Thanks to the Illinois child welfare system.

July 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

Lawsuit Reveals Child Welfare’s Assault on Battered Mothers, Their Children

Print More

richard wexlerFor a mother of two daughters in Will County, Illinois, known in legal papers as Kelly, the morning of May 1 began with her being thrown against a wall so hard she saw stars. When she looked up, she saw the man who did that to her — the father of her children — holding a gun and threatening to use it. Then the father took one of the children and fled. Kelly was terrified the father would hurt her child.

But, as is documented in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the Family Defense Center in Chicago, that was just the start of a nightmare that has not ended — thanks to the Illinois child welfare system.

Someone — Kelly doesn’t know who and probably never will — called the Illinois child abuse hotline. Even though the father is facing criminal charges and even though Kelly has primary legal custody of the children, caseworkers for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services apparently leaped to the conclusion that, somehow, all this was Kelly’s fault. They coerced her into letting them put both children with the alleged abuser’s parents. A private agency now oversees the case. The alleged abuser has liberal contact with his children while Kelly hasn’t had a visit with them for a month.

Meanwhile, caseworkers are forcing Kelly to jump through all the usual hoops, including a “mental health assessment” and “anger management.” (Remember, she’s not the one who threw someone against a wall, she’s not the one who pulled out a gun, and she’s not the one facing criminal charges.)

Then, according to the complaint, in what may be the single most candid statement ever uttered by a child welfare worker, a caseworker for the private agency explained how the system really works: The case, she explained, is a “maze.” Like mice in a cruel lab experiment, both parents are at the “beginning of the maze.” The children are at “the end of the maze.” She then said that “whichever parent finished his or her services first” wins — that is, he or she would get the children.

By now some may be wondering “where are the courts — aren’t they supposed to approve all this?” But child welfare agencies have ways around pesky nuisances like due process of law. In this case, they effectively blackmailed Kelly into giving up what few rights she had. They told her that unless she agreed to a so-called “safety plan” in which the children were placed “voluntarily” with the abuser’s parents, she’d have no contact of any kind with her children.

There is nothing to suggest this case is unusual. In an almost identical case last year, Illinois reached a settlement agreement to curb the abuse of “safety plans.” They violated the agreement and have yet to adopt the policies they promised to follow.

And Illinois is not alone in blaming mothers for being beaten.

In Utah, a legislative audit report found that children “witnessing domestic violence” is the single largest category for so-called “substantiated” maltreatment.

In New York City the practice of tearing children from their mothers just because the mothers had been beaten was largely ended only after a settlement that followed a federal judge’s scathing 183-page decision in a class-action lawsuit. (My organization’s vice president was co-counsel for the plaintiffs.)

As the decision explains, the lead plaintiff in that case, Sharwline Nicholson was beaten mercilessly by a boyfriend when she decided to break off the relationship.

But even as she was bleeding profusely, suffering from a broken arm, broken ribs and gashes to her head, as she called 911 and waited for an ambulance to take her to a hospital, she arranged for a neighbor to care for her children.

But that wasn’t enough for the city’s child protective services agency. As Nicholson lay in her hospital bed, CPS took the children from the babysitter and threw them into foster care with strangers — where one of the children was abused. Nicholson was charged with “engaging in domestic violence” — presumably by throwing her body into her abuser’s fists.

“It reached the point where I said ‘Oh, why did I call 911,’” Nicholson said.

Cases like this keep happening because of the child welfare system’s penchant for embracing fads — and for always blaming parents, especially mothers, for anything that happens to children.

So a study reports the obvious: Witnessing domestic violence can be emotionally harmful to children. Instead of embracing the obvious solution — arrest the batterer and put him in jail — child protective services rushes to blame the victim — and tear apart the family.

As usually happens when child protective services takes a swing at “bad mothers,” the blow lands on the children. As a succession of experts testified in the Nicholson case, while witnessing domestic violence may indeed be harmful to children, tearing those children from the victim of that violence is far, far worse. One expert called it “tantamount to pouring salt into an open wound.”

Fortunately, the New York City child welfare agency has largely abided by the settlement. And the New York State Court of Appeals effectively extended it statewide.

But that leaves 49 states where battered mothers have to think twice about seeking help — because of what the “helpers” might do to their children. That’s 49 states, where practice in these kinds of cases can boil down to “please pass the salt.”

Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

Here is the main cause why CPS is a racketeering , profiteering business by various states NGOs . For those of you fighting to spend time with your children

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

Here is the main cause why CPS is a racketeering , profiteering business by various states NGOs . For those of you fighting to spend time with your children . Then you must vote these type of people out of office . If not then these same type of people and their supported NGOs will continue to kidnap your children . And continue to jail people for being poor .
H. R. 253
To amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to invest in funding prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home, to ensure that children in foster care are placed in the least restrictive, most family-like, and appropriate settings, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2017
Mr. Buchanan (for himself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to invest in funding prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home, to ensure that children in foster care are placed in the least restrictive, most family-like, and appropriate settings, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I—INVESTING IN PREVENTION AND FAMILY SERVICES
Sec. 101. Purpose.
Subtitle A—Prevention Activities Under Title IV–E
Sec. 111. Foster care prevention services and programs.
Sec. 112. Foster care maintenance payments for children with parents in a licensed residential family-based treatment facility for substance abuse.
Sec. 113. Title IV–E payments for evidence-based kinship navigator programs.
Subtitle B—Enhanced Support Under Title IV–B
Sec. 121. Elimination of time limit for family reunification services while in foster care and permitting time-limited family reunification services when a child returns home from foster care.
Sec. 122. Reducing bureaucracy and unnecessary delays when placing children in homes across State lines.
Sec. 123. Enhancements to grants to improve well-being of families affected by substance abuse.
Subtitle C—Miscellaneous
Sec. 131. Reviewing and improving licensing standards for placement in a relative foster family home.
Sec. 132. Development of a statewide plan to prevent child abuse and neglect fatalities.
Sec. 133. Modernizing the title and purpose of title IV–E.
Sec. 134. Effective dates.
TITLE II—ENSURING THE NECESSITY OF A PLACEMENT THAT IS NOT IN A FOSTER FAMILY HOME
Sec. 201. Limitation on Federal financial participation for placements that are not in foster family homes.
Sec. 202. Assessment and documentation of the need for placement in a qualified residential treatment program.
Sec. 203. Protocols to prevent inappropriate diagnoses.
Sec. 204. Additional data and reports regarding children placed in a setting that is not a foster family home.
Sec. 205. Effective dates; application to waivers.
TITLE III—CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Sec. 301. Supporting and retaining foster families for children.
Sec. 302. Extension of child and family services programs.
Sec. 303. Improvements to the John H. Chafee foster care independence program and related provisions.
TITLE IV—CONTINUING INCENTIVES TO STATES TO PROMOTE ADOPTION AND LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
Sec. 401. Reauthorizing adoption and legal guardianship incentive programs.
TITLE V—TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
Sec. 501. Technical corrections to data exchange standards to improve program coordination.
Sec. 502. Technical corrections to State requirement to address the developmental needs of young children.
TITLE VI—ENSURING STATES REINVEST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN ADOPTION ASSISTANCE
Sec. 601. Delay of adoption assistance phase-in.
Sec. 602. GAO study and report on State reinvestment of savings resulting from increase in adoption assistance.
TITLE I—INVESTING IN PREVENTION AND FAMILY SERVICES
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to enable States to use Federal funds available under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide enhanced support to children and families and prevent foster care placements through the provision of mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services, in-home parent skill-based programs, and kinship navigator services.
Subtitle A—Prevention Activities Under Title IV–E
SEC. 111. FOSTER CARE PREVENTION SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
(a) State Option.—Section 471 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking “and” and all that follows through the semicolon and inserting “, adoption assistance in accordance with section 473, and, at the option of the State, services or programs specified in subsection (e)(1) of this section for children who are candidates for foster care or who are pregnant or parenting foster youth and the parents or kin caregivers of the children, in accordance with the requirements of that subsection;”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(e) Prevention And Family Services And Programs.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may make a payment to a State for providing the following services or programs for a child described in paragraph (2) and the parents or kin caregivers of the child when the need of the child, such a parent, or such a caregiver for the services or programs are directly related to the safety, permanence, or well-being of the child or to preventing the child from entering foster care:
“(A) MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES.—Mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services provided by a qualified clinician for not more than a 12-month period that begins on any date described in paragraph (3) with respect to the child.
“(B) IN-HOME PARENT SKILL-BASED PROGRAMS.—In-home parent skill-based programs for not more than a 12-month period that begins on any date described in paragraph (3) with respect to the child and that include parenting skills training, parent education, and individual and family counseling.
“(2) CHILD DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), a child described in this paragraph is the following:
“(A) A child who is a candidate for foster care (as defined in section 475(13)) but can remain safely at home or in a kinship placement with receipt of services or programs specified in paragraph (1).
“(B) A child in foster care who is a pregnant or parenting foster youth.
“(3) DATE DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the dates described in this paragraph are the following:
“(A) The date on which a child is identified in a prevention plan maintained under paragraph (4) as a child who is a candidate for foster care (as defined in section 475(13)).
“(B) The date on which a child is identified in a prevention plan maintained under paragraph (4) as a pregnant or parenting foster youth in need of services or programs specified in paragraph (1).
“(4) REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO PROVIDING SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.—Services and programs specified in paragraph (1) may be provided under this subsection only if specified in advance in the child’s prevention plan described in subparagraph (A) and the requirements in subparagraphs (B) through (E) are met:
“(A) PREVENTION PLAN.—The State maintains a written prevention plan for the child that meets the following requirements (as applicable):
“(i) CANDIDATES.—In the case of a child who is a candidate for foster care described in paragraph (2)(A), the prevention plan shall—
“(I) identify the foster care prevention strategy for the child so that the child may remain safely at home, live temporarily with a kin caregiver until reunification can be safely achieved, or live permanently with a kin caregiver;
“(II) list the services or programs to be provided to or on behalf of the child to ensure the success of that prevention strategy; and
“(III) comply with such other requirements as the Secretary shall establish.
“(ii) PREGNANT OR PARENTING FOSTER YOUTH.—In the case of a child who is a pregnant or parenting foster youth described in paragraph (2)(B), the prevention plan shall—

