals of  maltreatment involving five million children. Approximately 903,000 of these cases were substantiated after investigation.

(Editors’ Note:) That means only approximately 1 out of 3 cases were substantiated.

Of those, the following types of abuse and neglect occurred (some in combination with others):

Type of Abuse  & Percentage

  • Neglect 59 %
  • Physical Abuse 18.6%
  • Sexual Abuse 9.6%
  • Emotional/Psychological maltreatment 6.8%
  • Other (abandonment, congenital drug addiction) 19.5%

The ages of the victims ranged as follows:

Age & Percentage

  • Birth to 3 years 27.7 %
  • 4-7   24.1%
  • 8-11  22.8%
  • 12-15 19 %
  • 16- 21  6%
  • 16-21 or unknown 5%

More than half (56.5%) of substantiated reports were made by professionals, including teachers, law enforcement officers, and physicians.

The remaining 43.5 percent were made by family members, neighbors, and other members of the community.

The majority of the victims were maltreated by a parent (birth, adoptive or step).

The breakdown is as follows:

Relationship of Alleged Abuser to Child Percentage

  • Mothers (acting alone or with a non-parent)  46.9%
  • Fathers (acting alone or with a non-parent)   18.7%
  • Mother and Father 19.3%
  • Non-parent  11.9%
  • Unknown  3.1%

In 2001, an estimated 1,300 children died from abuse or neglect.  Eighteen of these deaths, (1.5%) occurred while a child was under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency.

In Texas alone, the child welfare agencies had more fatalities than that, each year thereafter.

For the year 2002 – 44 children died in state care.

In 2003 – 30 children died, and

In 2005, 48 children died while in the state’s hands.

So, lets take you through the journey a child travels when going through the system intended to “protect” them, assuming they aren’t one of the fatalities that continues to happen in the very place it should never happen.

A Journey into Child “Protective” Services… (CPS)

Once a report of maltreatment has been made, the CPS agency  investigates whether abuse or neglect has occurred and assesses the risks to the child.

DECISION POINT # 2

The CPS agency finds that the allegations of abuse and neglect are unfounded and the case is closed.

or

The CPS agency finds evidence that the child is at risk for subsequent abuse or neglect and conducts an assessment to determine whether the child can remain safely at home with supervision or support services.

The assessment may include

  • a visit to the family home

  • interviews with the family

  • interviews with persons outside the family.

  • These interviews with the family may help identify services that may be needed to better care for their child, such as parenting skills training or addiction services, !A substantial percentage of parents with children in foster care have substance abuse treatment needs.

DECISION POINT

The CPS agency petitions the court recommending the removal of the child from his home under the supervision of the child welfare agency. This petition initiates a series of judicial hearings.

If the CPS assessment indicates the child is at high-risk for subsequent abuse or neglect, the CPS agency conducts an investigation and requests a court order to remove the child from the home. Generally, in emergency situations, the agency will remove the child and place him in emergency or temporary foster care before receiving the court order.

DECISION POINT

Protective hearing: the court determines initial placement.

An emergency custody hearing, or protective hearing, will be held for the court to first determine whether the child has been abused or neglected. If the judge determines that abuse or neglect has occurred, the case then proceeds to an adjudicatory and dispositional hearing, where the judge will decide, based in part on the child welfare agency’s recommendation, to do one of the following:

  • Send the child home without services;

or

  • Send the child home with supervision and support services;

or

  • Remove the child from his home.

This same set of options will be considered at each subsequent hearing.

DECISION POINT –

Adjudicatory & dispositional hearing(s):

The court determines that the child must be removed and approves an initial placement & reunification plan.

Once the child is removed from his home, he and his parents become formally involved with the juvenile or dependency court system. The child is considered in state custody and generally called a ‘wardor dependent’ of the court.

The child and his family are assigned a case worker from the child welfare agency.

The child’s case worker develops a case plan detailing:

(1) The types of services that the child and his family will receive, such as parenting classes, mental health or substance abuse treatment, and family counseling;

(2) Reunification goals, including visitation schedules and a target date for a child’s return home; and

(3) Concurrent plans for an alternative permanent placement options should reunification goals not be met.

The court reviews and may modify the recommended case plan.

! Federal regulations require that the child’s case plan describe how the state will achieve a safe placement for the child in the least restrictive, most family-like setting in close proximity to the child’s parents.

The case plan must also describe how the placement is consistent with the child’s best interests and special needs.

! Many jurisdictions are experimenting with innovative approaches to develop effective case plans and facilitate safe reunification.

Such approaches include mediation, family group conferencing, and co-location of services such as substance abuse assessment in the court.

! Before a State may receive federal reimbursement for the costs resulting from supporting a child after removal from his home into foster care, a judge must determine that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the family together by providing such services as parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, or subsidized  child care.

However, federal law does not require States to pursue reasonable efforts if a parent has committed specific types of felonies, or subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, such as abandonment, torture, or sexual abuse.

In 2001, the case goals for 541,998 Children in state custody were:

Case Goal Percentage (Number)

  • Reunify with Parent(s)  or Principal Caretaker(s) 44% (241,051)
  • Adoption 22% (116,653)
  • Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established 11% (62,014)
  • Long Term Foster Care 8% (45,792)
  • Emancipation 6% (32,309)
  • Live with Other Relative(s) 5% (26,555)
  • Guardianship 3%  (17,624)

In 2001, the placement settings for children in state custody were:

Placement Setting Percentage (Number)

  • Foster Family Home 48% (260,384)
  • Relative foster home 24% (130,869)
  • Institution 10% (56,509)
  • Group Home 8% (43,084)
  • Pre-Adoptive Home 4% (20,289)
  • Trial Home Visit 3% (16,685)
  • Runaway 2% (9,112)
  • Supervised Independent Living 1% (5,068)

More than 20 percent of children in foster care will MOVE AT LEAST THREE (3) TIMES and in some cases they will MOVE SEVEN (7) OR MORE times!

Children move for many reasons, including attrition and lack of training or support for foster families, lack of resources to address a child’s special needs, or because the child’s behavior may be difficult for some foster parents to manage.

REMEMBER!!! EACH TIME THE CHILD MOVES IT IS TRAUMATIC AND REQUIRES THE CHILD TO ADJUST  TO MANY CHANGES, BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL (affecting their emotional state, mental state, and environment) including factors such as the following example:

The child has been removed from his or her home, which means being separated from his or her parents *and * may be separated from his or her siblings as well.

The child will meet new temporary (foster) “parents” and must adjust to their ways.

Foster parents may have their own children or even other foster children already living in their homes who are also going through an adjustment period themselves.

The child may have to attend another new school, (and may be having difficulty concentrating or making the grades like before the removal).  The child will be leaving old friends behind and adjusting to a new teacher

(Editors’ Note:) The many changes foster children go through also include the new parents’ habits, routine, lifestyle and house rules. …and more ….

new classmates …

new rules …

new home environment …

new parents …

new siblings …

new sadnesses & emotions …

new expectations & disappointments …

new fears …

new losses …

etc.  etc.

