This is a message I read in another group.  It is
something to think about.
*******************************************************
In the year 2000 about 3 million American families(5
million kids) were referred to child protection
agencies.  Less than 2 million of those referrals
resulted in investigations.  Findings of abuse/neglect
were made on about 1/2 million of those
families(879,000 kids).  Out of 3 million referrals, 2
1/2 million were unfounded.  In other words, while
879,000 kids were found to be in need of services,
about 4 million kids had to endure strip searches,
interrogations and home inspections for nothing. How
many innocent families were needlessly traumatized?
How much of the budget did these mistakes take away
from children in need?

A finding of abuse can be based on anything from real
abuse to the bruise your child got while playing, but
most findings are based on neglect.  Neglect can be
anything from the definition of neglect to whatever
caseworkers want to write in their reports.  How many
cases of neglect could be remedied by helping poor
families find access to daycare, decent housing, food,
clothing, medical and dental care?  Wouldn't it cost
less to provide these services to the poor than to
take away their children, place them in foster care,
process them through the courts for months on end,
terminate the parents rights, put the children up for
adoption?  How much funding is wasted on cases where
neglect is really poverty?

Most referrals come from mandated reporters, i.e.
school teachers, principals, counselors, doctor's,
nurses, anyone who is a licensed professional dealing
with parents and children.  Mandated reporters  are
pressured to report or lose their license.  But they
are wrong more than half the time according to the
statistics.  Are they  reporting to protect themselves
or the children?  How much funding  are they wasting
filing false reports?  How much damage are they
causing the innocent families they are accusing?

Precious funds for child protection in America are
being misappropriated from referral to finding.
Families are clashing with social services, law
enforcement, school personnel, medical  professionals.
  Innocent families are being blacklisted, terrorized
and torn apart.  Is this the honorable and
compassionate system of  child protection we want for
our country?  Is the current system  conducive to
focusing on the real cases and truly helping those
children in need?

See: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) for  statistics for the year 2000 and other
years.
*******************************************************

For more information, please see the following
websites:
www.nccpr.org
www.cpswatch.com
www.fightcps.com


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

RightTurns.com - Forum
LAUREN HAGER
MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Conservative Republicans need to come out of the closet on child
protection issues.
February 1, 2002





Conservative Republicans need to come out of the closet on child
protection issues.

We've allowed the Democratic party to be perceived as the party that
cares for kids who are neglected and abused and it shouldn't be that
way.  As the political party that lifts up the value of the
individual, we should be first responders to the needs of kids who
suffer maltreatment.

My observations come from serving my legislative district in the Blue
Water Area of Michigan where there are many bedroom communities for
the city of Detroit and its suburbs.  During the summer the area is a
mecca for boating and the well-known Port Huron-to-Mackinac sailboat
race.

My reverie on the child maltreatment issue was broken by two heinous
cases in my district.  The first involved a two-year-old boy who was
left to fend for himself in his grandma's backyard where his head
became lodged between a large piece of trash and the house.  After
several hours alone, he died.

A short time later there was a second case where another two-year-
old, a little girl named Ariana was starved and then murdered by her
parents.

In both cases, I asked for a state investigation of the circumstances
of their deaths and of the state's involvement in their care.  In
both cases, I was not satisfied with the results.  Official inquiries
into the state's role in the lives of these children seemed to have
hit a brick wall of institutional silence that was blamed on the
rules of confidentiality.

As I moved through this effort and as I chaired a  legislative sub-
committee on child protection, I was struck by two things.  Every
Republican I serve with, including the governor of this state, are
extremely protective of their own and other kids.  They cringe with
anger when their children or others are threatened or harmed.

But, during a time when child abuse and neglect continues with kids
being harmed in such horrible ways that scars will be felt for
generations, the silence of their response is deafening.  And, my
experience has shown that old stereotypes about Democrats being out
front on such issues no longer fit.  There is a paucity of voices
from their side of the aisle.

The result is that responses to the issue fall to the bottom of
policy priorities for both parties.  And too many vulnerable kids are
left to fend for themselves with inadequate attention from social
service agencies and the courts.

Conservatives should be right out in front of these at-risk kids.
They offer the best hope for a successful response.

