Category: cps

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care, government
Los Angeles Study: Kids Rushed Into Foster Care

By Troy Anderson Staff Writer
The California child welfare system is such a disaster that even the state’s Department of Social Services admits families are aggressively torn apart and children unnecessarily placed in foster care.

California has announced sweeping reform. But the reform required is for “authorities” to act like adults and take responsibility.

In a September 25 press release, CDSS Director Rita Saenz bluntly assessed why the agency has failed. “The original vision for supporting and healing families through the child welfare system has deteriorated into an adversarial and coercive approach.”

The result: In L.A. County alone, more than 160,000 children “came into contact” with Child Welfare in 2002; 30,000 are in foster homes — only one form of foster care.

David Sanders, head of the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services, reports that as many as half of those foster children could have stayed at home with “appropriate services” rather than removal. Thus, an L.A. Daily News headline declared that children are being “rushed into foster care,” where many remain.

Andrew Bridge of L.A.-based Broad Foundation explained why: money.
“The county will only continue to receive funding for the period it keeps the child in its care.” In various states, including California, there is a “perverse financial incentive” to place and retain children in foster care rather than leave them in the home.

Thus, the first way authorities can take responsibility is to remove the financial incentive to destroy families.

In a 2002 conference on Privatization and Government Reform, Laura Dykes explained how Kansas was reversing that dangerous trend — through privatization. “By giving contractors a lump sum, rather than paying them on a per-day, per-child basis, the perverse incentives are removed.” As a result “adoptions have increased 78 percent since privatization, and the dissolution rate [adoptions that fail] is only 2.4 percent, compared to 12 percent nationally.” (p.30) There is a second way for authorities to become adults.

Those who receive a paycheck from the family court system have another “perverse financial incentive”: to create and extend cases rather than resolve them.

Instead, the family courts should prefer the comparatively private and inexpensive alternative of binding arbitration whenever applicable.
The crisis of child welfare is not confined to isolated states. If it were, the Senate would not be considering a provision in the Welfare Reform Act reauthorization bill to make states accountable for undistributed child support funds. In 2002, almost $660 million in child support payments never reached their intended recipients nor were they returned to payees.

The funds “floated” as parents were “forced to pester the state for every nickel and dime.” Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support declared, “If a bank behaved this way it would go out of business.”

This is my point. State officials and policies should be held to the same standard of accountability — including criminality — as that applied to private businesses and individuals. They should be liable for their gross misconduct, including the filing of false reports.

This may require the repeal of legislation such as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) that offered federal matching funds to states with compliant child abuse programs. It offered huge financial incentives to uncover abuse while providing no checks to protect the wrongfully accused. CAPTA established the policy of encouraging false accusations while eliminating accountability. It encouraged the leveling of anonymous charges through such mechanisms as hotlines. It extended legal immunity both to child welfare workers and to false accusers whose gross misconduct might deeply injure children.

The solution: Refuse to credit anonymous accusations; hold false accusers responsible for perjury; make “child welfare” workers liable for misconduct on the same level as private individuals. What is the alternative?
In the wake of financial incentives without accountability, the number of children in nationwide foster care has doubled from 270,000 in the mid-1980s to 542,000 in 2001. (That figure does not include children who “graduated” upon turning 18.) Once removed to official “safety,” these children are far more likely to suffer abuse — including sexual molestation — than the general population. According to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, in 1998 six children per 100,000 population were killed in foster care compared to one per 100,000 in the general population.

For many children, foster care becomes permanent. In 1999, almost one in seven children in foster care nationwide had been there for three to four years; almost one in five had been there for five years or more.
The human cost of rushing children into foster care does not stop when they reach 18 years old. According to CDDS data, among youths who “emancipate” from foster care, 50 percent do not complete high school; 45 percent are unemployed; 33 percent are arrested; 30 percent are on welfare; 25 percent are homeless.

Foster care, as it exists, is often difficult to distinguish from child abuse.

Children deserve better, especially children from troubled homes. They deserve to have adults in charge — adults who take responsibility.

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care, government, medicaid fraud
What it FEELS LIKE to be Falsely Accused!

Source: Courtesy of AFRA

When your turn comes to answer a Child Protective Service Social Worker’s allegations, the very first thing you notice is her hostile attitude and adversative behavior. Since most of us have learned CIVILITY and Social Skills to deal with aggressors, we try to find out why this person is so ticked at us so we can “make peace”.

We explain the truth to her, but she doesn’t care about the truth. We quickly learn this antagonist is implacable, callous, hard-hearted, merciless, and incapable of reason. Her mind was already made up and she is going to drag you into the Child Protective Service “meat grinder” any way she can.

She thinks nothing of making a False Accusation, only “making it stick”.
You discover that she will LIE TO YOU and ABOUT YOU without conscience.


“At a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
(George Orwell)

“You can’t depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus.” — Mark Twain

“Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.” — Eric Hoffer

She is not doing an “investigation”. It is a prejudiced personal attack, an Inquisition, a Character Assassination on YOU.

“All parents are POTENTIAL ABUSERS”
You don’t want to be a “potential abuser”, do you?
That’s why you NEED THEIR “HELP”!
Many of these “Case Workers” OFTEN were (or see) THEMSELVES as having been somehow “victimized” as children, distrusts ALL parents, and exacts RETRIBUTION on YOU!

There is a desperate need to codify a NEW CLINICAL condition of “Old Dysfunctional Hippie Disorder” (ODHD)

Your every past word, deed, and thought are scrutinized under the New Age microscope. She will fabricate conjectures to cast you in the worst possible light.

You think quietly to yourself “I must have gotten the worst SOCIOPATH in their whole office”. But after a while you learn that THEY ARE ALL THAT WAY in every Child Protective Service office across the nation and around the world. Child “Protective” Services People fit the Profile of a Sociopath

If you maintain a HIGH MORAL or ETHICAL STANDARD of any kind, or if you are a Christian- you can expect SPECIAL ATTENTION for your standards- because they do not believe in ABSOLUTE right and wrong.

This is not about any ABUSE of children by parents, it’s a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED Cultural War

While you are going through all this, you are so shocked, terrified, confused, bewildered, and disoriented- it doesn’t occur to you that these people are running a SCAM on you under the COLOR OF LAW

They will try to keep you “confused” and “off balance” as long as possible. They strive to maintain themselves as the “god” over your life by “keeping you busy” complying with their absurd demands, seeing their “counselors”, and attending their compelled useless “classes” IMPLYING that it “might” help get your kids back, or THREATENING you with permanent termination if you don’t obey their every capricious whim.

They set these “meetings” up to require you to miss work. They DO NOT CARE if you lose your job.