For a child of any age, that means a lot of confusion with  many questions that probably will not be answered right away, if at all…

Where will I go next?

Why is this happening?

Will I ever go home?

What did I do to deserve this?

The child will have a caseworker assigned to him and ideally meet and visit with the child at least once or twice a month.

(Editors’ Note:) The truth is, many children have two or more caseworkers by the time it’s over with, and they are lucky to see their caseworker once a month consistently throughout their case.  Most often, CPS workers are understaffed with a heavy caseload so the job-related stress is intense coupled with the horrific situations they are dealing with seeing children injured and abused.  So the turnover rate is especially high for many reasons, primarily though, CPS workers burn out  and the victim becomes the child  yet again.  Sad part is, the caseworker chose to work in that career field, the parents chose to have children, but the child never had a choice, it was made for him, and in the end, its the child who suffers the most, and is the forgotten one without the choice. The casualties of the system, the truly innocent victimized victims.

These traumatic emotional adjustments will differ for children placed with relatives, or placed in their own neighborhood.   Remember, the child will have to make these adjustments each time he is moved.

(Editors’ Note:) Keeping in mind the child’s overwhelming life-changes & periods of adjustment isn’t what is always remembered when it comes time for the adults to make life-changing, future-altering decisions affecting the rest of this child’s life. In fact, these are the forgotten needs, the overlooked wounds, pains, and scars that the child endures off in the distance while the adults lose them in their paperwork and meetings.

These decisions should be made only with the utmost of good faith intentions, serving the child’s, not the adult’s interest, but the bottom line remains very simple… what does the law say? wha6t makes sense financially?  What would be the most sound PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD as a whole, to keep things flowing, balancing the books not drying the tears…

Its obvious that once removed from their natural home, the child will need to be placed in a setting that (should be) preferable to the home the child was removed from.  The new setting (should be ) better suited to serve the needs of the child  with paramount concern being health & safety (not emotional stability) of the child’s welfare.

! Federal law recognizes a preference for placement with relatives. However, the regulations clarify that health and safety are the paramount considerations when any placement decision is made regarding a child in foster care, including care with a relative.

What does that mean?

It all boils down to money.

! Generally, relatives do not receive foster care payments unless they are licensed foster care providers.  Although the total number of licensed family foster homes in the United States is not known, at the end of the 1990’s, 38 states reported a total of 133,503 homes.

Foster parents do receive money stipends to cover room and board. They may also receive Medicaid coverage for the children in their care.  So while preference lies with the relatives for placement morally and emotionally, financially, the better resources are available to the non-relative foster homes, who receive the financial assistance, unlike most relative placements.

(Editors’ Note:) They also become eligible to receive  assistance to meet their basic needs, such food stamps, clothing, school supplies, etc. however, state laws do vary, and many states are changing their laws when it comes to relative placements or kinship care – offering more assistance than before.

Still, 30 to 50 percent of foster parents quit working for the system every year.

(Editors’ Note:) There is a shortage of foster homes and an abundance of need. Unfortunately, turnover among foster parents is also very high;  Finding good long-standing foster homes is not easy.with half of the foster parents dropping out each year, but the number of foster children intake is still going up – its no wonder the system is failing…

The numbers alone say it would take a miracle to see the system survive much less succeed.  So we reach a very important decision point.

DECISION POINT Placement of the child.

The child is placed in the home of a relative…

OR

The child is placed in a non-relative foster family home…

OR

The child is placed in a residential facility or in a group home.

(Editors’ Note:) To find a way for the adults to beat the odds in the numbers and to actually work together the way they should so the system works the  way it was intended is asking for a miracle. We would like to hope for miracles but the sad reality of it is that the child welfare system isn’t working, and even with total reform, major overhauls with 100 % true effort and complete cooperation between agencies, and families, the best we can hope for is to see some forward progress and lower incidents of abuse and neglect in natural homes AND foster care.  still, it is an impossible battle in one of the most important areas of life – our children and they are our children, it is our responsibility and whatever happens will become our futures so the stakes are too high to be forgotten.

The last option for placement is group homes, residential treatment facilities, or therapeutic camps. The child may be placed in therapeutic foster care, residential child care, or residential psychiatric care if he has emotional, behavioral, physical or medical needs and requires a higher level of supervision and treatment. A child may be placed in group home care because of a shortage of foster family homes.  Group home care is more frequently used for older children.

What is the difference between a group home & a residential treatment facility?

! A group home is a licensed or approved home providing 24-hour care for children in a small group setting that generally has from 7 to 12 children.

! An institution is a child care facility operated by a public or private child welfare agency and providing 24-hour care and/or treatment for children who require separation from their own homes and group living experiences, i.e. child care institutions, residential treatment facilities, and maternity homes.

! Federal child welfare funds cannot be used to support children in public facilities that serve more than 25 children or used to maintain children in facilities that are operated primarily for the detention of delinquent youth.

DECISION POINT

The court reviews the family’s progress every six months and holds a permanency hearing after 12 months has passed.

Periodic reviews are held in the court and are reported to the court.

! Federal law requires states to review a child’s case at least every six months after placement in foster care to determine whether the placement is still necessary and appropriate, whether the case plan is being properly and adequately followed, and whether progress has been made toward reunifying the family.

The case review must also set a target date for the child’s return home, adoption, or other permanent placement.

Permanency planning hearings are always held in court.

! Federal law requires states to hold a permanency planning hearing for each child in foster care within 12 months of initial placement, or after a determination that reasonable efforts to reunite are not required.

Some states require this hearing sooner. Foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard at case reviews and permanency hearings.

Some advocates believe that a child should not remain in foster care longer than 12 months. Other advocates believe that this is too short a period to address the complex and multiple needs of the family, particularly families with substance abuse or mental health needs.

A judge may choose from among several permanency options for the child.

In 2001, 263,000 children exited foster care in the following ways:

Outcomes for Children Exiting Foster Care Percentage (number)

  • Reunification with Parent/Primary Caretaker 57%    (148,606)
  • Living with Other Relative(s) 10% (26,084)
  • Adoption 18% (46,668)
  • Guardianship 3%   (8,969)
  • Emancipation 7% (  19,008)
  • Transfer to Another Agency 3% (7,918)
  • Runaway 2% (5,219)
  • Death of Child less than 1% (528)

DECISION POINT –

The child is reunified with his birth family.

If the parents are successful with the court-ordered treatment plan, the child is reunited with his parents, and the case is closed.

! In 2001, more than 57 percent (148,606) of children in out-of-home care were reunited with their families.

! However, other studies have noted that approximately 33 percent of children who were reunified with their families re-entered foster care within three years. And, approximately 17 percent of children who entered foster care had been in foster care before.

