Category: General

General

On Jan. 22, 2003, FRONTLINE, in collaboration with Columbia University’s School of Social Work and its Institute for Child and Family Policy, convened two panels of national experts at Columbia’s Alfred Lerner Hall to talk about the child welfare system and, more specifically, foster care.

FRONTLINE’s “Failure to Protect?: A National Dialogue” — co-produced with Fred Friendly Seminars, with primary editorial consultation provided by Columbia University’s Institute for Child and Family Policy — is an exploration of the complex and heartwrenching decisions made every day by workers and policymakers in the child welfare system. Moderator John Hockenberry, a correspondent for Dateline NBC, presents a realistic hypothetical case to a dozen panelists — child welfare experts and advocates — and encourages them to face those same tough decisions. (source: pbs:frontline:shows:fostercare: failure to protect)


The Scenario: A resident of Metropolis recently purchases a brownstone in a low-income neighborhood called Franklin Heights. Across the street, she sees a couple of children — one who looks to be about 8 years old and a baby. She notices that their clothes are dirty and they often lack adult supervision. She’s sufficiently concerned about the children’s well-being to pay a visit to their mother, Janice Smith.

What finally prompts the neighbor to call child protective services? And what will the caseworker assigned to the case and his supervisor decide about Janice and her children?

Read the entire transcript.(and lets discuss it here)

Video: Watch the entire program.

(Additional funding for “Failure to Protect?: A National Dialogue” is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.)

General
Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

If this isn’t ever the truth! In the end it hurts the Children!

Children absorb their environment even at ages so young they can’t talk yet.

Domestic violence abusers often includes use the system as their weapon। of the time the abusers do this, they get away with it with the assistance of judicial officials and social services.

It must be stopped for the childrens’ sake.

Some of the Biggest Victims of Domestic Violence Are the Smallest

New Global Report Reveals Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

Aug 1, 2006
Publication: Business Wire

NEW YORK — A global report published today by UNICEF and The Body Shop International reveals the devastating and lasting impact on children of living with domestic violence. Based on global data from the United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, the report conservatively estimates that as many as 275 million children are currently exposed to domestic violence. The fact that domestic violence is chronically underreported and that some countries have no data at all makes it difficult to quantify how many children it affects.

The figures reveal that every year in the United States, up to 2.7 million children have been exposed to violence against a parent.

“Domestic violence can have a lasting negative impact on children,” UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman said in New York. “We must do everything in our power to ensure that children grow up in safe and stable environments, free of violence.”

The Body Shop(R) is helping to take action against domestic violence by launching its 2006 Stop Violence in the Home Campaign, which focuses on children as the forgotten victims. For this year’s campaign, The Body Shop(R) has joined forces with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence to raise funds and awareness to help protect and support children who are exposed to domestic violence.

Dame Anita Roddick, Founder of The Body Shop(R), added, “Our report shows that some of the biggest victims of domestic violence are the smallest. Protecting children should be the absolute concern of everybody who is working to see an end to domestic violence. We urge everyone to rally behind this global campaign.”

Defining domestic violence as physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a parent or caregiver, the report finds that the experience of watching, hearing or otherwise being aware of domestic violence can impact children’s physical, emotional, and social development, both during childhood and later in life. In the vast majority of cases, domestic violence is perpetrated against women. At least one in three women globally is a victim of domestic violence. The report turns attention to the lesser-known facts: the impact on children who are exposed to this violence.

The lasting impact of domestic violence on children

The Body Shop’s Stop Violence in the Home global campaign aims to raise awareness and to encourage governments to better protect and support children who are exposed to domestic violence.

The report finds that children who live with domestic violence not only endure the distress of being surrounded by violence, but are more likely to become victims of abuse themselves. An estimated 40 per cent of child-abuse victims also have reported domestic violence in the home.

Even when children are not physically abused themselves, their exposure to domestic violence can have severe and lasting effects. The impact begins early: studies show that younger children are more likely to be exposed to domestic violence than older children, which can impair their mental and emotional growth in a critical stage of development.

As they grow up, children who are exposed to domestic violence continue to face a range of possible effects including trouble with school work, limited social skills, depression, anxiety and other psychological problems. They are at greater risk for substance abuse, teenage pregnancy and delinquent behavior, according to the report.