In fact, it appears they WANT you to lose your job to make you DESTITUTE so YOU CAN’T AFFORD to fight them and “NEED” MORE OF THEIR “SERVICES”! They seem to especially enjoy setting meetings up to conflict WITH EACH OTHER and find you “non-compliant” for FAILING to be at BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

They operate through fear, threats, and intimidation.

You are afraid to go talk with a lawyer about what they are doing to you, because “it might make them mad”.

THEY ARE COUNTING on your “faith in the system” and your DISBELIEF that the flagrant injustice you are experiencing is anything but “just a misunderstanding”.These people COULDN’T be doing what it LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE DOING!

AT NO TIME, do they want it to occur to you that you have American Constitutional Rights and DO NOT “HAVE” TO PUT UP WITH their Nazi behavior. If the thought DOES CROSS YOUR MIND to even ASK- “What about my Rights?”, you will be met with nasty, foul, sickening threats.
By the time you start “wising up“, the trap has already snapped shut and you THINK you have to “play their game” to resolve the situation.
Then by the time you realize that you are going to LOSE your kids, your job, your house, and probably your marriage over this mind-boggling fraud,
NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO OR DON’T DO, the process is complete.
If they have your kids, you might continue trying to “comply” with their insane, impossible conditions (which they keep adding) for up to 2 years.

People end up “plea bargaining“, admitting “guilt” when they are completely innocent- because THEY TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO, TO GET YOUR KIDS BACK.

Of course, once you admit guilt, YOU ARE TOAST

Very, very few parents ever “win” this game.

The few who do win, mortgaged their home, cashed in all the College savings, got SECOND JOBS, borrowed money from all their relatives and LUCKILY hired a lawyer who HATES THE CPS and fights to WIN, not plea bargain. They might get their kids back, after the CPS has ruined them.

Bankruptcy and Divorces often follow. Few people recover from the ungodly trauma and Legal Abuse a CPS investigation puts them through. Those of us who have been through a malicious False Allegation are often called “paranoid” by people who have never been through it (who have “faith in the system” and DISBELIEVE YOU). But we aren’t deluded or irrational. We WERE persecuted.

As a newspaper editor remarked when I was discussing my case with him-

“It isn’t paranoia if THEY REALLY ARE out to get you”.

This industry, it’s agenda, and methods are an INTOLERABLE ABUSE of American Citizens, and a deliberate AFFRONT to American Constitutional Rights, Basic Human Rights, and even the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. — William H. Borah

If they haven’t attacked your family yet, we HIGHLY RECOMMEND our brochure “Family Survival Information- When your local Children’s Protective Service takes an interest in YOUR FAMILY”.

Be forewarned and ready to stand up for your Constitutional Rights. Your Constitutional Rights are your ONLY defense against these terrorists. When your Constitutional RIGHTS are gone, so is America. And we are very nearly there.

“Nothing is more dangerous than the idea that some public officials are above the law. If they are, then we don’t have law — and we won’t have freedom much longer either.” –Thomas Sowell


child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care, government, medicaid fraud
State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government©

State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government©Nev Moore Jan. ’02 AFRA

In 1974 Walter Mondale initiated CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), the legislation that began feeding federal funding into the state’s child welfare agencies. With remarkable foresight Mondale expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to systemic abuse in that the state agencies might over-process children into the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of federal dollars. Shortly after CAPTA was enacted there was a dramatic increase in the number of children in foster care, peaking at around 500,000 during the mid-70’s. George Miller, the Chairman of the federal Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, initiated an intensive investigation of the nation’s foster care system after the effects of CAPTA started to become apparent by the soaring numbers of children who were being placed in foster care. An official at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare admitted to Miller that the government had no idea where many of the nation’s 500,000 foster children where living, what services they were receiving, if any, or if any efforts were being made to reunite them with their families.To address the obvious free-for-all snatching of children that CAPTA had stimulated, the Committee crafted new federal legislation with the intent of creating accountability and clearer guidelines for the states child welfare agencies. During the crafting of P.L. 96-272 Chairman Miller’s concern was that the federal government was footing the bill for warehousing children in institutions and inappropriate settings without accountability. In 1980 the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, P.L. 96-272, was enacted. The act included provisions that “reasonable efforts” be made to prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from their homes and placed in foster care.

Although CPS has always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they are involved with families due to some sort of horrific child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate among national policy makers, researchers, and federal agencies that the vast majority of CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement, rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such. P.L. 96-272 came into effect partly because Congress determined that a large number of children were being unnecessarily removed from their homes, and, once removed, they were lost in the limbo of foster care for years, many until they just grew too old, when they were then put on the streets at the age of 18. The Child Welfare League of America testified before a senate subcommittee: “In fact, there were many instances then, as now, of children being removed unnecessarily from their families. It is important to recognize that children are almost always traumatized by removal from their own families.” So, accountability from each states child protection agency was also written in. To receive the federal money the states would have to submit an annual report to the federal government, known as an AFCARS report, that specifically accounts for each child in state care.

ACLU Children’s Rights Project attorney, Marcia Robinson Lowry, explained in her testimony to Congress: “As a condition of federal funding, states must have a reasonable information system to identify children in federally-funded state custody.” These requirements were implemented in 1980. Up until 1999 some states were still not filing their federally required AFCARS report to the federal government. According to Jeffrey Locke, former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, the excuse to the legislature was that they “couldn’t figure out how towork their computer system.”When I called Senator Therese Murray in 1998 to ask how many children had died in foster care in Massachusetts, her aide replied: “We don’t have those statistics.” At that time Senator Murray was the Senate Chair of the Committee on Health & Elderly Affairs, and therefore responsible to oversee the collection and filing of AFCARS data.The “reasonable efforts” requirements were designed to address these issues by requiring the states child welfare agencies to have specific investigation and assessment policies to minimize frivolous removals, to provide “services” to address and ameliorate conditions that were detrimental to the child’s well-being; to place children with relatives when removal from the home was absolutely necessary; and make efforts to reunite families in a timely fashion.

Methods to audit and track compliance with federal requirements were also built in. The states were to establish “citizen review panels” comprised of a specifically designated representation of the population which would include not only members of collateral professional communities involved in child protection, but “parents, foster parents, and former foster children.” Each state was to have at least three citizen review panels. The panels would essentially act as a standing jury of peers and would review CPS cases. Twenty years after P.L. 96- 272 went into effect the citizen review panels have never been established in most states.Another means of creating accountability was to have the federal authority, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, conduct compliance audits, which are known as Section 427 reviews. The method of enforcement that Congress devised to ensure that the states followed the federal law was to provide incentive funds to the states that documented their compliance with the federal regulations.