DECISION POINT –

The birth family does not complete the court-ordered reunification plan. The child welfare agency petitions the court for the termination of parental rights (TPR).

If a parent fails to comply with the reunification plan, the child welfare agency will petition the court to terminate the parents’ rights to the child. At any point during the court process, a parent may seek to voluntarily relinquish their parental rights.36 When

the parents’ rights are terminated, a permanent plan for the child will be created.

! Federal law requires states to initiate TPR proceedings for (1) children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, (2) infants determined to be abandoned, or (3) cases in which a parent has killed another of his/her children, or (4)  certain other egregious situations.

States may opt not to initiate TPR if

(1) the child is in a relative’s care

(2) the child welfare agency has documented a compelling reason that TPR would not be in the child’s best interest, or

(3) the state has not provided necessary services to the family.

! In 2001, more than 65,000 children’s living parents had their parental rights terminated.

! Federal law requires that the permanency plan document the steps taken to place the child and finalize the adoption or legal guardianship and document child specific recruitment efforts taken to find an adoptive family or legal guardian for a child.

! Federal regulations direct states to concurrently begin to seek and approve a qualified adoptive family for the child whenever a state initiates TPR proceedings.

DECISION POINT

The child is placed with an adoptive family and the court holds an adoption hearing to finalize the adoption.

Some children will leave foster care through adoption.

! In 2001, 51,000 children were adopted.

Nearly 59 percent were adopted by their foster family and nearly 24 percent were adopted by a relative.

” Because children adopted from foster care may have been abused, neglected, or may have lived in multiple homes, the transition to an adoptive home can be difficult.

Some states are beginning to explore ways to offer post-adoption services, such as respite care, to ensure the adoptions stay intact.

! In 2001, more than 126,000 children in foster care were considered waiting to be adopted because they have the goal of adoption or because of TPR. These children had been in foster care for an average of more than 3½ years, and their average age was eight.

DECISION POINT –

The child is placed with a legal guardian, often a relative.

Some children will leave foster care through placement in the custody of a guardian. The guardianship can be granted to relatives, foster parents, or another adult who has a relationship with the child.46 Guardianship is not as legally secure as adoption. However, it does provide a measure of permanency and stability without requiring the termination of parental rights.

! Federal law defines legal guardianship as a judicially-created relationship between child and caregiver intended to be permanent and self-sustaining. The following parental rights with respect to the child are transferred to the caretaker: protection, education, care and control, custody, and decision-making.

! Subsidized legal guardianships are a means by which some states provide relative (and in some states non-relative) foster parents with financial assistance after they have obtained legal guardianship of the child and the child has exited the formal child welfare system. Subsidized guardianships can provide an alternative form of support for children whose relatives have chosen not to adopt.

The federal government does not provide States reimbursement for costs associated with subsidized legal guardianship payments.

DECISION POINT

The child reaches age 18 with no permanent home.

Some children will reach 18 and leave foster care without being reunited with their families, adopted, or placed in another permanent home. In these cases, the child welfare agency may provide basic living skills training, housing assistance, and educational opportunities through federally funded independent living programs.

! In 2001, approximately 19,000 youth left foster care when they reached the age of 18 (or 21, in some cases).

” Studies have found significantly lower levels of education, higher rates of unemployment, and higher rates of homelessness for adults who spent time in foster care as children.

For example, a study by Westat, Inc. reported that only 54 percent of young adults who grew up in foster care had completed high school, 40 percent continued to rely on public support in some way (were receiving public assistance, incarcerated, or receiving Medicaid) and 25 percent had been homeless for some period.

Other studies indicate that a significant percentage of the homeless population in many cities were adults who once had been foster children.

As this paper indicates, the rate at which a child progresses through the foster care system, and the nature of his experience there, depends on many factors. These include federal and state financing, timelines, and legal provisions: good and timely decisions; the availability of services for birth and adoptive families; and the availability of licensedfoster homes willing to care for children. Many of these factors are interrelated. But each can contribute to the length and quality of a child’s time in foster care.

1Public child welfare agencies are often called by different names such as the Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Department of Children and Families (DCF), or the Department of Social Services (DSS).
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report #8 (March 2003). Available online at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars report8.htm.
3 Ibid.
4 Karen Spar, Specialist in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Library, Library of Congress, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, July 20, 1999. The figures in this paragraph represent Fiscal Year 1994 data.
5 Ibid.
6 State laws identify certain professionals who are mandated to report suspected abuse. They generallyinclude medical professionals, teachers, day care workers, photo lab developers, and law enforcement.
7 42 U.S.C. 5106g.
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Child Maltreatment 2001, p.21 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003).
9 Ibid, 21. The percentages total more than 100 percent of victims because children may have been victims of more than one type of maltreatment.
10 Ibid, p. 23.
11 Ibid, pp. 3 & 7.
12 Ibid, pp. 43 & 45.
13 Ibid, pp. 51 & 55.
14 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services, The Child Welfare Journey. Available online at http://www.okdhs.org/cfsd/howtos/cw/journey.htm.
15 Child Welfare League of America, Behavioral Health Division, Alcohol and Other Drugs. Available online at http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aod.htm.
16 42 U.S.C. 675(5).
17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information, Overview of the Civil Child Protective Court Process.
Available online at
www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/usermanuals/courts/protect.cfm.
18 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(D).
19 The AFCARS Report #8.
20 Ibid.
21Kathy Barbell and Madelyn Freundlich, Foster Care Today (Casey Family Programs, Washington, DC, 2001), pp. 3-4. These figures were based on 1994 data from the U.S. House of Representatives, 2000.
22 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18). 11
23 Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare and Mental Health Division, The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) Regulations and Kinship Care Families – Frequently Asked Questions (Spring 2000) andFederal Register, Vol.65, No. 16, (January 25, 2000), pp. 4032-4033.
24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Foster Care National Statistics April 2001.
25 University of Tennessee Family Foster Care Project, Foster Family Forum, Issue 1. (July 2002).
26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Child Maltreatment 1999: Annual Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001). Some states may include settings with fewer than seven children as group homes.
27 Ibid.
28U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Program Instruction, ACYF-PI-89-09 (October 1989).
29 Overview of the Civil Child Protective Court Process.
30 42 U.S.C. 675 (1)(5)(C).
31 These deaths resulted from all causes including accidental and natural. Only 18 resulted from abuse.
32 The AFCARS Report #8.
33 Ibid. 34 U.S. General Accounting Office, FOSTER CARE Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes for Children , but Long-Standing Barriers Remain (GAC-02-585) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 10.                                                                                                                                      35 Foster Care National Statistics April 2001 (2000b).
36 The Child Welfare Journey.
37 Ibid.
38 42 U.S.C. 675(1)(5)(E). In the case of an abandoned child, regulations require States to initiate TPR  within 60 days of a court determination of abandonment and in the case of a child whose parent has been convicted of a felony specified in the law 60 days of a court determination that reasonable efforts to reunite
are not required.
39 The AFCARS Report #8.
40 42 U.S.C. 675 (1)(E).
41 42 U.S.C. 675 (5)(E).
42 The AFCARS Report #8. This figure is based on the most recent revisions to AFCARS, which onlyinclude adoption outcomes. This figure differs from the figure presented in the table showing outcomes for children exiting foster care. That figure is based on preliminary data which will be revised once all the outcomes are updated.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 The Child Welfare Journey.
47Steve Christian, A Place to Call Home Adoption and Guardianship for Children in Foster Care, p.28
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2000)
48 42 U.S.C. 675.
49 The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) Regulations and Kinship Care Families – Frequently Asked Questions.
50 The AFCARS Report #8.
51 State of Tennessee, Comptroller of the Treasury, Foster Care Independent Living Programs (1998).
52 1994 Green Book (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).
53 National Alliance to End Homelessness. Web of Failure: The Relationship between Foster Care and Homelessness (1995). Available online at http://www.endhomelessness.org/pub/fostercare/webrept.htm.
cps
What if it was your child?