The need for government's continued involvement in this issue will
not stop.

They are the ones who need to be out front with policy that will
effectively balance the needs of protecting children and the rights
of parents.

But, more important, conservative philosophy hinges on the principle
of personal responsibility where everybody plays a role.  If parents
took responsibility for their children, the problem would disappear.
If neighbors and people-of-faith became involved help could be
obtained before a problem became serious.

For this to happen, leaders need to make child protection a
responsibility, particularly conservative leaders.

Growing up on a farm in the Thumb of Michigan, I learned that
conservatism didn't equal the exaltation of self.  It's a philosophy
that's built around caring-for the individual, particularly those who
are not able to do it for themselves.

It's an issue that needs to be in the top tier of issues of  the
Republican party on the local, state and national levels.  Then, we
might see some serious change.

Write Representative Lauren Hager at lhager@...



Lauren Hager (R) represents Port Huron in the Michigan House of
Representatives.  A resident of Port Huron, Hager retired after
working 35 years as a special education teacher.  He is the former co-
owner of McLeod-Hager Sports Memorabilia and serves on the board of
directors for the Port Huron Sports Hall of Fame.  He served as mayor
pro tem and was a city council member.  Hager is also a member of
Blue Water Citizens Against Crime.  Hager and his wife, Carol, have
two children.

Issues: Termination of parental rights
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re A.M.
e-Journal Number: 18481
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Schuette, Sawyer, and Wilder

The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother's parental
rights to the minor children. Respondent claimed she was not given
assistance by the FIA to overcome her problems. Respondent was given
a full and fair opportunity to rectify the conditions leading to
adjudication, but despite services that were provided, including
parenting classes and the opportunity for in-home counseling, she was
unable to show an ability to protect her children. The children
continued to be at a risk of harm if returned to her, and it was not
reasonably likely she would rectify the conditions leading to
adjudication within a reasonable time. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion

Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name:  In re K.T.D.M.
e-Journal Number:  18436
Judge(s):  Memorandum – Griffin, Neff, and Gage

The trial court did not clearly err in finding §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g),
and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. The child
had been in foster care for almost a year and the evidence
demonstrated despite several referrals for services, respondent-
mother continued to use drugs, lacked an income, and did not have
suitable housing. Further, respondent did not consistently visit the
child, which greatly upset the child. Termination of respondent's
parental rights was affirmed.

Full Text Opinion

Issues:  Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g)
Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name:  In re S.K.
e-Journal Number:  18433
Judge(s):  Memorandum – Griffin, Neff, and Gage

The trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent-
mother's parental rights on the grounds §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) had
been established by clear and convincing evidence. The child was
removed from respondent because she failed to provide proper care and
custody. Although respondent attempted to comply with the parent-
agency agreement by obtaining employment and housing, and
participating in counseling, her counselor indicated she continued to
be immature, had not benefited from counseling, and would need
services for at least another year before she could be an appropriate
parent. Affirmed.


Full Text Opinion

Issues: Termination of parental rights
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re T.M.B.
e-Journal Number: 18492
Judge(s): Memorandum - Markey, White, and Zahra

The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental
rights. The mother failed to comply with the essential aspects of her
treatment plan and produced little progress despite extensive time,
opportunity, and encouragement, and lacked the maturity to provide
proper care and custody of her child. The evidence did not show
termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child's
best interests. Affirmed.


Source: www.michbar.org
full text available

trb 3/26/03

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:43:47 -0500
Subject: I need help!



My husband abused my daughter. I called protective services (big
mistake!) We seperated for a while, and after he got counseling, we
desided we wanted to keep our family together.

I called CPS to find out what we could do to reunite our family. they told us
that because there was no open case on our family, we could reunite as long as I
had a saftey plan in place for her, and I made sure the children got
counseling. (we had been seperated for two and half years)

The councelor called CPS after I met with her, and they came out to my
house and made my husband leave the home. In court it was ordered
that he must stay away from my daughter, but could have visistation
with our son, and that we could see each other.

They said in court that they were going to develop a reunification plan for us.
Instead, they developed no plan, and even though we were following court
orders to a letter, they took my children from me, and told me i
could not get them back unless i divorced my husband. They then
placed my name on the central registry for child abuse, not his, for
failure to protect. I am a preschool teacher, and i can no longer
work in my field, and cant find a job anywhere.