The states would self-certify compliance, but could be subjected to “periodic” 427 reviews by the Dept. of Health & Human Services. Were the states to find themselves in non-compliance they would simply return the incentive funds. It would seem that providing cash to agencies that are allowed to self-document compliance is a somewhat less than intelligent system. It would be interesting to track down exactly how much money the states child “protective” agencies have returned to the government because they found themselves in non-compliance. Gee, maybe this is rocket science.Like CAPTA, P.L. 96-272 could only have worked if the federal government demanded compliance and meticulous accountability, and them imposed sanctions for non-compliance. Even better – criminal charges for racketeering for intentional fraud. Mark Soler, director of the National Youth Law Center in California explained:
“The Department of Health & Human Services has failed to promulgate meaningful regulations to implement the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. It has applied even the minimal federal regulations that were developed in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and only token implementation of the laws protecting children.’

Even when HHS finds overwhelming evidence of lack of compliance during 427 reviews, no sanctions are imposed and they continue to keep the fed $$$ pouring in – in violation of their own regulations. Not so much as a slap on the hand or even token admonishment. Certainly explains how CPS developed their arrogance and contempt for any authority – because there is none. Their confidence that they are free from the feds insisting on compliance with the law is well illustrated by the foster care numbers which increased dramatically after CAPTA began feeding federal dollars into the states child protection agencies, then dropped equally dramatically after the enactment of P.L.96-272, which was supposed to create more specific federal regulation and accountability.

However, once the state agencies saw that the federal government was not enforcing compliance, the foster care numbers soared once again.

Michael Petit, Deputy Director of the Child Welfare League of America, stated in his testimony before Congress: “A 427 is a meaningless process for most of the states. It represents no kind of sanctions to the states whatsoever for non-compliance.” Marcia Robinson Lowry told Congress: “States are passing HHS audits with systems in which no reasonable person could consider that children are being well treated. It is virtually impossible to fail a 427 audit.”The initial concept of “reasonable efforts” was the only conclusion that any rational person could come to: rather than disrupt children’s lives, and traumatize them by seizing them from non- abusive situations and placing them with strangers (who are often no better, and sometimes far worse), assist families in overcoming their obstacles and problems by providing support and services.

The idea never worked, though, because it has always been more profitable to too many to remove children rather than keep them at home. Rather than offer support and simple, practical services to families CPS forged contracts with vendors. Now private businesses, under the guise of “service providers”, could mushroom into existence knowing that their sugar daddy, CPS, would provide a never-ending flow of coerced clients. The market potential is unlimited – potentially every mother, father, grandparent, and child in the country. Rather than offering practical, meaningful services that are germane to the families circumstances, CPS clients are ordered to engage in “services” with CPS-contracted vendors; special interest groups who are dependent on CPS for their income and profit by maintaining the levels of children in foster care, and whose interests are protected by a bureaucracy intent on securing it’s own survival and protecting unlimited growth.The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate while being so far out of compliance with the existing state and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge to find any other agency in our countries history that operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with absolutely no intervention from the administration.

Tens of millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional ruin to children – and those are the lucky ones who live through it.The most egregious area of outright criminal fraud is CPS’s practice of filing their federally required documentation of compliance in secrecy through the courts. The federal foster care reimbursements are channeled through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. Each states child welfare agency enters into a contract with the federal government, which is referred to as their Title IV-E state plan. It is this contract that spells out the responsibilities that CPS must, by law, comply with in order to receive their federal funding. To document compliance with the fed regs CPS must file a form through the courts in each individual case. In

Massachusetts these forms are referred to as a “29-C.” 42 U.S. Code, ss 672 reads:

“These requirements are not mere formalities. The Finance Committee of Congress, in preparing its summary for final passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, stated; ` The Committee is aware of allegations that the judicial determination requirement (sic: that a judge makes a determination that a child needs to be removed from the home) can become a
mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain federal funding.

While this could occur in some instances, the Committee is unwilling to accept as a general proposition that the judiciaries of the States would so lightly treat a responsibility placed upon them by federal statute for the protection of children.”

1980 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News:

“A judicial determination of those efforts (reasonable efforts, as defined in the Act) serves to closely examine, in the case of each individual child, whether reasonable efforts were made to keep the family intact.”

In accordance with the federal requirements the Massachusetts legislature enacted G.L. c.119 ss 29b, which requires all judges to certify that the Department of Social Services met the obligation grounded in the federal statute of making reasonable efforts to protect the child short of removing him or her from the parents, and, if the child was removed, making it possible for the child to return home in a timely manner.

Rather than “closely examining”, in Massachusetts this grave responsibility is carried out by judges by rubber stamping stacks of 29c forms that simply contain three “yes” or “no” check boxes. In many instances making three check marks is even too much work for Massachusetts judges and they rubber stamp the forms while leaving them blank – never mind actually verifying that the “reasonable efforts” were made. In return for these forms DSS receives it’s federal money.

The three questions are:

1. Continuation in the home is contrary to the well being of the child?

2. Reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his/her home?

3. Reasonable efforts have been made to make it possible for the child to return to his parent/guardian?

I discussed this issue a few years ago with Veronica Melendez at the Children’s Bureau (the federal authority). She told me that the federal government was under the impression that all parties were present in the court room at the time of the filing of the 29c’s, so that the parents attorneys had the opportunity to object, rebut, or verify the “reasonable efforts.”

In reality, no one sees the federal forms except the judges and a representative of DSS’s main legal department. Attorneys ask us how we ever “got our hands on” the 29c forms, as we have never yet met an attorney who has seen the forms, let alone have been notified of the filing hearing. We even have forms on which the “no” boxes were checked, yet the children were still removed from their homes and federal funds collected for them.

By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent.

CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office.

They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E. I have discussed this issue with the Inspector Generals Office and they felt it could possible be prosecuted under RICO, yet they have also failed to act, possibly because it isn’t just CPS/DSS who is committing federal fraud, but also the judges who are signing the documents.

In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child “protection”, and stated:

“What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it’s illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse.”

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care, government, medicaid fraud
State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government©

State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government©Nev Moore Jan. ’02 AFRA

In 1974 Walter Mondale initiated CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), the legislation that began feeding federal funding into the state’s child welfare agencies. With remarkable foresight Mondale expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to systemic abuse in that the state agencies might over-process children into the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of federal dollars. Shortly after CAPTA was enacted there was a dramatic increase in the number of children in foster care, peaking at around 500,000 during the mid-70’s. George Miller, the Chairman of the federal Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, initiated an intensive investigation of the nation’s foster care system after the effects of CAPTA started to become apparent by the soaring numbers of children who were being placed in foster care. An official at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare admitted to Miller that the government had no idea where many of the nation’s 500,000 foster children where living, what services they were receiving, if any, or if any efforts were being made to reunite them with their families.To address the obvious free-for-all snatching of children that CAPTA had stimulated, the Committee crafted new federal legislation with the intent of creating accountability and clearer guidelines for the states child welfare agencies. During the crafting of P.L. 96-272 Chairman Miller’s concern was that the federal government was footing the bill for warehousing children in institutions and inappropriate settings without accountability. In 1980 the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, P.L. 96-272, was enacted. The act included provisions that “reasonable efforts” be made to prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from their homes and placed in foster care.