(editors’ comments):

With Obama’s Medical Reform Bill under scrutiny at this time, I thought it was important and relevant to look at its effects on our families, children, and especially, the foster care system.

In 2004 Carole Strayhorn launched an investigation into Texas Foster Care System, and found an alarming amount of foster children were given psychotropic medications.  Most of these medications were not approved by the FDA for use on children, and were being given in high doses to children as young as 2 years old.  The States’ Medicaid program paid the costs.

This investigation took years to take place by the constant barricades put up by Governor Perry and DHHS in reporting true figures by which the investigators could look into.   By the time the investigation was complete, the findings were shocking, and Senate Bill 6 addressed the concerns as it was created to reform the Child Welfare System.

Though many programs and laws were created, they were not, as of 2006, implemented.

I am currently researching the current status, and also reviewing the proposed Health Care Reform bill, myself, to see what I mght find. According to news reports I read, it does seem to open the doors to further CPS involvement in families, allowing them easier access in a “home visitation program” for expecting women in impoverished areas.

This concerns me.

In case you are not aware of what was going on with our foster children in the arena of psychotropic medications in foster care, here’s some excerpts from Carol Strayhorns Report of 2006 following her investigation.

Keep on reading deep into whats really going on, these children are counting on us to stop these atrocities. Please.  My son was one of them.

What if it was your child?

cover2

Excerpts from Report of December 14,2006 issued by Texas Comptroller Chairman, Carol Strayhorn, Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Oversight Task Force

Medical Concerns

This report reveals a number of significant medical concerns within the state’s foster care system.

Lack of Medical Histories

DFPS still (as of 2006:) does not provide its foster children with a “medical passport” explaining their medical history, including diagnoses and prescriptions although the passport is required by law.

Instead, foster children often move from one placement to another, seeing new physicians or counselors who have little or no knowledge of their past medical histories. A medical passport would help provide more consistent care for these children.

In September 2006, DFPS stated that it “is working with HHSC on the development of the health passport, scheduled to be implemented September 2007”— more than three years after the Comptroller’s first published recommendation. Psychiatric Hospitalizations DFPS has no rules, guidelines or monitoring procedures concerning the psychiatric hospitalization of foster children.

In fiscal 2004, 1,663 Texas foster children were hospitalized for psychiatric care for a total of 33,712 days, at a cost of $16 million based on daily rates of more than $500 per day.

DFPS has no rules, guidelines or monitoring procedures concerning the psychiatric hospitalization of foster children.

More than 400 foster children spent than a month each in psychiatric facilities in fiscal 2004. Some of these foster children were “dumped” into psychiatric hospitals, by foster parents who decided that they could not deal with the child’s behavior.

DFPS caseworkers often left foster children in such facilities long after they were authorized for release.

Medically Fragile Children

The Comptroller’s office e(stimates that about 1,600 “medically fragile” children were in Texas foster care in fi scal 2004. These children have serious and continuing medical conditions requiring specialized care and treatment. About 49 percent of them were four years old or younger.

Many of these children were in “basic” service-level homes, because DFPS places more emphasis on behavioral conditions than on physical conditions and needs.

HIV and AIDS

DFPS has been particularly negligent in caring for foster children with fatal and incurable human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). These children are not receiving consistent care and counseling.

Some have been enrolled in clinical trials and did not have advocates appointed for them. At least one foster facility that cared primarily for children with HIV and AIDS was closed due to poor living conditions and substandard care.

Twenty-six Texas foster children received at least one HIV medication and had at least one outpatient HIV procedure in fiscal 2004. More than 15 had at least one outpatient procedure with an HIV-related diagnosis code, but did not receive any HIV medications—a peculiar and disturbing pattern.

Many of these children were categorized at the lowest, basic service level.

In fiscal 2004, 63 foster children were raped while in care; of these, only 16 received HIV tests.

Meaning that 75 percent of those raped were not tested for HIV following the rape, as required by law.

One foster child with HIV who was also medically fragile had more than 600 outpatient claims and more than 200 prescription drug claims in fiscal 2004.

This child lived in rural Texas, in a 1,300 square-foot mobile home with four other foster children, one of whom also was medically fragile. A review of the DFPS records indicated that this small home was not licensed to care for more than four children.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Some Texas foster children are suffering from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Many are sexually active or were sexually abused while in care, while others come into care with the disease. In fiscal 2004, more than 200 foster children were diagnosed with STDs.

Most of them were teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19. DFPS should recognize this problem and actively address it through education, testing and appropriate treatment.

The review team found irregularities in prescribing practices and counseling delivered to foster children with STDs; females in foster care were six times more likely to be diagnosed with a STD than males.

Pregnant Foster Children

In fiscal 2004, 142 foster children delivered babies. The DFPS guidelines regarding birth control, pregnancy and abortion are vague and are not given to providers and foster parents. Some pregnant foster teens received powerful psychotropic medications that are not recommended for use in pregnant women.

And many were moved repeatedly throughout their pregnancies, because many residential treatment centers and foster homes will not take them.

Some pregnant foster teens received powerful psychotropic medications that are not recommended for use in pregnant women.

Texas has few specialty maternity homes that can offer services to these teens. Foster teens and their new babies, moreover, often were not placed in the same home in a timely manner following their discharge from the hospital.

Contraceptives and Foster Children

In fiscal 2004, Medicaid spent $176,814 on more than 4,300 birth control prescriptions for more than a thousand Texas foster children. Medical claims for these children suggest that not all sexually active foster children receiving these medications were given their recommended yearly gynecology examinations.

A 15-year-old mentally retarded foster child received eight different prescriptions for birth control pills in fi scal 2004, but had no claims for a gynecological examination.

And, a 17-year-old foster child received six different prescriptions for birth control patches in fi scal 2004, but had no claims for a pap smear or gynecological exam. This child was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease early in fi scal 2004.