They have taken my children, my husband, and my career away from me, but have
not even  filed charges against him! Is there anything you can do to help me? I
am living with my father again, and someone else has coustody of my
children. I have nothing.

sincerly,


pegasusangel65@...

A member of Unity For Parents and Children child was return home this
passed week,this child was taken at 18 mos. old  and now the child is
4yrs. old. The parents fought a long hard battle.But most of all
their attorneys did the best job they could do, when dealing with
Family Independence Agency.

                            God Bless
                            Karon

Child Abuse: Guilty Until Proven Innocent or Legalized Governmental
Child Abuse
Karen Radko*
ABSTRACT: Statistics on the outcome of cases investigated in Florida
indicate that in only a very small proportion of the reported cases
was it ultimately determined that the parents had abused their
children.  Although the stated goal of child protection agencies is
to keep the family united, in reality children are often quickly
removed and placed into foster care following an investigation that
is traumatic for parents and children alike, especially when there
was no abuse.  Suggestions are made for improving the way the system
operates.


It should be every person's legal responsibility to report any child
they may reasonably suspect to be abused.  However, the consequence
of a child abuse report in most states is that the parents may be
prosecuted and/or their children taken away with much less evidence
than would be required for a conviction in a criminal court.  The
focus of this paper is to discuss some child abuse issues including
the system's abuse of power (Burriss, 1991) and to make
recommendations for improvement.

We first must understand the definition of abuse and neglect (note
that parents are not educated as to this definition and its
consequences).  For example, according to the Florida Statutes 4
(1989, chapters 623-960) criminal abuse and neglect is defined as:

827.04 Child abuse.
1. Whoever, willfully or by culpable negligence, deprives a child of,
or allows a child to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing,
shelter or medical treatment, or who, knowingly or by culpable
negligence, inflicts or permits the infliction of physical or mental
injury to the child, and in so doing causes great bodily harm,
permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to such child, shall
be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in
s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084
2. Whoever, willfully or by culpable negligence, deprives a child of,
or allows a child to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing,
shelter, or medical treatment, or by who, knowingly or by culpable
negligence, inflicts or permits the Infliction of physical or mental
injury to the child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084.
3. Any person who commits any act which thereby causes or tends to
cause or encourage any person under the age of 18 years to become a
delinquent or dependent child, as defined under the laws of Florida,
or which contributes thereto, or any person who shall, by act,
threats, commands, or persuasion, induce or endeavor to induce any
person under the age of 18 years to do or to perform any act, to
follow any course of conduct or so to live, as would cause or tend to
cause such person under the age of 18 years to become or to remain a
dependent or delinquent child, as defined under the laws of this
state, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.  It shall not be
necessary for any court exercising juvenile jurisdiction to make an
adjudication that any child is delinquent or dependent in order to
prosecute a parent or any other person under this section.  An
adjudication that a child is delinquent or dependent shall not
preclude a subsequent prosecution of a parent or any other person who
contributes to the delinquency of dependency of the child.
827.05 Negligent treatment of children.
  Whoever, though financially able, negligently deprives a child of or
allows a child to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing, shelter,
or medical treatment or permits a child to live in an environment,
when such deprivation or environment causes the child's physical or
emotional health to be significantly impaired shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

According to the Florida Protective Services System Annual Report,
abuse and neglect is defined as "a child whose physical or mental
health or welfare is harmed, or threatened with harm, by the acts or
omissions of the parent or other person responsible for the child's
welfare" (Coler, 1991, p.3).  This definition is adopted and used by
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) case
workers that deal with this issue.

As one can easily see from the above two definitions, there is a big
difference between the HRS case worker's definition of child abuse
and neglect and the legal definition of abuse and neglect.  However,
both definitions leave a great deal of discretion to the case worker
when attempting to decide whether a child has been abused and whether
they can substantiate the need for removal of the child from their
home. (A child is defined as one under 18 years of age.)


How Many Cases Are Confirmed?