Although CPS has always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they are involved with families due to some sort of horrific child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate among national policy makers, researchers, and federal agencies that the vast majority of CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement, rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such. P.L. 96-272 came into effect partly because Congress determined that a large number of children were being unnecessarily removed from their homes, and, once removed, they were lost in the limbo of foster care for years, many until they just grew too old, when they were then put on the streets at the age of 18. The Child Welfare League of America testified before a senate subcommittee: “In fact, there were many instances then, as now, of children being removed unnecessarily from their families. It is important to recognize that children are almost always traumatized by removal from their own families.” So, accountability from each states child protection agency was also written in. To receive the federal money the states would have to submit an annual report to the federal government, known as an AFCARS report, that specifically accounts for each child in state care.

ACLU Children’s Rights Project attorney, Marcia Robinson Lowry, explained in her testimony to Congress: “As a condition of federal funding, states must have a reasonable information system to identify children in federally-funded state custody.” These requirements were implemented in 1980. Up until 1999 some states were still not filing their federally required AFCARS report to the federal government. According to Jeffrey Locke, former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, the excuse to the legislature was that they “couldn’t figure out how towork their computer system.”When I called Senator Therese Murray in 1998 to ask how many children had died in foster care in Massachusetts, her aide replied: “We don’t have those statistics.” At that time Senator Murray was the Senate Chair of the Committee on Health & Elderly Affairs, and therefore responsible to oversee the collection and filing of AFCARS data.The “reasonable efforts” requirements were designed to address these issues by requiring the states child welfare agencies to have specific investigation and assessment policies to minimize frivolous removals, to provide “services” to address and ameliorate conditions that were detrimental to the child’s well-being; to place children with relatives when removal from the home was absolutely necessary; and make efforts to reunite families in a timely fashion.

Methods to audit and track compliance with federal requirements were also built in. The states were to establish “citizen review panels” comprised of a specifically designated representation of the population which would include not only members of collateral professional communities involved in child protection, but “parents, foster parents, and former foster children.” Each state was to have at least three citizen review panels. The panels would essentially act as a standing jury of peers and would review CPS cases. Twenty years after P.L. 96- 272 went into effect the citizen review panels have never been established in most states.Another means of creating accountability was to have the federal authority, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, conduct compliance audits, which are known as Section 427 reviews. The method of enforcement that Congress devised to ensure that the states followed the federal law was to provide incentive funds to the states that documented their compliance with the federal regulations.

The states would self-certify compliance, but could be subjected to “periodic” 427 reviews by the Dept. of Health & Human Services. Were the states to find themselves in non-compliance they would simply return the incentive funds. It would seem that providing cash to agencies that are allowed to self-document compliance is a somewhat less than intelligent system. It would be interesting to track down exactly how much money the states child “protective” agencies have returned to the government because they found themselves in non-compliance. Gee, maybe this is rocket science.Like CAPTA, P.L. 96-272 could only have worked if the federal government demanded compliance and meticulous accountability, and them imposed sanctions for non-compliance. Even better – criminal charges for racketeering for intentional fraud. Mark Soler, director of the National Youth Law Center in California explained:
“The Department of Health & Human Services has failed to promulgate meaningful regulations to implement the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. It has applied even the minimal federal regulations that were developed in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and only token implementation of the laws protecting children.’

Even when HHS finds overwhelming evidence of lack of compliance during 427 reviews, no sanctions are imposed and they continue to keep the fed $$$ pouring in – in violation of their own regulations. Not so much as a slap on the hand or even token admonishment. Certainly explains how CPS developed their arrogance and contempt for any authority – because there is none. Their confidence that they are free from the feds insisting on compliance with the law is well illustrated by the foster care numbers which increased dramatically after CAPTA began feeding federal dollars into the states child protection agencies, then dropped equally dramatically after the enactment of P.L.96-272, which was supposed to create more specific federal regulation and accountability.

However, once the state agencies saw that the federal government was not enforcing compliance, the foster care numbers soared once again.

Michael Petit, Deputy Director of the Child Welfare League of America, stated in his testimony before Congress: “A 427 is a meaningless process for most of the states. It represents no kind of sanctions to the states whatsoever for non-compliance.” Marcia Robinson Lowry told Congress: “States are passing HHS audits with systems in which no reasonable person could consider that children are being well treated. It is virtually impossible to fail a 427 audit.”The initial concept of “reasonable efforts” was the only conclusion that any rational person could come to: rather than disrupt children’s lives, and traumatize them by seizing them from non- abusive situations and placing them with strangers (who are often no better, and sometimes far worse), assist families in overcoming their obstacles and problems by providing support and services.

The idea never worked, though, because it has always been more profitable to too many to remove children rather than keep them at home. Rather than offer support and simple, practical services to families CPS forged contracts with vendors. Now private businesses, under the guise of “service providers”, could mushroom into existence knowing that their sugar daddy, CPS, would provide a never-ending flow of coerced clients. The market potential is unlimited – potentially every mother, father, grandparent, and child in the country. Rather than offering practical, meaningful services that are germane to the families circumstances, CPS clients are ordered to engage in “services” with CPS-contracted vendors; special interest groups who are dependent on CPS for their income and profit by maintaining the levels of children in foster care, and whose interests are protected by a bureaucracy intent on securing it’s own survival and protecting unlimited growth.The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate while being so far out of compliance with the existing state and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge to find any other agency in our countries history that operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with absolutely no intervention from the administration.

Tens of millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional ruin to children – and those are the lucky ones who live through it.The most egregious area of outright criminal fraud is CPS’s practice of filing their federally required documentation of compliance in secrecy through the courts. The federal foster care reimbursements are channeled through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. Each states child welfare agency enters into a contract with the federal government, which is referred to as their Title IV-E state plan. It is this contract that spells out the responsibilities that CPS must, by law, comply with in order to receive their federal funding. To document compliance with the fed regs CPS must file a form through the courts in each individual case. In

Massachusetts these forms are referred to as a “29-C.” 42 U.S. Code, ss 672 reads:

“These requirements are not mere formalities. The Finance Committee of Congress, in preparing its summary for final passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, stated; ` The Committee is aware of allegations that the judicial determination requirement (sic: that a judge makes a determination that a child needs to be removed from the home) can become a
mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain federal funding.