Injuries and Deaths

In fiscal 2004, 46 Texas foster children died while in care. DFPS determined that five of these deaths resulted from abuse and neglect, but 15 cases were left “open” and abuse and neglect were not ruled out. Many other foster children were taken to emergency rooms or hospitals with very severe injuries and medical conditions. Medicinal Poisonings More than 150 foster children were poisoned by medication in fiscal 2004, and not all of these cases were investigated by DFPS.

Some foster children remained in the same foster homes after they survived the poisoning.

DFPS and HHSC should ensure that every poisoning from medication is investigated.

The DFPS hotline received a report that a nine-year-old child was being overmedicated, but the agency did not investigate the case.

Foster Children and Clinical Trials.

It was revealed in May 2005 that HIV positive Texas foster children had been enrolled in experimental clinical drug trials. This news sparked nationwide coverage of the topic, since the children were being exposed to potentially serious and even lethal side effects of the trial drugs.

Because of the confidential nature of clinical trials, it is not possible to find out details regarding Texas foster children enrolled in such studies, but some questionable indicators were uncovered – such as medications were billed with no record of medication payment and foster children that are HIV positive with no Medicaid billings for medications.

Section 6544 of the DFPS Handbook states: …no HIV infected child in DFPS conservatorship may participate in any experimental drug therapy…unless the child or child’s caregiver first secures the written approval of the child’s physician or program director of the child’s conservatorship unit.

The review team asked DFPS how many foster children participated in any experimental drug therapy or clinical trials from fiscal 2004 to 2006, and how such participation is reported or tracked and if there is detail by disease or condition.

The agency responded as follows: There are currently no clinical trials for HIV, so no children in foster care were enrolled in this type of trial between FY 2004 and FY 2006. A few children in foster care may be enrolled in other clinical trials.

This response is vague and it is clear DFPS either does not know how many foster children are in clinical trials—or chooses not to tell. According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health website in September 2006, there were 1,928 clinical trials under way in Texas, including several related to HIV. Executive Summary and Systemic Recommendations

More than 150 foster children were poisoned by medication in fiscal 2004, and not all of these cases were investigated by DFPS. 􀃍 Foster Children: Texas Health Care Claims Study – Special Report — vii The Medications In fiscal 2004, Texas Medicaid spent $30 million for powerful, expensive psychotropic prescriptions for Texas foster children. Many of these children received multiple medications. Psychotropic medications can have very serious side-effects and their use should be strictly monitored; a large number of them are not approved for use in children or adolescents.

The review team found that Texas foster children receive more psychotropic medications than their counterparts in mid- Atlantic and midwestern states. DSHS has set voluntary parameters for the use of psychotropics by foster children. These guidelines were released in February 2005 and were supposed to be revised annually.

A committee met in August 2006 to discuss the revision; the first revised parameters were scheduled for release in October 2006. Key concerns identified by this review include: Costly Psychotropic Medications In fiscal 2004, psychotropic drugs accounted for more than 76 percent of the cost of all medications prescribed to foster children, which totaled $39 million for all medications.

All other drug categories, including a wide variety of drugs from antibiotics to cancer medications, accounted for just over 23 percent of the total or $9.2 million. Of all drugs prescribed to children in foster care, three psychotropic drug classes —antidepressants, antipsychotics and stimulants— were the most frequently prescribed.

In fiscal 2004, Texas Medicaid spent more money on antipsychotic drugs for foster children, more than $14.9 million or 38 percent of the total, than on any other class of drugs. The average cost per prescription for psychotropic drugs was $114.69. The average for all other drugs, by contrast, was $52.17 per prescription. Antipsychotics: In fiscal 2004, Texas Medicaid spent nearly $15 million on 65,469 anti-psychotic prescriptions for Texas foster children.

These very powerful and expensive medications were prescribed despite a lack of studies demonstrating their safety and efficacy in children. There are questions regarding the long-term safety of these medications; documented serious side-effects include menstrual irregularities, gynecomastia, galactorrhea, possible pituitary tumors, hyperglycemia, type 2 diabetes and liver function abnormalities.

Close monitoring of these medications by physicians is essential; Texas foster children are not receiving this attention. In addition, more than 400 foster children were prescribed antidyskinetics drugs to control side effects from antipsychotics. Side effects from antipsychotics include tremors, tics, dystonia, dyskinesia and tardive dyskinesia.

Stimulants: In fi scal 2004, Texas Medicaid spent $4.5 million on 45,318 stimulant prescriptions for more than 6,500 Texas foster children.

Nearly all of these medications are Schedule II controlled substances, due to their high potential for abuse and severe psychological or physical dependence. More than a quarter of all male foster children and nearly 15 percent of female foster children received prescriptions for stimulants in fiscal 2004; nearly 200 of these children were aged four or younger.

In addition, some foster children received many questionable high-cost, high-dose prescriptions.

One prescription for a foster child was written for 360 pills of the stimulant Adderall XR 30mg—for a 30-day supply. Yet, Adderall XR is an extended-release medication meant to be taken only once daily.

Anticonvulsants (Mood Stabilizers): accounted for more than 76 percent of the cost of all medications prescribed to foster children, which totaled $39 million for all medications. 􀃍

In fiscal 2004, Texas Medicaid spent nearly $4.8 million on nearly 43,000 mood stabilizer prescriptions for about 4,500 Texas foster children.

This included 133 children aged four and younger.

These medications are used to treat bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression; some also are also used to treat seizures and epilepsy.

Trileptal and Topamax, which together accounted for about 38 percent of all mood stabilizer prescriptions, have no established efficacy for psychotropic use in either children or adults.

Antidepressants: In fiscal 2004, Texas foster children received more than 66,000 prescriptions for antidepressant medications, making this drug class the most commonly prescribed medication.

Antidepressant medications ranked fourth in the total cost of prescriptions for fiscal 2004, at $3.8 million.

In June 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to investigate the use of antidepressants to treat children and adolescents.

In October 2004, the FDA ordered drug manufacturers to place a “black box” warning on all classes of antidepressants stating that they may increase the risk of suicidal behavior in children and adolescents.

Anxiolytics (Anti-anxiety): In fiscal 2004, 688 foster children received 3,113 anti-anxiety prescriptions.

The largest subclass of these drugs, and the most widely prescribed, are the benzodiazepines. These drugs have been used with success to treat anxiety, but their use is limited because they have sedating side effects and may be habit-forming when taken for a long time or in high doses.

Anxiolytics are regulated under Schedule IV, by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Hypnotic/Sedatives: In fiscal 2004, Medicaid spent more than $72,000 on nearly 2,500 hypnotic/sedative prescriptions for about 1,000 Texas foster children, including 232 children aged four and younger.

These medications are used to treat anxiety or sleep disorders. They can cause dependency in just a few days and tolerance in a few weeks.