The Florida Protective Services System Annual Report (Coler, 1991,
p.19), Figure 9, indicates that 57% (62,803 cases) investigated by
the state of Florida in the year 1989-90 were classified
as "unfounded."  An unfounded report means a report in which the
investigation determines no indication of abuse or neglect exists.
Twenty-nine percent (32,306 cases) were classified as "indicated"
(now reclassified as "closed without classification" because the
indicated classification has been found unconstitutional (NL, ES, &
MM, vs. Gregory L. Coler, 1990).  This was due to the classification
procedure which did not provide for the right to appeal the decision
to label a person a child abuser (Whalen, 1991).  Further, 1% (987
cases) were classified "no jurisdiction."  Finally, 13% (14,669
cases) were "confirmed."  The Annual Report defines a confirmed
report as "a report in which the investigation determined that the
abuse or neglect has occurred and the perpetrator is identified.  A
preponderance of credible evidence is required in order to classify a
report as confirmed" (p.19).

Appeal rights must be given when the case is classified as
confirmed.  Of the 1200 cases that were appealed in a two-year
period, 92% won the appeal (Associated Press, 1989).  Thus, the names
of the accused were removed from the abuse registry.  Therefore, it
is likely that in many "confirmed" cases of abuse, the parents did
not actually abuse their children.  The actual number of abused
children in Florida is likely to be relatively small considering that
the Florida abuse hotline receives nearly 200,000 calls of child
abuse and neglect each year.

Richard Wexler (1990) reports statistics in his book, Wounded
Innocents (), that are not normally seen in the news, presented in
courts, or given to social workers.  These statistics, which come
from well-known sources, indicate that "between 95 and 99 out of
every 100 women were not sexually abused by their fathers or
stepfathers during their childhood (Russell, 1986); more than 99 out
of 100 children are not beaten up by their parents every year (Gelles
& Straus, 1989, p. 249); and more than 97% of all children are not
abused or neglected in any way in the course of a year (U.S. Dept. of
Human Services, 1988)" (p.77).

Why are there so many state investigations and so few confirmed
reports of abuse?  Why must so many families defend their innocence
against false allegations of abuse or neglect?  The answers are
simple; the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
(HRS) was mandated under Public Law 92-247 The Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act of 1974 and Public Law 95-266 The Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 to be "the
ultimate authority responsible for children" (HRSM 175-7, 1-9,
1990).  HRS has all power and authority over whether to remove
children solely on an allegation made to the abuse hotline.  The
justification for this is called "erring on the side of the child."
With the definition of abuse and neglect so vaguely defined by
current law, nearly all children at some time in their lives can fall
into one or several categories of being abused or neglected.  And
although the stated goal of HRS is to keep the family united,
strengthen the family, and protect parental rights (Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1988), in reality
the state often refuses to help parents keep their children.


The Investigation

The investigation usually begins with an anonymous telephone call to
the abuse hotline (Casey, 1991) by either a concerned party or one
attempting to seek revenge.  According to the the Florida Protective
Services System Report (1991), "the abuse registry counselors may not
be consistently screening allegations of abuse and neglect because
they are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the screening criteria'
(iii).  The counselors may have insufficient time to gather the
information needed to determine whether an investigation is
warranted.  As a result, some counselors may be rejecting valid abuse
allegations, leaving some victims of abuse unprotected by the state
intervention program.

Further, "counselors may be initiating investigations unnecessarily,
which wastes investigative resources, and unnecessarily intrudes upon
the lives of private citizens" (iii, italics added).  To improve the
effectiveness and consistency of the Registry's screening practices,
more effective training is needed so that the counselors can
recognize the presence of behavioral, environmental, and physical
indicators of abuse and neglect, and be competent to interview
without prejudice.

Once a call has been received and a determination is made to
investigate, the HRS worker has up to 24 hours to complete an initial
investigation.  It has been found that HRS workers frequently take
children from their parents with little or no evidence, but only a
suspicion that abuse might have occurred.  The HRS manual 175-7
(Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1990)
states that during an investigation the "major source for
substantiating the case is the family" and adds that the HRS worker
is to document what the "family members transmit to the counselor
through the condition of their home, their behavior, their attitudes
toward the counselor and each other" (pp.2-17).  The HRS worker then
uses this information as a basis for removal of a child from the
custody and care of the parents.