While this could occur in some instances, the Committee is unwilling to accept as a general proposition that the judiciaries of the States would so lightly treat a responsibility placed upon them by federal statute for the protection of children.”

1980 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News:

“A judicial determination of those efforts (reasonable efforts, as defined in the Act) serves to closely examine, in the case of each individual child, whether reasonable efforts were made to keep the family intact.”

In accordance with the federal requirements the Massachusetts legislature enacted G.L. c.119 ss 29b, which requires all judges to certify that the Department of Social Services met the obligation grounded in the federal statute of making reasonable efforts to protect the child short of removing him or her from the parents, and, if the child was removed, making it possible for the child to return home in a timely manner.

Rather than “closely examining”, in Massachusetts this grave responsibility is carried out by judges by rubber stamping stacks of 29c forms that simply contain three “yes” or “no” check boxes. In many instances making three check marks is even too much work for Massachusetts judges and they rubber stamp the forms while leaving them blank – never mind actually verifying that the “reasonable efforts” were made. In return for these forms DSS receives it’s federal money.

The three questions are:

1. Continuation in the home is contrary to the well being of the child?

2. Reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his/her home?

3. Reasonable efforts have been made to make it possible for the child to return to his parent/guardian?

I discussed this issue a few years ago with Veronica Melendez at the Children’s Bureau (the federal authority). She told me that the federal government was under the impression that all parties were present in the court room at the time of the filing of the 29c’s, so that the parents attorneys had the opportunity to object, rebut, or verify the “reasonable efforts.”

In reality, no one sees the federal forms except the judges and a representative of DSS’s main legal department. Attorneys ask us how we ever “got our hands on” the 29c forms, as we have never yet met an attorney who has seen the forms, let alone have been notified of the filing hearing. We even have forms on which the “no” boxes were checked, yet the children were still removed from their homes and federal funds collected for them.

By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent.

CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office.

They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E. I have discussed this issue with the Inspector Generals Office and they felt it could possible be prosecuted under RICO, yet they have also failed to act, possibly because it isn’t just CPS/DSS who is committing federal fraud, but also the judges who are signing the documents.

In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child “protection”, and stated:

“What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it’s illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse.”

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care
— PROBLEM STATEMENT —

I. State and federally funded Child Protective Service agencies are arbitrarily seizing children from non-abusive homes in the absence of evidence or realistic cause to believe that the child is in danger of harm, and in gross violation of their own protocols, state and federal regulations, and the Constitution of the United States.

II. For both parent and child there can be nothing in our life experience more devastating than the abrupt, brutal, and unwarranted enforced separation by strangers. The parent-child bond is our strongest instinct, superceding all else. To have this bond abruptly severed by strangers who possess unhindered power, and who give no thought or consideration to the fear, anxiety, and trauma that their actions cause, is a crime against humanity. Yet it is happening to 4600 American children per day, right here in the United States. Small children believe their parents to be all-powerful, like super heroes. They believe that their parents possess an all-powerful ability to shelter and protect them from any threat. When parents are powerless to prevent strangers from abducting the child from all that is safe and familiar to him/her, a fundamental belief system within the child is broken forever, along with the child’s ability to feel safe and secure in their world. As parents are forced to sit by placidly, under the threat of never seeing their child again, a small child may believe that the parents gave him/her away because he or she was “bad”, and the child’s belief in their parents love is also destroyed. In a small child’s mind he or she will be thinking: “Why aren’t mom and dad fighting the bad guys and taking me home?” We have received many `phone calls from parents who have been devastated when their child screams at them: “You LET them TAKE ME away!” This is an act of emotional and psychological terrorism against a child.III. The law states that a child can only be removed from his or her home as a last resort, and only when the child is at imminent risk of serious harm. The problem is that the SS (social services) does not follow established law & policy, and nobody makes them. They face no consequences for appalling and illegal behavior. The police must submit to the whims of the SS. Judges go along with the SS, allowing them to control court process, rather than fulfilling their judicial canons by insisting that due process is followed, laws adhered to, and that procedural error is not tolerated. Few parents are criminally charged with anything, rather, they are subjected to a highly irregular “civil” proceeding that makes a complete mockery of our judicial system. Parents are often told they may not speak or present exculpatory evidence.

III. Children are not allowed to be present or express their wishes if they want to go home. The SS claims that this would “involve the child in adult issues” and “traumatize them”. However, the instant a child says they want to be adopted, the SS runs them into the courtroom, stating that they must “honor the child’s wishes.”IV. Federal statistics say that there are approximately 3 million reports of suspected child abuse and neglect each year. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services documents 900,000 as “substantiated”, leaving over 2 million families per year falsely accused of child maltreatment! Of the “substantiated” cases, 68% do NOT involve child maltreatment, according to the federal authorities. This figure is escalating at an alarming rate each year as over zealous reporting and frivolous intervention by the SS spins out of control.V. Actual acts of child abuse or severe neglect are not the primary allegations used To seize children from their families., meaning deliberate acts, willfully committed with the intent to harm – contrary to public assumption. The SS employs a method known as the “Clinical Model”, in which the behaviors of the child are use to claim that there is some sort of obscure psychological abuse in the home that has traumatized the child.

IV. Therefore, if your child exhibits any normal, predictable behavior of childhood:
outgoing, quite, active, shy, placid, disobedient, obedient, neat, messy, loud, easy going, or temperamental – any behavior will be used to “prove” that the child is “acting out their inability to verbalize the trauma.”

V. NOTHING is just plain normal predictable, unpredictable human behavior as it has existed for 3 million years. EVERYTHING has some deep, dark, bizarre (and completely illogical..) “meaning”, that can only be seen by 23 year-old, childless, poorly educated social workers with little life experience, and all of which supports the prevailing political climate that ALL parents are inadequate and abusive, so children must be raised by the state. Welcome to “Junk Psychology For Dollars”!

VI. The state gains entrée’ into private homes via the filing of a report of suspected child maltreatment. A report may be filed anonymously by anyone, a vindictive neighbor, a stranger who saw you yell at your child at the grocery store, a disgruntled employee, an ex-spouse, a teacher, a day care provider, someone whose romantic interest you rejected, or any unstable busybody.