Psychotropic Use by the Very Young

In fiscal 2004, 686 foster children aged four and under received more than 4,500 prescriptions for psychotropic medications, the majority of which are not approved by the FDA for use in children.

A two year-old foster child with no diagnoses indicating psychosis received seven prescriptions for Risperdal, a powerful antipsychotic, totaling more than $700.

Controlled Substances

In fiscal 2004, Medicaid spent $4.6 million on more than 53,000 prescriptions for controlled substances for more than 9,600 Texas foster children.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has placed these substances on the controlled substances list because of their high potential for abuse.

More than 2,300 Texas foster children, including 871 children age four and younger, received more than 3,200 prescriptions for addictive narcotic syrups.

A total of 177 foster children received more than 1,100 prescriptions for phenobarbital.

Long-term Risks and Polypharmacy

The Zito & Safer External Review notes that the widespread use of antipsychotics in children and adolescents raises particular concerns regarding long-term safety.

Serious questions exist regarding this issue, which involves documented, side effects.

Little is known about the long-term effects of early and prolonged exposure to psychotropic medications on the development of children’s brains.

These findings underline the importance of further research to determine the safety and efficacy of pediatric psychotropic drugs and polypharmacy.

The use of psychotropics in the Texas Medicaid population of children and adolescents tripled from 1996 to 2000.

A 2004 Texas study by the HHSC’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that foster children receive more psychotropic drugs on average than other Texas Medicaid children.

Psychotropic use by Texas pre-school-aged foster children was three times higher than among similar foster children in the Mid-Atlantic states. Instances of “polypharmacy,” the prescription of two or more psychotropics for one person—has increased rapidly as well.

Complex psychotropic drug therapy tends to result in ever-increasing combinations that tend to increase in continuously enrolled populations and present risks for long-term safety in developing youth.

Off -label Usage

Most psychotropic medications have not been studied extensively for efficacy and safety in children.

The National Institutes of Mental Health notes that about 80 percent of psychotropic drugs are not approved for use in children or adolescents.

Their use in this population is described as “off-label.” Yet the off-label use of these drugs in children is common.

Efficacy Questions

Many medications prescribed to Texas foster children have been shown to have no or minimal efficacy. Among antidepressants, for instance, FDA findings from clinical trials showed little or no efficacy from the use of escitaloram (Lexapro), paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor).

Yet prescription patterns among foster children appears to ignore such findings from clinical trials that show a lack of or minimal efficacy. In fiscal 2004, Texas foster children received the following:

•escitaloram (Lexapro): nearly 12,000 prescriptions totaling $763,000.

• paroxetine (Paxil): more than 550 prescriptions totaling almost $50,000.

• venlafaxine (Effexor): about 3,000 prescriptions totaling more than $300,000.

Many anticonvulsant drugs are being used as mood stabilizers for Texas foster children, including oxcarbazepine and topirimate.

These drugs have been found to be ineffective for psychiatric purposes. Nevertheless, they were widely prescribed to Texas foster children in fi scal 2004:

• oxcarbazepine (Trileptal): nearly 13,000 prescriptions totaling  $1.98 million.

• topiramate (Topamax): more than 3,300 prescriptions totaling more than $500,000.

Compound Drugs In fiscal 2004,572 foster children received nearly 2,000 prescriptions for compound drugs.

The FDA is concerned that such drugs carry a risk of contamination and the efficacy and potency can be effected. Fraud and abuse can also be a factor in compound drug prescriptions.

Recommendations to improve the Texas Foster Care system that should be implemented immediately:

1. The Health and Human Services Commission, Office of Inspector General should fully investigate areas of concern and cases of interest identifi ed in this report.

2. DFPS should hire a full-time physician to serve as its medical director, to oversee the care, treatment and medications provided to Texas foster children. The medical director should evaluate medical care provided to foster children and report the results to the DSHS and HHSC annually. The medical director should establish an analysis team to assist with the evaluation. The team should consist of psychopharmacologists and child and adolescent psychiatrists from medical schools.

3. The newly created DFPS medical director should be responsible for ensuring that all foster care parents and facilities receive “medical passport” information within 48 hours of the foster child’s placement. The “passport” should be updated consistently and should document all medical treatments, prescriptions, psychological diagnoses and counseling to provide continuity of care.

4. DSHS should review this report and begin implementing its recommendations as soon as possible, including those from the external review by Zito/Safer.

5. DFPS, in coordination with DSHS and HHSC, should examine the best practices of successful foster care providers to develop and implement means to reduce the system’s reliance on psychotropic medications to treat foster children.

6. DFPS should establish strict rules regarding participation by foster children in any type of clinical trial. In addition, DFPS should track and monitor all foster children who are enrolled in clinical trials. All foster parents and providers should be made aware of the rules and the potential risks of clinical trials.

Additional recommendations more specific to each problem are made in later chapters in this report. Foster Children: Texas Health Care Claims Study – Special Report

Counseling

Some foster children receive counseling services, but not all do, and others do not receive consistent counseling.

According to the American Counseling Association, “Professional counselors help clients identify goals and potential solutions to problems which cause emotional turmoil; seek to improve communication and coping skills; strengthen self-esteem; and promote behavior change and optimal mental health. Counseling is a technique that can be used by individuals coping with a mental illness, recovering from a trauma, managing stress, or dealing with family issues.”

While some foster children suffer from severe mental illness, others have milder problems. The various options described below may help to reduce the number of psychotropic prescriptions prescribed to Texas foster children. Innovative Therapeutic Provider One Texas therapeutic foster care provider consciously uses a different approach to treat very troubled foster children, most of whom are classifi ed by service level as specialized.

This facility employs intensive therapeutic intervention that focuses on teaching children appropriate ways to problem-solve and make healthy and positive choices in their lives.

In an interview regarding the usage of psychotropic medications, a staff member stated that children at this facility are held accountable for their actions and are taught to manage their behavior with as few psychotropic medications as possible.

He (a staff member) also said that some children come into their program so heavily medicated that they are “drooling.’

An innovative therapeutic foster care provider has been successful in lowering the number of psychotropic medications given to foster children in its care.

Not all foster children who need counseling are receiving it on a regular basis. •

DFPS is not doing all it can to promote mentorship for foster children.

Since publication of the Comptroller’s Forgotten Children report in April 2004, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) have been addressing psychotropic medication use by foster children.

DSHS has established medication parameters to help monitor and reduce the number of prescriptions.

Yet many psychotropic medications still are being prescribed to all ages of foster children. While medication may be beneficial in treating mental disorders, a “pill” cannot solve all of the emotional issues and problems foster children face while in care.

The Zito/Safer External Review states,

“poverty, social deprivation and unsafe environments do not necessarily require complex drug regimes.”

Often when foster children experience emotional problems they undergo psychiatric evaluations and are then taken to a physician, frequently a psychiatrist (but not always) who then prescribes one or more medications to help treat the problem.

While medication may be beneficial in treating mental disorders, a “pill” cannot solve all of the emotional issues and problems foster children face while in care.