The report also finds that the single best predictor of children continuing the cycle of domestic violence, either as perpetrators or as victims, depends on whether or not they grow up in a home with domestic violence. Research shows that rates of abuse are higher among women whose husbands were abused as children or who saw their mothers being abused. Many studies have also found that children from violent homes show signs of more aggressive behavior, such as bullying, and are up to three times more likely to be involved in fighting.

The report urges governments and societies to pay more attention to the specific needs of children who live in homes impacted by domestic violence. It also identifies the need for better monitoring and reporting on the prevalence of domestic violence in order to shed light on this hidden issue.

Governments have a vital role to play in breaking the cycle of domestic violence and protecting the youngest victims of domestic violence, and are urged to:

–Raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence on children through public education campaigns and efforts to challenge beliefs and customs that condone violence.

–Create public policies and laws that protect children. Governments must enact and enforce laws and policies that criminalize domestic violence and protect all its victims.

–Improve social services that address the impact of violence in the home on children. Interventions that support children who are exposed to domestic violence help minimize the long-term risks to these children and must be adequately funded and scaled-up.

“We are very grateful to The Body Shop(R) staff and customers who are rallying behind this vital campaign in the United States. By taking a small step to purchase a soap, customers will be making a huge difference in the lives of children suffering from the impact of violence in the home,” said Kim Burrs, The Body Shop(R) Director of Values.

“The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is pleased to be working with The Body Shop(R) and are particularly excited about the new Daisy Soap. It will raise critical money to help the N.C.A.D.V. fund work to support children who have suffered the impact of domestic violence. Every soap that someone buys is a vote to stop violence in the home,” said Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Funds raised from the lightly scented new Daisy Soap ($4.00) will be donated to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence to help to fund the Teacher Training Campaign. The Teacher Training Campaign is part of a nationwide N.C.A.D.V. public awareness campaign to address the most effective ways to help protect children from the devastating effects of domestic violence, while training the people who interact with them on a daily basis – teachers.

NOTES TO EDITORS: The report Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children is the result of a new partnership between UNICEF, The Body Shop International, and the United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, the first global report to document the nature and extent of violence against children.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children

The Secretary-General’s Study, is a groundbreaking effort to detail the nature and scale of violence against children globally. Using the latest research from across the world, the study looks at violence in five settings: the home and family; schools and educational settings; other institutional settings (such as orphanages); the community and on the streets; and work situations.

Led by Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, former Secretary of State for Human Rights of Brazil, the study is being developed in close consultation with UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Stop Violence in the Home campaign

Stop Violence in the Home is part of The Body Shop International’s ongoing global campaign to raise awareness on the issue of domestic violence. To date more than GBP 2 million has been raised by The Body Shop(R) global campaign. Initially launched across the world in 2003, Stop Violence in the Home has been rolled out across the globe to help victims of domestic violence and is now running in more than 35 countries. The Body Shop International Plc has over 2,000 stores in over 50 markets worldwide. A global retailer of high quality toiletries and cosmetics, we are also committed to environmental protection and respect for human rights. We develop trading relationships with communities in need; we are against animal testing in the cosmetics industry; and we encourage education, awareness and involvement among our staff and customers.

COPYRIGHT 2006 Business Wire

Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

General
fundamental rights

Where certain “fundamental rights” are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a “compelling state interest,” Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see [410 U.S. 113, 156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result)…. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

General
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

…Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170]….

General
consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family

U.S. Supreme Court COOPER v. AARON, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) 358

U.S. 1 COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

v. AARON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Fn No. 1.

Argued September 11, 1958. Decided September 12, 1958.

Opinion announced September 29, 1958.

…Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” I

n 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . .”Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.

A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, “it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398….