“Abuse” reports are filed (and investigated) for head lice (usually contracted at school..), diaper rash, taking your child to the ER too often, leaving your child in the car while you run into the store, ear infections, not sending a snack or mittens to school, parents arguing in front of child, home schooling, spanking; ANY bruise, injury, or scrape inevitably incurred in the normal course of childhood; poverty issues, dirty clothing, no electricity, ANY “nudie” photos of toddlers playing in the sprinkler or in the tub. A yeast or urinary tract infection is now likely to bring an allegation of sexual abuse, although they are a common result of antibiotic use, careless hygiene, or a diet high in simple carbohydrates.

VI. Normal, innocent people do not tend to be suspicious and defensive, so they usually cooperate when the SS knocks on their door. We universally hear: “We have nothing to hide, so we invited them in, served them coffee, and were open and honest. Now our children are gone, and we don’t know how this could happen in this country!”

VII. Once the SS gains entree’ the family is put under a powerful, and distorted, microscope. “Social workers” will ask bizarre and invasive questions. Do the parents ever argue? Do they ever raise their voices? This is documented as “domestic violence.” No surprise here, the majority of the funding for domestic violence programs is channeled through CPS. If parents deny domestic abuse or child abuse, they are condescendingly told that they are “in denial”, and this is all “part of the syndrome.” Admitting – confessing – is one of the requirements. Truth is not important. Saying the right things to keep federal funding flowing, is. You could be asked, as could your child (even a three or four year-old) if you have ever touched them in the chest or genital are. Obviously, after bathing, wiping, applying ointment, etc., any parent must answer “yes.” Anyone who admits to having a drink occasionally is labeled “alcoholic and dysfunctional.” (Powerful, wealthy politicians evidently have an exemption). Under the SS microscope every word, inflection, and action is attributed with the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous “meanings.” If you have ever bounced a check, you have a “criminal record”; if your child is shy, they are “fearful and withdrawn”; if they are outgoing and active, they are “acting out due to the trauma.” This is crazy, you say? Oh good, you’re catching on now!

VIII. Once a child is seized by the state the parents are offered a sham civil court proceeding. In most cases the parents are never actually charged with anything. In many states you must not only be charged, but convicted of a crime to lose your drivers license. But, you can lose your children from an anonymous `phone call, with NO involvement from law enforcement, and NO charges of Any wrong-doing. The SS controls the courtroom and employs the tactic of delay to keep families separated. Parents may go to scheduled court dates 30 – 50 – 80 times, only to be told, after waiting in the hall all day, that their case has been continued – yet again. This can, and does, go on for months, and, even years, while children are separated from their families. If parents actually get inside the court room they are usually told they may not speak – and usually their court appointed attorneys won’t do much speaking either. Exculpatory evidence is either not allowed, or “disappears” from the case file.

IX. These cases degenerate into an exercise in character assassination and slander by the SS where actual acts of child abuse or neglect that place the child at “imminent risk of serious harm” are not even discussed. Rather, vague, obscure, and distorted allegations about the parents personalities comprise the bulk of the court room testimony, including the parents “denial”, “hostility”, and “uncooperativeness.” Judges should be questioning – and striking – such testimony Based on relevance, but they don’t. The SS rules the court room and the judges simply abdicate their sworn oath and go along. The new federal law gives the SS 15 months to seek Termination of Parental Rights and have the child adopted out, so, children are being put up for adoption based on the timeline, even when parents have not had a chance to answer the initial allegations, and in the absence of any evidence or charges that they have harmed their child! Social workers routinely perjure themselves under oath without ever facing admonishment (let alone charges) from a judge.

This system is a SCAM, and makes a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs in our country.VIII. These children are placed in state contracted foster homes and institutions. All get federal benefits. Residentials and institutions hold multi-million dollar contracts with the social service agencies. Children are drugged, restrained, put in straight-jackets (they call them “safety coats” now); they are sexually, physically, and emotionally abused and tormented. Abuse that is far, far more egregious than the initial allegations made against the parents, and which would be prosecuted criminally were it to occur anywhere else.

X. In 2000 Time magazine printed a special issue on foster abuse and fatalities, calling it “America’s shame.” We’ve been calling it that for years. Abuse reports against foster homes and other SS contracted facilities is covered up. Police tell us that, if they receive abuse reports concerning a foster home, they have been directed to turn such reports back to the SS, so they self-investigate – which means they throw the complaints in the dumpster.Why is this happening? One factor is unmonitored federal funding ($14. Billion per year). The other is a huge industry that is providing private profit through Medicaid fraud. Service providers (vendors) hold multi-million dollar contracts with the social service agencies. The families are ordered to engage in “services” with the contracted vendors, all of whom bill Medicaid at astronomically inflated rates for “services” that are often inappropriate, unnecessary, and completely irrelevant to the families situation, or to child maltreatment.

Families are coerced into participating by intimidation and the threat of losing their children. In return for the fraudulently collected profits, the contracted vendors provide manufactured “evidence” of child maltreatment to support the SS claim that they need to keep the child in foster care. In return for this they receive more federal funding.

As an example, the Massachusetts DSS receives $700. Million a year in state funding alone. Not bad. Behind the money there is a socialist ideology that children should be raised by the state. Yes, even here in America. This agenda was promoted by people like Dr. C. Henry Kempe in the 1970’s.

An open supporter of the Communist party regime who instructed:
“We must remove children from the crude influence of their families and, frankly, nationalize them.” Dr. Kempe emphasized the need for a “stealthy, incremental approach” to implementing the agenda to make families obsolete.

This is a huge, complex, ugly picture.

We don’t want to believe it can happen here in our beloved country. But it is.

4600 times per day.

So I am impelled to reach out to EVERY sane, rational American with a conscience to stand up and let your voice be heard… before it’s too late.

Thank-you for your time.

Nev Moore
Justice for Families
http://www.justiceforfamilies.com

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, family, foster care
— PROBLEM STATEMENT —

I. State and federally funded Child Protective Service agencies are arbitrarily seizing children from non-abusive homes in the absence of evidence or realistic cause to believe that the child is in danger of harm, and in gross violation of their own protocols, state and federal regulations, and the Constitution of the United States.