A check of this provider’s Medicaid claims for foster children in its care showed that their usage of psychotropic medications decreased.

It is also important to analyze underlying causes that can affect mental health. Britain’s Mental Health Foundation has observed that,

“An integrated approach, recognizing the interplay of biological, psychological, social and environmental factors, is key to challenging the growing burden of mental ill-health in western nations.”2

Researchers are discovering how aspects of environment and social class can be associated with children’s poor health and behavior.3

Britain’s National Health Service has found that mental health problems are more common among people in poor living conditions, members of certain minority groups and the disabled.4

In Forgotten Children and its subsequent studies, the Comptroller’s office has found that Texas foster children often come from unhealthy living environments, and some remain in unstable and unsafe living conditions while in the foster care system. These include medically fragile children living in very small homes with many children, in mobile homes and in remote, isolated areas of the state.

Administrators at psychiatric hospitals told the review team that some children they treat have refused to return to their previous placements because they were so unhappy there.

Medical records revealed about 200 claims for scabies and multiple claims for the treatment of parasites in fiscal 2004, involving about 1,500 prescriptions at a cost of $80,000.

Scabies often is found among people living in crowded and unsanitary conditions. An unhealthy living environment can affect the mental health of already emotionally fragile children.

Alternatives to Psychotropic Medications – Psychotherapy

Psychotherapy is a common treatment that can help children understand and resolve their problems and modify their behavior. It can come in many forms, including individual, family and group therapy, play therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy.5

Many foster children need therapy because they have been removed from their homes, which can be very stressful. The Comptroller’s office has found that Texas foster children often come from unhealthy living environments, and some remain in unstable and unsafe living conditions while in the foster care system.

accountability, children, corruption, cps, foster care, foster child, foster home, government, judicial system, legal, legislation, medicaid, medicaid fraud, medical, mental illness, psychotropic medications, psychotropics
TEXAS RESOLVES MULTI-STATE MEDICAID FRAUD INVESTIGATION; RECOVERS $55 MILLION | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

My Questionn is: What side effects did this drug have on the children and what long term risks will they possibly suffer? How was it not approved? Was it unsafe? Or just not tested?

Shouldn’t they be compensated for the abuse they suffered by the child welfare system knowingly using them as test subjects?

This makes me sick.

———————————————————————–

TEXAS RESOLVES MULTI-STATE MEDICAID FRAUD INVESTIGATION; RECOVERS $55 MILLION

The following information was released by the office of the Attorney General of Texas:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a coalition of state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice today resolved a lengthy civil Medicaid fraud investigation into Pfizer, Inc. As a result, more than $1 billion has been recovered for state Medicaid programs and several federal programs. Texas’ Medicaid program will recover $55 million in a state-federal government share.

According to investigators, Pfizer deceptively marketed its antipsychotic drug Geodon, its arthritis pain medication Bextra, which is no longer on the market, and 11 other pharmaceutical products.

The multi-state and federal investigation revealed that Pfizer unlawfully promoted atypical antipsychotic Geodon for use by Medicaid-eligible children to treat numerous conditions, including attention deficit disorder and anxiety. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Geodon for children. State and federal law prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from marketing their drugs for such “off-label” uses. While physicians may, at their discretion, prescribe drugs for off-label uses, it is unlawful for drug manufacturers to promote drugs’ uses which have not been approved by the FDA.

The states’ enforcement effort revealed that Pfizer provided unlawful financial incentives for physicians who wrote off-label prescriptions. Because of Pfizer’s promotional program, Medicaid paid for prescriptions many physicians would not otherwise have written for their patients. As a result, the taxpayer-funded program incurred unnecessary costs.

In a separate settlement, Attorney General Abbott and 42 other attorneys general reached a $33 million dollar agreement with Pfizer. The additional settlement resolves an inquiry into the defendant’s deceptive marketing of Geodon to health care providers. The agreement prevents Pfizer from making any false, misleading or deceptive claims regarding Geodon; promoting Geodon for uses not approved by the FDA; or otherwise promoting Geodon in an unlawful manner. Pfizer must also post online a list of health care providers that received payments from Pfizer.

Last January, Attorney General Abbott reached a $30 million civil Medicaid fraud settlement with Eli Lilly and Co., which unlawfully marketed the atypical antipsychotic Zyprexa. Last year, the Attorney General also recovered $15.7 million from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. for its illegal marketing of several drugs, including the atypical antipsychotic, Abilify.

A National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units team conducted the investigation and settlement negotiations with Pfizer on behalf of the states. That team included representatives from Texas, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia.

Today’s agreement reflects a continuing crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system. To obtain more information about the Attorney General’s efforts to fight Medicaid fraud, access the agency’s Web site at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

© Copyright 2009 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2009 States News Service
accountability, awareness, child abuser, child custody, child welfare reform, foster care abuse, Collin County, Texas, custody, families, family, healing, kids, parental alienation syndrome, psychiatry
Parental Alienation Do’s and Don’ts

hurt

What you do and don’t do when as a loving parent you are confronted with a severe case of Parental Alienation Syndrome in your child?

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME – DO’S

DO…start to immediately educate yourself, your lawyer, your Judge, your psychologist and your child, if possible, about PAS.

This is one of the most widespread forms of emotional child abuse there is arising out of our Family Court system today and there are at least 1,000 internet web sites for you to obtain information from about PAS.

DO…fully prepare yourself for your Court presentation about PAS.

To do this you should print and make several copies of all the information on PAS you find on these web sites and put them in at least four (4) separate booklets and entitle them.. “URGENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE COURT ON PAS…What you need to know about the abuse of my child to save him/her and me from a lifetime of pain and suffering”.

Before you go into Court you should give one of these booklets to your lawyer and your psychologist while keeping one for yourself and the Court.

DO…tell the Court if they don’t act immediately to stop your child’s abuse, you will take your PAS case and all the proof and evidence you provided the Court on your child’s PAS condition to the local newspapers and T.V. stations

…AND…

you will post your case and Judge’s name on all the PAS internet web sites for the whole world to see how derelict the Court was in not carrying out its responsibility to protect your child from your former spouse’s severe emotional abuse and the permanent destruction of you and your child’s relationship together.

DO…keep your faith in God and yourself at all times while always taking the high road to fight and solve this  problem.

DO…continue to reach out to your PAS affected child no matter how many times they tell you how much they hate you and never want to see you again.

While they may say these things to you, the fact is they really don’t hate you and actually yearn desperately to see you again, but those feelings are not allowed any expression by the abusing parent.

If you have a flair for the dramatic to make your point you can also add a reprint of my web site home page with my daughter’s picture and number of days I have not seen her because of PAS and the Court’s refusal to intervene to stop her abuse.

At the top of the page you should also write in big letters ….“I DO NOT INTEND TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN TO ME AND MY CHILD”

DO…take off the gloves and demand immediate action by the Court to STOP the abuse of your child.