The Health and Rehabilitative Services Pamphlet (Florida Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1988) tells the case worker
that often parents are angry and will deny the allegation of abuse or
neglect.  It advises the case worker: "You must always obtain
information to substantiate the alleged perpetrator's account and to
resolve any conflict between the allegations in the report and the
alleged perpetrator's denial" (F-2).  It adds that if parents are
overly-compliant, accepting, and helpful the case worker should not
be falsely assured that the statements the parents are giving are
true and accurate (F-2.5.6.) and states: "These may be a smoke screen
to diffuse your investigation and manipulate you ... be suspicious"
(F-11).

However, "suspicious" is never defined, forcing HRS workers to use
their own judgment.  This advice is seldom advantageous to the family
and HRS's stated goal of keeping the family united and protecting
parental rights.  With the mentality of "be suspicious"
and "substantiate" every allegation, a parent is usually in a no-win
situation.  If parents are either too hostile or too friendly, they
are judged guilty of abuse or neglect simply by their emotions.

After the initial interview the case worker has 30 days to complete
the investigation and classify the case.  There are four types of
classifications: unfounded, closed without classification, proposed
confirmed, and confirmed.  Bob Horner, a Florida Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services subdistrict administrator, stated, "HRS
is not bound by that (the 30 day rule).  We can go as long as it
takes to make a case (Pride, p.71).  Horner observes that during that
time, parents have absolutely no rights.  However, Terry Ackert, the
executive director of Florida's Orange County Legal Aid Society,
notes that every time HRS takes more than 30 days to investigate,
they are violating the law: "If HRS isn't following the written
rules, they are abusing their authority beyond reason ... their
actions are outrageous" (Pride, 1986, p.71).


Abuse by the System

Children are traumatized when they are separated from their parents
(Close, 1992; Ostalkiewicz, 1991).  If abruptly removed and placed in
foster care they are likely to be terrified and may suffer severe
emotional distress and depression.  Despite this, according to the
data collected for the federal government by the American Humane
Association, it appears that up to half of the children placed in
foster care were in no immediate danger of serious physical injury
(Besharov, 1988).

There is little gained by removing a child from the parents unless
there are circumstances whereby the child was legitimately taken for
protection from life-threatening injuries.  Judge Bresee (Close,
1992) states that it is "critical to make a quick decision (in
initial investigation and removal of a child) ... two weeks doesn't
seem like any time at all, but to a child, it's an eternity."  Foster
care is supposed to be a short-term remedy designed to protect
children from harm while parents have time to respond to treatment.
Yet, the reality is far different.  More than 50% of the children in
foster care are in the "temporary" status for over 2 years; more than
30% are away from their parents for over 6 years (Besharov, 1988, p.
221s).

When the Florida government places children in foster care, HRS often
prohibits the children from having contact with their friends,
church, school, family or relatives.  Further, the children lose
access to their clothes, special blankets or animals, toys, games,
dating (if adolescent), use of vehicle (if of age) and even use of
telephone privileges.  "This can only be construed as the
imprisonment of a child, since the child has not committed any crime
and is being held against his or her will; it is false imprisonment"
(Burriss, 1991, p.5).  Tong (1992) notes, "The long-term
ramifications of this (separation trauma and loss of family and
possessions) on the children has yet to be determined, but the
potential consequences cannot be considered innocuous or
inconsequential" (p.120).

Child advocates believe that abuse runs in cycles.  Therefore, they
maintain that when children are abused, they will later abuse their
own children.  Similarly, Burriss (1991) notes Gardner's observation
that many people will grow up and enter an occupation because of some
major event in their life.  For instance, a person exposed to a
catastrophic illness may become a physician.  Social workers who were
abused as children may later wish to take on the cause of child
protection.  Therefore, they tend to be overzealous and to believe
that every reported case of abuse or neglect must be substantiated in
order to protect the child.

But, protect them from what ... their parents?  Wexler (1990)
states, "No one will value and protect another's child as they will
their own."  In a Glenn Close (1992) documentary, Broken Hearts,
Broken Homes, a social worker, Laurette Moatt, hesitates to return a
child to the parents because: "It's hard to return a child home
because of the developmental stage she's in.  It's not easy to switch
primary caretakers.  That's not something kids do just like that."
Yet, this same social worker did not hesitate to "switch primary
caretakers" on an unsubstantiated allegation of abuse.  In addition,
children are at higher risk of receiving physical, sexual and
emotional abuse in foster care which may be worse than the alleged
abuse by the parents (Jones, 1991).