II. For both parent and child there can be nothing in our life experience more devastating than the abrupt, brutal, and unwarranted enforced separation by strangers. The parent-child bond is our strongest instinct, superceding all else. To have this bond abruptly severed by strangers who possess unhindered power, and who give no thought or consideration to the fear, anxiety, and trauma that their actions cause, is a crime against humanity. Yet it is happening to 4600 American children per day, right here in the United States. Small children believe their parents to be all-powerful, like super heroes. They believe that their parents possess an all-powerful ability to shelter and protect them from any threat. When parents are powerless to prevent strangers from abducting the child from all that is safe and familiar to him/her, a fundamental belief system within the child is broken forever, along with the child’s ability to feel safe and secure in their world. As parents are forced to sit by placidly, under the threat of never seeing their child again, a small child may believe that the parents gave him/her away because he or she was “bad”, and the child’s belief in their parents love is also destroyed. In a small child’s mind he or she will be thinking: “Why aren’t mom and dad fighting the bad guys and taking me home?” We have received many `phone calls from parents who have been devastated when their child screams at them: “You LET them TAKE ME away!” This is an act of emotional and psychological terrorism against a child.III. The law states that a child can only be removed from his or her home as a last resort, and only when the child is at imminent risk of serious harm. The problem is that the SS (social services) does not follow established law & policy, and nobody makes them. They face no consequences for appalling and illegal behavior. The police must submit to the whims of the SS. Judges go along with the SS, allowing them to control court process, rather than fulfilling their judicial canons by insisting that due process is followed, laws adhered to, and that procedural error is not tolerated. Few parents are criminally charged with anything, rather, they are subjected to a highly irregular “civil” proceeding that makes a complete mockery of our judicial system. Parents are often told they may not speak or present exculpatory evidence.

III. Children are not allowed to be present or express their wishes if they want to go home. The SS claims that this would “involve the child in adult issues” and “traumatize them”. However, the instant a child says they want to be adopted, the SS runs them into the courtroom, stating that they must “honor the child’s wishes.”IV. Federal statistics say that there are approximately 3 million reports of suspected child abuse and neglect each year. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services documents 900,000 as “substantiated”, leaving over 2 million families per year falsely accused of child maltreatment! Of the “substantiated” cases, 68% do NOT involve child maltreatment, according to the federal authorities. This figure is escalating at an alarming rate each year as over zealous reporting and frivolous intervention by the SS spins out of control.V. Actual acts of child abuse or severe neglect are not the primary allegations used To seize children from their families., meaning deliberate acts, willfully committed with the intent to harm – contrary to public assumption. The SS employs a method known as the “Clinical Model”, in which the behaviors of the child are use to claim that there is some sort of obscure psychological abuse in the home that has traumatized the child.

IV. Therefore, if your child exhibits any normal, predictable behavior of childhood:
outgoing, quite, active, shy, placid, disobedient, obedient, neat, messy, loud, easy going, or temperamental – any behavior will be used to “prove” that the child is “acting out their inability to verbalize the trauma.”

V. NOTHING is just plain normal predictable, unpredictable human behavior as it has existed for 3 million years. EVERYTHING has some deep, dark, bizarre (and completely illogical..) “meaning”, that can only be seen by 23 year-old, childless, poorly educated social workers with little life experience, and all of which supports the prevailing political climate that ALL parents are inadequate and abusive, so children must be raised by the state. Welcome to “Junk Psychology For Dollars”!

VI. The state gains entrée’ into private homes via the filing of a report of suspected child maltreatment. A report may be filed anonymously by anyone, a vindictive neighbor, a stranger who saw you yell at your child at the grocery store, a disgruntled employee, an ex-spouse, a teacher, a day care provider, someone whose romantic interest you rejected, or any unstable busybody.

“Abuse” reports are filed (and investigated) for head lice (usually contracted at school..), diaper rash, taking your child to the ER too often, leaving your child in the car while you run into the store, ear infections, not sending a snack or mittens to school, parents arguing in front of child, home schooling, spanking; ANY bruise, injury, or scrape inevitably incurred in the normal course of childhood; poverty issues, dirty clothing, no electricity, ANY “nudie” photos of toddlers playing in the sprinkler or in the tub. A yeast or urinary tract infection is now likely to bring an allegation of sexual abuse, although they are a common result of antibiotic use, careless hygiene, or a diet high in simple carbohydrates.

VI. Normal, innocent people do not tend to be suspicious and defensive, so they usually cooperate when the SS knocks on their door. We universally hear: “We have nothing to hide, so we invited them in, served them coffee, and were open and honest. Now our children are gone, and we don’t know how this could happen in this country!”

VII. Once the SS gains entree’ the family is put under a powerful, and distorted, microscope. “Social workers” will ask bizarre and invasive questions. Do the parents ever argue? Do they ever raise their voices? This is documented as “domestic violence.” No surprise here, the majority of the funding for domestic violence programs is channeled through CPS. If parents deny domestic abuse or child abuse, they are condescendingly told that they are “in denial”, and this is all “part of the syndrome.” Admitting – confessing – is one of the requirements. Truth is not important. Saying the right things to keep federal funding flowing, is. You could be asked, as could your child (even a three or four year-old) if you have ever touched them in the chest or genital are. Obviously, after bathing, wiping, applying ointment, etc., any parent must answer “yes.” Anyone who admits to having a drink occasionally is labeled “alcoholic and dysfunctional.” (Powerful, wealthy politicians evidently have an exemption). Under the SS microscope every word, inflection, and action is attributed with the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous “meanings.” If you have ever bounced a check, you have a “criminal record”; if your child is shy, they are “fearful and withdrawn”; if they are outgoing and active, they are “acting out due to the trauma.” This is crazy, you say? Oh good, you’re catching on now!

VIII. Once a child is seized by the state the parents are offered a sham civil court proceeding. In most cases the parents are never actually charged with anything. In many states you must not only be charged, but convicted of a crime to lose your drivers license. But, you can lose your children from an anonymous `phone call, with NO involvement from law enforcement, and NO charges of Any wrong-doing. The SS controls the courtroom and employs the tactic of delay to keep families separated. Parents may go to scheduled court dates 30 – 50 – 80 times, only to be told, after waiting in the hall all day, that their case has been continued – yet again. This can, and does, go on for months, and, even years, while children are separated from their families. If parents actually get inside the court room they are usually told they may not speak – and usually their court appointed attorneys won’t do much speaking either. Exculpatory evidence is either not allowed, or “disappears” from the case file.

IX. These cases degenerate into an exercise in character assassination and slander by the SS where actual acts of child abuse or neglect that place the child at “imminent risk of serious harm” are not even discussed. Rather, vague, obscure, and distorted allegations about the parents personalities comprise the bulk of the court room testimony, including the parents “denial”, “hostility”, and “uncooperativeness.” Judges should be questioning – and striking – such testimony Based on relevance, but they don’t. The SS rules the court room and the judges simply abdicate their sworn oath and go along. The new federal law gives the SS 15 months to seek Termination of Parental Rights and have the child adopted out, so, children are being put up for adoption based on the timeline, even when parents have not had a chance to answer the initial allegations, and in the absence of any evidence or charges that they have harmed their child! Social workers routinely perjure themselves under oath without ever facing admonishment (let alone charges) from a judge.