Text – H.R.253 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017
Text for H.R.253 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017
CONGRESS.GOV

Kids 4cash for fed dollars who thinks of these schemes?

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

#Kids4Cash? Not anymore!
Profiles of the Active Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations
Prepared For: Children’s Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Prepared By:
James Bell Associates, Inc.
Arlington, Virginia
August 2015
Found here:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/…/files/cb/cw_waiver_profile2015.pdf
California
Demonstration Basics
Demonstration Focus: Flexible Funding – Phase II
Approval Date: September 30, 2014
Implementation Date: October 1, 2014
California’s five-year waiver demonstration was originally implemented July 1, 2007 and was scheduled to end on September 30, 2014. The State received several short-term extensions thereafter and in September 2014 received an extension of an additional five years effective from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2019.
Expected Completion Date: September 30, 2019
Interim Evaluation Report Expected: May 31, 2017
Final Evaluation Report Expected: March 31, 2020
Target Population
California’s demonstration targets title IV-E-eligible and non-IV-E-eligible children ages 0–17,inclusive, who are currently in out-of-home placement or who are at risk of entering or reentering foster care.
Jurisdiction
Under Phase II of the demonstration the State is continuing implementation in Alameda and Los Angeles County Child Welfare and Probation Departments (Cohort 1). The State has expanded implementation in the following seven counties: Butte, Lake, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Sonoma (Cohort 2).
Intervention
Through California’s waiver demonstration (referred to as the Title IV-E California Well-Being Project) the State receives a capped amount of title IV-E funds that it distributes in annual allocations to the participating counties, which then utilize their allocations to expand and strengthen child welfare practices, programs, and system improvements.
The State’s demonstration includes the following two core interventions:
1. Safety Organized Practice/Core Practice Model (SOP/CPM): Child welfare departments in participating counties will implement this intervention. CPM is a framework for integrated practice in child welfare and mental health agencies, service providers and community/tribal partners working with youth and families. The SOP/CPM intervention will be organized into foundational skills and core components. The foundational skills, which are common throughout all participating counties, include Solution Focused Interviewing, Appreciative Inquiry, and Cultural Humility. The core components/tools include Behaviorally Based Case Plans, Child’s Voice (Voice and Choice), Coaching, Safety Planning, and Teaming (Networks of Support). Use of the core components/tools are based on family need.
2. Wraparound: Probation departments in participating counties provide wraparound services to youth exhibiting delinquency risk factors that put them at risk of being removed from their homes and placed in foster care. The State’s Wraparound model is a family-centered, strengths-based, needs-driven planning process for creating individualized services and supports for the youth and family. Specific elements of the Wraparound model include case teaming, family and youth engagement, individualized strength-based case planning, and transition planning.
In addition to the project-wide interventions noted above, participating departments are implementing up to two child welfare and up to two probation interventions, at local discretion. These county-specific service interventions include but are not limited to, Kinship Support Services, Triple P, Enhanced Prevention and Aftercare, Functional Family Therapy, and Multi-Systemic Therapy.
Evaluation Design
The evaluation consists of three components: A process evaluation, an outcome evaluation, and a cost analysis. The process evaluation includes interim and final process analyses that describe how the demonstration was implemented and that identify how demonstration services differ from services available prior to implementation of the demonstration, or from services available to children and families that are not designated to receive demonstration services. The analysis will include a logic model that describes the demonstration’s objectives, the services or other interventions provided, and the way the intervention is linked to measurable outcomes. The State will implement an interrupted time series design for the evaluation of its waiver demonstration in which changes in key child welfare outcomes are tracked over time. Outcome patterns before and after implementation of the demonstration as a whole, will be analyzed to identify differences that may be attributable in part to the interventions implemented under the demonstration. For the two core interventions of SOP/CPM and Wraparound, the analysis will use case-level data to the extent possible to isolate the impact of these interventions from the effects of demographic, programmatic, and other external factors. The State’s outcome evaluation will address, at a minimum, changes in the following outcomes in all participating counties:
• Entries into out-of-home care;
• Entries into the most appropriate and least restrictive placement settings;
• Re-entries into out-of-home care;
• Recurrence of maltreatment;
• Re-offenses among children and youth on probation; and
• Child and family functioning and well-being as measured by assessment tools selected by the State.
To the extent available, the State’s evaluation will track all outcome measures in relation to gender, age, race, and as appropriate, placement type or setting.
To the extent feasible, the State will also conduct one or more quasi-experimental sub-studies of specific programs that are implemented under the waiver demonstration. The specific programs to be evaluated through these sub-studies, and the specific research methods for conducting them will be described in the State’s pending evaluation plan.
The State will collect data for the evaluation from the State’s automated child welfare information systems, child welfare agency case records, selected child and family assessment tools, and additional information sources as appropriate. Additional specifics will be described in the States pending evaluation plan.
The cost analysis will examine, at a minimum, the costs of the key elements of services received by children and families designated to receive demonstration services and will compare these costs with those of services available prior to the start of the demonstration, or that were received by the children and families that were not designated to receive demonstration services. The cost analysis will also include an examination of the use of key funding sources, including all relevant Federal sources such as titles IV-A, IV-B, IV-E and XIX of the Act, as well as State and local funds. The purpose of the analysis will be to compare the costs of services available through the demonstration with those of services traditionally provided to children and their families. Where feasible, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted to estimate the costs of each successful outcome achieved through the demonstration. This analysis will be conducted using one or more of the key outcome measures for which a statistically significant difference is identified.
Evaluation Findings
Evaluation findings are pending the continued implementation of California’s waiver extension.
Information and reports for California’s demonstration are available online.

Child kidnapping rings setup all over for fed dollars?

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

Child Protective Services & Family Courts are kidnapping & trafficking children for the Title IV-E funding and our Federal Government releases the funds to each state in the United States.
In 2012 the following states were approved for Title IV-E Waiver: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. In 2013 the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee were approved for Title IV-E Waiver. In 2014 Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia and for the first time a tribe, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe in Washington State, has received a waiver to operate a program within its tribal child welfare system.
No automatic alt text available.
Lisa Mitchell added a new photo to the album: Child Protective Services Victim Support.
April 11, 2016 ·
Child Protective Services & Family Courts are kidnapping & trafficking children for the Title IV-E funding and our Federal Government releases the funds to each state in the United States.

In 2012 the following states were approved for Title IV-E Waiver: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. In 2013 the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee were approved for Title IV-E Waiver. In 2014 Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia and for the first time a tribe, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe in Washington State, has received a waiver to operate a program within its tribal child welfare system.