Remind the Court in the strongest terms possible that your child’s life, mental health and their continued on going relationship with you is at stake…AND…that if they don’t intervene immediately the chances of ever saving your child and your relationship together will be ZERO.

DO…trust your own instincts as a parent to do what is in the best interests of your child when confronted with this PAS problem…AND…if the Court won’t protect your child’s interests, then you will protect his/her interests yourself.

This you will do by public exposure of your case to the media until the Court does protect your child’s interests as the law requires them to do. It may take a long time but you must never ever give up the fight.

photo-029

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME – DON’TS

DON’T…trust or count on ANYONE to know anything about PAS or to try and help you save your child and your relationship together.

Almost all lawyers, Judges, psychologists and Court mediators who are involved in your case KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT PAS…AND…even if they did would probably not have the time or be able to fully understand your case and how important it is for Court intervention to stop your child’s PAS abuse.

In most PAS cases none of these people really care about helping you and your child either.

DON’T…delude yourself into thinking that your local Family Court, your Judge, your lawyer, your psychologist or  anyone else but you really wants to look out for and protect the best interests of your child.

DON’T…trust or count on ANYONE to properly educate themselves on PAS. This is particularly true about your  former spouse, Family Court Judges and Court appointed psychologists.

You must do all this research and education about PAS  yourself to pass on to all the people involved in your case.

DON’T…allow the Court or anyone else to intimidate you.

You will be challenged at every turn and told you don’t know what you are talking about when you mention PAS.

Many will also tell you that PAS is nothing more than a figment of your imagination and that it has never been proven and doesn’t even exist in the Psychiatric Association’s Bible of mental and psychiatric disorders known as DSM-IV. Some of these people will further tell you that this was only a “pipe dream” invented by Dr. Richard Gardner to sell his books.

DON’T believe a word these people tell you and never give in to their intimidating tactics to discredit you, PAS or Dr. Gardner.

DON’T…allow the Court or anyone else to delay or prolong your Court hearing on this matter.

The longer this PAS abuse goes on with your child, the more difficult it will be for you to do anything to stop it…AND…If it goes on for too long without Court intervention (ie. 6 months or more) then your chances of ever re-establishing a normal healthy relationship with your child will start to approach ZERO.

DON’T…engage in any kind of retaliatory brainwashing PAS abuse of your child yourself.

The temptation is always there to “fight fire with fire” when you are being attacked and maligned by your former spouse, BUT DON’T EVER DO IT.

REMEMBER what I said before. Always take the High Moral ground for your child and if you want to get angry and verbally attack someone, get angry and attack the people who are doing this to your child.

Never get angry at your child for how he/she is behaving or in any other way do anything to further hurt your child.

You must be able to walk a fine line always trusting in yourself and your God to see and fight this thing through for the ultimate best interests of your child and yourself.

DON’T…ever GIVE UP no matter how many well meaning and/or not so well meaning people tell you to do so.

You will constantly hear people tell you that you should merely give up the fight to save your child from PAS and wait until they grow up and find out for themselves how badly they were abused by your former spouse and the Court.

This would be the same as letting your child drown until they learned how to swim themselves. You have a solemn duty to protect your children and thus you cannot ever shirk from that duty.

arrest, arrests, child, child death, child sex crimes, family, murder, sex offenders, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual offenders, system
9 Year Old Cold Case in Tampa Ends with Sex Offender As Murderer!

My “Homesick News” from my beloved Florida:

Ahhh.

The beautiful Clearwater Beach.

Just west of Tampa, about halfway down the State of Florida, on the Gulf Coast.

Its Paradise….(for most)

Clearwater Beach, FL courtesy of www.Placsaroundflorida.com

But a family in Tampa probably doesn’t think much of their home as paradise much these days now that an old wound has been re-opened, so that it can finally be closed.

Tampa police arrested a 15 year old’s  killer after 9 years! My thoughts are with those who grieve for this child, and with the spirit of the little girl turned Angel taken in such a horrible way.

This is a reminder that you can never be too careful, even in your own backyard.  This tragedy happened and her body was found 3 miles from the victim’s home, a crime committed by a sex offender who did not know the victim.

She was only 15 years old, but still a child when she was killed 9 years ago in and found Decenber 7, 2000.  But with DNA stemming from a 2008 crime leading to the arrest of her killer, closure may have been found, but I shudder to think of all the possible unknown victims of this monster that may never be revealed during those 8 years in between.

Thank goodness this awful man is behind bars where he won’t hurt any more children.


Jailed sex offender charged in 2000 strangling of

15-year-old Tampa girl – St. Petersburg Times

TAMPA

By Rebecca Catalanello,  Times Staff Writer
In Print: Friday, September 11, 2009

He said he never met her, never saw her, knew nothing about her.   But Tampa police say Carl Chavers killed her.

Nine years ago, 15-year-old Laquetta Chael White left her Grant Park home for a dentist’s appointment on Davis Islands only to be found dead 3 miles from home.

Until now, her mother has had few answers as to how, on Dec. 7, 2000, her daughter ended up naked and discarded, her dead body lying in an alley next to Connie’s Restaurant at Oberry Street and 21st Avenue.

But Detectives Eric Houston and John Columbia this week brought Carla Wilson the closure she desired.

It came in the form of first-degree murder and sexual battery charges against Chavers, 40, a man police say lived three houses away from Laquetta’s 5606 Terra Ceia Drive apartment building at the time of the killing.

Houston said DNA gathered from Chavers during a 2008 sexual battery case matched that found under Laquetta’s fingernails.

They believe he’s the man who abducted and strangled Laquetta after she left home at 9 a.m., planning to board a bus for a dental appointment she never kept.

When Houston and Columbia questioned him, Chavers denied the crime. But Thursday, he told police he was living in the neighborhood, Houston said.

Chavers is incarcerated at Tomoka Correctional Institute in Daytona Beach, where he is serving a 24-year sentence for lewd and lascivious sexual battery involving a 13-year-old girl, including a charge that he impregnated her.

The night before Laquetta died, her mother cooked her daughter’s favorite dinner: sausage, stewed tomatoes and okra over yellow rice.

As Wilson told the St. Petersburg Times nine years ago, she and Laquetta had a dance contest and laughed. “She was actually being the little girl I wanted her to be,” Wilson said back then.

The next day, Wilson, who worked as a school bus aide, passed by the homicide scene on her daily bus route as detectives were working it.

She had no idea until later that the person detectives were tending to was her own daughter.

Houston, who has managed about 12 cold cases since joining the squad in 2005, said it feels good to share news of an arrest with a family member who has lived for years without knowing.

“That’s the best part,” he said.

Tampa Police have 282 unsolved murders going back to 1982.

Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Rebecca Catalanello can be reached at rcatalanello@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3383.
[Last modified: Sep 10, 2009 11:54 PM]