This system is a SCAM, and makes a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs in our country.VIII. These children are placed in state contracted foster homes and institutions. All get federal benefits. Residentials and institutions hold multi-million dollar contracts with the social service agencies. Children are drugged, restrained, put in straight-jackets (they call them “safety coats” now); they are sexually, physically, and emotionally abused and tormented. Abuse that is far, far more egregious than the initial allegations made against the parents, and which would be prosecuted criminally were it to occur anywhere else.

X. In 2000 Time magazine printed a special issue on foster abuse and fatalities, calling it “America’s shame.” We’ve been calling it that for years. Abuse reports against foster homes and other SS contracted facilities is covered up. Police tell us that, if they receive abuse reports concerning a foster home, they have been directed to turn such reports back to the SS, so they self-investigate – which means they throw the complaints in the dumpster.Why is this happening? One factor is unmonitored federal funding ($14. Billion per year). The other is a huge industry that is providing private profit through Medicaid fraud. Service providers (vendors) hold multi-million dollar contracts with the social service agencies. The families are ordered to engage in “services” with the contracted vendors, all of whom bill Medicaid at astronomically inflated rates for “services” that are often inappropriate, unnecessary, and completely irrelevant to the families situation, or to child maltreatment.

Families are coerced into participating by intimidation and the threat of losing their children. In return for the fraudulently collected profits, the contracted vendors provide manufactured “evidence” of child maltreatment to support the SS claim that they need to keep the child in foster care. In return for this they receive more federal funding.

As an example, the Massachusetts DSS receives $700. Million a year in state funding alone. Not bad. Behind the money there is a socialist ideology that children should be raised by the state. Yes, even here in America. This agenda was promoted by people like Dr. C. Henry Kempe in the 1970’s.

An open supporter of the Communist party regime who instructed:
“We must remove children from the crude influence of their families and, frankly, nationalize them.” Dr. Kempe emphasized the need for a “stealthy, incremental approach” to implementing the agenda to make families obsolete.

This is a huge, complex, ugly picture.

We don’t want to believe it can happen here in our beloved country. But it is.

4600 times per day.

So I am impelled to reach out to EVERY sane, rational American with a conscience to stand up and let your voice be heard… before it’s too late.

Thank-you for your time.

Nev Moore
Justice for Families
http://www.justiceforfamilies.com

cps, education, family, government, system failure
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

Click to return to the Online Privacy outline


privatop3.gifThe Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

0093-adobe-id-220aspqb101-401.jpg The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus spending bill in 1998. It took effect in April 2000. Before passage, COPPA received one hearing in the Senate and no separate consideration in the House.

COPPA requires “verifiable parental consent” before a commercial website operator may collect information like e-mail addresses from children. For the internal use of the website, this means getting an e-mail from the parent. For other uses, this means talking to a parent, or getting a parent’s snail mail, fax, or credit card number.

The premise of the bill is politically bullet-proof: We must protect children. gse_multipart59170.jpg

The details are more tricky: Protect them from what?

Congress passed this law in the absence of evidence that collection of information by commercial websites harms children in any way. In fact, commercial websites pose little danger to children because they stay in business by making children and their parents comfortable and safe. The next best reason for the law is the idea that marketing to children somehow harms them. If this is the case, television is the monsterous threat, not the Internet.

Yet the COPPA law singled out the Internet for special regulation. This raised the cost of serving children online by $50,000 to $100,000 dollars per website, with additional per-child costs as well. On the Internet, which is driven by diversity and small business innovation, this is a lot. It means that new ways of teaching children will not develop and competition for serving children will be thwarted. Instead, dominant Internet companies will capture the children’s market.

More importantly, many children will lose access to valuable educational content and healthy online interaction. These will tend to be the children of poor, non-English speaking, or absentee parents. Other children will learn that lying about their ages gives them access to worlds that other children enjoy. Either way, COPPA shows again that their is no substitute for parenting, online or off.

Links:

Disney: The Mouse That Won’t Roar by Ben Charny, ZDNet News (October 11, 2000)

Internet Sites for Children Say New Law Hurting Business San Jose Mercury (AP) (September 13, 2000)

Privacy, Microsoft, and the Feds: This Recipe for Disaster Just Got Us a Little Steamed by Stuart McClure and Joel Scambray, InfoWorld.com (May 19, 2000)

Internet Privacy Law Costs a Bundle by Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Network World (May 16, 2000)

Cybersitters Report for Assigned Duties by Sonia Arrison, Washington Times (May 6, 2000)

The Hidden Costs of Online Privacy by James W. Harper, Tech Central Station (March 27, 2000)

cps, education, family, government, system failure
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

Click to return to the Online Privacy outline


privatop3.gifThe Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

0093-adobe-id-220aspqb101-401.jpg The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus spending bill in 1998. It took effect in April 2000. Before passage, COPPA received one hearing in the Senate and no separate consideration in the House.

COPPA requires “verifiable parental consent” before a commercial website operator may collect information like e-mail addresses from children. For the internal use of the website, this means getting an e-mail from the parent. For other uses, this means talking to a parent, or getting a parent’s snail mail, fax, or credit card number.

The premise of the bill is politically bullet-proof: We must protect children. gse_multipart59170.jpg

The details are more tricky: Protect them from what?

Congress passed this law in the absence of evidence that collection of information by commercial websites harms children in any way. In fact, commercial websites pose little danger to children because they stay in business by making children and their parents comfortable and safe. The next best reason for the law is the idea that marketing to children somehow harms them. If this is the case, television is the monsterous threat, not the Internet.

Yet the COPPA law singled out the Internet for special regulation. This raised the cost of serving children online by $50,000 to $100,000 dollars per website, with additional per-child costs as well. On the Internet, which is driven by diversity and small business innovation, this is a lot. It means that new ways of teaching children will not develop and competition for serving children will be thwarted. Instead, dominant Internet companies will capture the children’s market.

More importantly, many children will lose access to valuable educational content and healthy online interaction. These will tend to be the children of poor, non-English speaking, or absentee parents. Other children will learn that lying about their ages gives them access to worlds that other children enjoy. Either way, COPPA shows again that their is no substitute for parenting, online or off.

Links:

Disney: The Mouse That Won’t Roar by Ben Charny, ZDNet News (October 11, 2000)

Internet Sites for Children Say New Law Hurting Business San Jose Mercury (AP) (September 13, 2000)

Privacy, Microsoft, and the Feds: This Recipe for Disaster Just Got Us a Little Steamed by Stuart McClure and Joel Scambray, InfoWorld.com (May 19, 2000)

Internet Privacy Law Costs a Bundle by Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Network World (May 16, 2000)

Cybersitters Report for Assigned Duties by Sonia Arrison, Washington Times (May 6, 2000)

The Hidden Costs of Online Privacy by James W. Harper, Tech Central Station (March 27, 2000)