We have forwarded these excerpts from Sup. Ct. decisions to our big list for your information. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS, or see ACFC’s homepage at: http://www.acfc.org American Fathers Coalition – 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 148 Washington, D.C. 20006 1-800-978-DADS (3237) afc@capaccess.org http://www.erols.com/afc Subject: On Fundamental Rights & Mocking The Constitution

In condensing the collection of decisions, it came to me that we are obsessed with the rights of the individual, while at the same time forgetting that one person’s rights become another person’s burden. Yet, all of the intelligent and clever legal and constitutional arguments that are being made have one underlying concern. They are made to demonstrate the presence or absence of the validity that one’s right’s can be made to be inferior to another one’s. At the base of all of this is that no-one exists in isolation. We all are parts (or at least should be) of systems that themselves are parts of levels in a hierarchy of systems comprising civilization.

The very foundation of the whole hierarchy of civilization is the group of social systems made up by these systems: husband-wife; parent-child; sibling-sibling; the family comprised of all of them; and, last but not least, the system of the extended family. Some have recognized that and the one very profound truth arising out that fact: any system is greater than the sum of its parts, but only then if all of the parts interleave, communicate, mesh and function well with one another. All of these clever arguments ignore one important aspect. That is the obligations of an individual to the social systems of which he is a member.

Thereby we ignore the needs and rights of all systems within society, because to demand one’s rights requires that someone else is obliged to grant them. By ignoring obligations, each entity will feel entitled to enforce its rights, if necessary, to the extent that it will rob others of theirs. What we have then is not a well-functioning society anymore that is better than the sum of its parts, but rather a conglomerate of entities, or better yet, a mob – at worst, the end of civilization as we know it. It appears that the best legal minds have not come to terms with that truth, or else they would not be so terribly confused as appears to be the case in the bewildering array of judgments relating to the basic social system of society: the family. Would it be totally unrealistic to ask our legal minds to consider not only whether the state might have rights that are superior to those of the individual, but to think of the family unit in terms of a legal entity that has rights as well – with obligations and rights in relation to both, all of its members and the state?

Would it be totally strange to ask our legislators to consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family and, in connection with that, the obligations that an individual has toward the family and the state? Consider what would happen if we were to build the only one of the Ten Commandments that contains a promise as a constraint into constitutional rights: “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Why are we surprised and dismayed that we can’t do well without it? Are we truly that smart that we can afford to ignore the wisdom that civilization lived by for thousands of years? -WHS

General
consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family

U.S. Supreme Court COOPER v. AARON, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) 358

U.S. 1 COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

v. AARON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Fn No. 1.

Argued September 11, 1958. Decided September 12, 1958.

Opinion announced September 29, 1958.

…Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” I

n 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . .”Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.

A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, “it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398….

We have forwarded these excerpts from Sup. Ct. decisions to our big list for your information. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS, or see ACFC’s homepage at: http://www.acfc.org American Fathers Coalition – 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 148 Washington, D.C. 20006 1-800-978-DADS (3237) afc@capaccess.org http://www.erols.com/afc Subject: On Fundamental Rights & Mocking The Constitution

In condensing the collection of decisions, it came to me that we are obsessed with the rights of the individual, while at the same time forgetting that one person’s rights become another person’s burden. Yet, all of the intelligent and clever legal and constitutional arguments that are being made have one underlying concern. They are made to demonstrate the presence or absence of the validity that one’s right’s can be made to be inferior to another one’s. At the base of all of this is that no-one exists in isolation. We all are parts (or at least should be) of systems that themselves are parts of levels in a hierarchy of systems comprising civilization.

The very foundation of the whole hierarchy of civilization is the group of social systems made up by these systems: husband-wife; parent-child; sibling-sibling; the family comprised of all of them; and, last but not least, the system of the extended family. Some have recognized that and the one very profound truth arising out that fact: any system is greater than the sum of its parts, but only then if all of the parts interleave, communicate, mesh and function well with one another. All of these clever arguments ignore one important aspect. That is the obligations of an individual to the social systems of which he is a member.

Thereby we ignore the needs and rights of all systems within society, because to demand one’s rights requires that someone else is obliged to grant them. By ignoring obligations, each entity will feel entitled to enforce its rights, if necessary, to the extent that it will rob others of theirs. What we have then is not a well-functioning society anymore that is better than the sum of its parts, but rather a conglomerate of entities, or better yet, a mob – at worst, the end of civilization as we know it. It appears that the best legal minds have not come to terms with that truth, or else they would not be so terribly confused as appears to be the case in the bewildering array of judgments relating to the basic social system of society: the family. Would it be totally unrealistic to ask our legal minds to consider not only whether the state might have rights that are superior to those of the individual, but to think of the family unit in terms of a legal entity that has rights as well – with obligations and rights in relation to both, all of its members and the state?