Leagally Kidnapped

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

Legally Kidnapped
Supervised visitation company calls last week’s Amber Alert ‘isolated incident’
Judge demands answers from DCFS concerning dead 1-year-old
Overloaded Kansas foster care system sometimes requires children to sleep overnight in offices
Ontario indigenous leaders want mandatory inquest when a child dies at group home
St. Louis foster mother charged with fatally beating toddler
Aylesbury parents accused of shaking baby ‘treated like monsters’
LI foster father accused of sexually abusing 8 boys is acquitted of all charges
Court rules civil commitment statutes don’t apply to foster children, North Star Hospital
Woman sexually abused while in state care as child awarded $1M
The 2 month CPS Celebration continues with: National Foster Care Appreciation Month
Supervised visitation company calls last week’s Amber Alert ‘isolated incident’
Posted: 03 May 2017 05:17 AM PDT
An executive with the firm whose social worker got distracted enough to allow a mother to snatch her 2-year-old during a supervised visit called last week’s incident an “isolated” one.

More >> Supervised visitation company calls last week’s Amber Alert ‘isolated incident’
Judge demands answers from DCFS concerning dead 1-year-old
Posted: 03 May 2017 05:14 AM PDT
An Illinois judge is demanding to know what did state child care workers do to help the family of a 1-year-old girl who was found dead in their home.

More >> Judge demands answers from DCFS concerning dead 1-year-old

Overloaded Kansas foster care system sometimes requires children to sleep overnight in offices
Posted: 03 May 2017 05:11 AM PDT
KV Health Systems, headquartered in the greater Kansas City area, is a private nonprofit that specializes in behavioral health care, child welfare, and community health and wellness. The Capital-Journal has learned as many on as six nights in the past month, a child waiting to be placed in foster care has slept overnight in a KVC Health System office.

More >> Overloaded Kansas foster care system sometimes requires children to sleep overnight in offices
Ontario indigenous leaders want mandatory inquest when a child dies at group home
Posted: 02 May 2017 07:32 PM PDT
Indigenous leaders want a mandatory inquest to be held whenever an indigenous child dies while in care at an Ontario group home.

More >> Ontario indigenous leaders want mandatory inquest when a child dies at group home
St. Louis foster mother charged with fatally beating toddler
Posted: 02 May 2017 12:00 PM PDT
A St. Louis foster mother has been charged with fatally beating a toddler in 2015.

More >> St. Louis foster mother charged with fatally beating toddler
Aylesbury parents accused of shaking baby ‘treated like monsters’
Posted: 02 May 2017 11:01 AM PDT
A couple accused of hurting their daughter in a suspected shaken baby case said they had been treated like “monsters”.

More >> Aylesbury parents accused of shaking baby ‘treated like monsters’
LI foster father accused of sexually abusing 8 boys is acquitted of all charges
Posted: 02 May 2017 10:52 AM PDT

A New York foster parent who took in more than 100 boys over two decades and was accused of sexually abusing some of them has been acquitted of all charges.

More >> LI foster father accused of sexually abusing 8 boys is acquitted of all charges
Court rules civil commitment statutes don’t apply to foster children, North Star Hospital
Posted: 02 May 2017 09:38 AM PDT
A three-year-long legal argument about committing foster children to North Star Behavioral Health Hospital is one step closer to resolution. A judge ruled in late March that the Office of Children’s Services can legally commit foster kids to the psychiatric hospital without getting a judge’s approval.

More >> Court rules civil commitment statutes don’t apply to foster children, North Star Hospital
Woman sexually abused while in state care as child awarded $1M
Posted: 02 May 2017 09:26 AM PDT
Florida lawmakers have approved a million dollar payment to a young woman who was sexually abused as a child while in state care.

More >> Woman sexually abused while in state care as child awarded $1M
The 2 month CPS Celebration continues with: National Foster Care Appreciation Month
Posted: 02 May 2017 08:58 AM PDT
May is National Foster Care Appreciation Month, and the Mesa County Commissioners gave a proclamation to a foster care family on Monday, May 1.

More >> National Foster Care Appreciation Month

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Child Representative category at Will County Pro-se.