HRS workers have great power to intervene and separate the child from
the parents.  However, they are not accountable.  The conduct of HRS
workers and other child advocates, such as the guardians ad litem, is
protected with legal immunity.  Florida statutes 415.508 and 39.455
state: "The inability or failure of the social services agency or the
employees or agents of the social service agency to provide the
services ... shall not render the state or the social service agency
liability for damages ... (292).  Also, according to the court case
of Darryl H. v. Coler; 801 F. 2d 893.93 A. L. R. Fed. 501, this
immunity protects social workers from civil rights violations,
knowingly false reports, and abuse of children if done during the
investigation.

In addition, all records of investigations involving child abuse are
confidential or sealed unavailable to the public.  While
confidentiality is claimed to protect the child, in actuality it
provides an excellent shield to cover up wrong doing by the child
protection system.  Therefore, child protection workers have full
access to children with complete secrecy, immunity from prosecution,
and legal protection from the department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services if their judgment is questioned.  What better environment
could a child molester or abuser ask for?

Workers may violate basic civil and constitutional rights, falsify
reports, emotionally traumatize and abuse children, and place
children in foster care where the children may be physically and/or
sexually abused.  All of this is done in the name of the best
interest of the child.  "The government has no right to expect
perfection from parents especially when the government has
demonstrated they are substantially less than perfect themselves"
(Burriss, 1991, p.7).

Jones (1991) identifies the harm of intervention in abuse cases
as "iatrogenic harm" or system abuse.  Iatrogenic harm is the harm
created by the response of the system to an allegation of abuse.
Some of the components Jones identifies are overzealous professional
intervention which becomes counterproductive; repeated interviewing
or "disclosure work"; repeated physical examinations; decline in
living standards and family breakup; defensive decision making for
fear of lawsuits; withholding of treatment for lack of funds;
overtreatment; and foster care, particularly when there are multiple
placements and the disruptions are abrupt.

In defense of the social worker, the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services in Florida acknowledges that "unfortunately,
unpredictable increases in reports and cases, long-term vacancy rates
and high turnover in staff have reduced the goal of obtaining
manageable and effective workload" (Florida Protective Services
System, p. 42).  Workers are not adequately screened nor trained to
do the job that is entrusted to them.  A worker can have a four-year
degree from any college.  Although they have background checks, via
fingerprints through the FBI run on them after employment, the
screening does have information regarding abuse or neglect listed
against them when they were children.  Such childhood abuse could
influence their attitudes as protective workers.

The recommended number of new cases per case worker is to be no more
than 12 per month.  However, workers average up to 15 or more new
cases.  When this is added to the existing case load, considering
children stay in government care on the average of 2 to 6 years, a
case worker may have up to approximately 120 cases.  David Flagg,
State House of Representatives of Alachua County, Florida (1988 to
1992) observes this is an outrage, not only for the case worker, but
for the children (personal communication).  Mr. Flagg felt that no
one person could possibly handle that large a case load and do the
task of protecting children adequately.  He said it was no wonder
children and families are being separated for long periods due to the
lack of proper services being offered to reunite the family.  ABC's
Diane Sawyer (News Prime Time Live, December 3, 1992) observes
that "The HRS's system is stretched too thin — too many case, too few
workers ... (social workers) are also just careless and incompetent.

Luza and Ortiz (1991) describe what they term the "shame" factor
child protective workers use against families.  They believe
that "the Child Protective Service workers act in a shaming way
toward people it investigates for abuse, in much the same way that a
parent shames a child in a dysfunctional family.  The family becomes
the shamed 'child' and the CPS acts as the shaming 'parent'"
(p.109).  Luza and Ortiz believe that even though there are laws
requiring professionals to identify and report abuse, the pendulum
may have swung too far in that it is considered unwise to support
less intervention because one may be thought of as a proponent of
child abuse.  The result is unnecessary state intervention into
private family matters and grief to innocent parents and their
children.