Would it be totally strange to ask our legislators to consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family and, in connection with that, the obligations that an individual has toward the family and the state? Consider what would happen if we were to build the only one of the Ten Commandments that contains a promise as a constraint into constitutional rights: “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Why are we surprised and dismayed that we can’t do well without it? Are we truly that smart that we can afford to ignore the wisdom that civilization lived by for thousands of years? -WHS

children, General, health, medicine
Government Advisers: Don’t Use Cold Medicines in Children Under 6

Cold medicine

 

Concentrated Tylenol Infants’ Drops Plus Cold & Cough, right, and Pedia Care Infant Drops Long-Acting Cough, left, is shown in a medicine cabinet of the home of Carol Uyeno in Palo Alto, Calif., Thursday, Oct. 11, 2007. Cold Drug makers voluntarily pulled cold medicines targeted for babies and toddlers off the market Thursday, leaving parents to find alternatives for hacking coughs and runny little noses just as fall sniffles get in full swing. The move represented a pre-emptive strike by over-the-counter drug manufacturers – a week before government advisers were to debate the medicines’ fate. But it doesn’t end concern about the safety of these remedies for youngsters. (Paul Sakuma/AP Photo)

 

 

WASHINGTON – Cold and cough medicines don’t work in children and shouldn’t be used in those younger than 6, federal health advisers recommended Friday.

 

Video

No More Kids Cold Medicine

The over-the-counter medicines should be studied further, even after decades in which children have received billions of doses a year, the outside experts told the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA isn’t required to follow the advice of its panels of outside experts but does so most of the time.

“The data that we have now is they don’t seem to work,” said Sean Hennessy, a University of Pennsylvania epidemiologist, one of the FDA experts gathered to examine the medicines sold to treat common cold symptoms. The recommendation applies to medicines containing one or more of the following ingredients: decongestants, expectorants, antihistamines and antitussives.

adsonar_placementId=1280601;adsonar_pid=42750;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;

The nonbinding recommendation is likely to lead to a shake up in how the medicines – which have long escaped much scrutiny – are labeled, marketed and used. Just how and how quickly wasn’t immediately clear.

In two separate votes, the panelists said the medicines shouldn’t be used in children younger than 2 or in those younger than 6. A third vote, to recommend against use in children 6 to 11, failed.

Earlier, the panelists voted unanimously to recommend the medicines be studied in children to determine whether they work. That recommendation would require the FDA to undertake a rule-making process to reclassify the medicines, since the ingredients they include are now generally recognized as safe and effective, which doesn’t require testing. The process could take years, even before any studies themselves get under way.

FDA Says Over-the-Counter Med Need Further Study

Simply relabeling the medicines to state they shouldn’t be used in some age groups could be accomplished more quickly, FDA officials said.

Indeed, the drug industry could further revise the labels on the medicines to caution against such use. The Thursday-Friday meeting came just a week after the industry pre-emptively moved to eliminate sales of the nonprescription drugs targeted at children under 2.

General
Breaking The Silence – Childrens’ Stories

Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories

8 min 3 sec – Feb 9, 2006
Average rating: (2 ratings)
Description: This is an eight minute excerpt of the program that aired on Public Television in October of 2005. The documentary tells the stories of children who are taken away from their protective mothers.

Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/

Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform

If you’re having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=538393003214828410&pr=goog-sl

(PBS; October 2001)
An hour-long national documentary that takes an innovative look at domestic violence in America, demonstrating the ways victims are breaking the destructive cycle of abuse and creating healthy, stable lives. Domestic violence defies easy categorization by race, age, economic or social standing. It happens to a disturbing number of women and children, and until recent years, has been cloaked in a blanket of silence. Rather than document the tragic circumstances of domestic violence cases, the program focuses on the process through which victims become survivors, offering domestic violence sufferers, policymakers, and concerned citizens examples of how to fight this devastating problem.
(NCFR Media Awards Competition — Runner-Up; DSA Vision for Tomorrow Award)