Recommendations for Improvement

Schultz (1989) reports on a case study of 100 cases of unfounded
abuse and makes several recommendations for improvement in the system:


  The case load of the child protective worker should be reduced to a
manageable level.

  The hotline reports should be classified by experienced workers in
terms of the seriousness of the risk.

  In-service training for administrators in proper and ethical use of
media (which often uses hype and exaggerated data) should be
provided.

  Initial call screening must be improved.

  Family-impact statements should be required to justify all major
decisions for state intervention into family privacy.

  Child protective agencies should assign one case worker to represent
the child and one worker to represent the interest and rights of the
parents.

  Family mediation should be a first step in allegations, instead of
court action.

  Interviews of suspected victims and offenders should be videotaped
by properly trained personnel.

  Investigators should receive training in how to effectively gather
evidence that will stand up in court.

  Professional assistance for parent-victim should be provided to
assist them in forgiving the court and repairing injury by the
system.

  Some type of victims-compensation benefit for falsely charged and/or
convicted individuals should be instituted, or made a part of current
victims compensation policy.

There is one solution that has been implemented, as a pilot program
in four districts in Florida (Chapter 415, 415.515-415.22).  That
program is the Family Builders Program.  This program, which was
developed by the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Washington, DC, is
an intensive family preservation service designed to keep families
intact and to improve family functioning (Kenny, 1991).  Referrals to
this program are parents who have allegedly abused or neglected their
children and may lose custody of their children to the state
department of HRS.

A team of highly trained therapists and social workers work with no
more than three families at a time.  They assess the needs of the
family and they provide necessary services, such as help in obtaining
food, clothing, and shelter; training in parenting skills, balancing
a checkbook, and preparing nutritious meals; and teaching families
about emotions, behaviors, and interpersonal relationships.  The cost
of these services, which are paid for by state, federal and private
funds, does not exceed the cost of out-of-home care which otherwise
would be incurred.

The social worker and therapists are available to the family 24 hours
a day for up to 90 days.  After that, there are monthly follow-ups by
the same team for up to 12 months.  This program has proven to be
highly cost effective and 88% of the children originally targeted for
out-of-home placement remain out of government-funded foster, group
or institutional care.  Therefore, this program is saving Florida
substantial money.


Conclusions

Child abuse is a serious issue but is not as widespread as some child
advocates maintain.  Children not only have the right to grow up free
of abuse, but have the right to expect to be raised within their own
family.  This issue is not just about "saving children"; it is about
family preservation (Wexler, 1990).  Until professionals can accept
the fact that the family unit is the most important part of the
child's life, and that parents need to be recognized as the "experts"
in knowing what is in the best interests of their children, innocent
families will continue to be destroyed in what the bureaucratic
government agencies call "acting in the best interest of the child"
or "erring on the side of the child."  If we are really serious about
child protection, we must begin "erring on the side of the family"
(Wexler, 1990).

References
ABC News Prime Time Live, (1992, December 3). Who watches the
watchmen? (Television). American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Transcript #274.

Besharov, D. J. (1988). How child abuse programs hurt poor children:
the misuse of foster care. Clearinghouse Review, 22(3), 219-227.

Burriss, R. (1991). The government's right to molest children in the
best interest of the child. Unpublished manuscript.

Casey, S. (1991). District Administrator HRS, Gainesville, Florida.
Letter to David Flagg, Representative, District 24.

Close, C. (1992, December 2). Broken hearts, broken homes. Your
family matters [documentary]. Lifetime production. Transcript #10.

Coler, G. L (1991). Florida Protective Services System: Annual
Report, Fiscal Year 1989-90, Child Protective Investigations, pp.3,
19, 41-42. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services.

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (1990). HRS
Manual 175-7, pp. 1-9, 2-17. Tallahassee, Florida: Author.

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (1988). HRS
Pamphlet 175-1. Child Protective Services Investigation Decisions
Handbook, Appendix F, F-2; F-11; pp. 7-5, 7-8. Tallahassee, Florida:
Author.

Florida Protective Services System (1991). Executive Summary. Audit
Report No. 11645, pp. i-vii. Tallahassee, Florida: Author.

Florida Statutes 4. (1989). Chapters 624-960, pp. 1308.

Florida Statutes 1. (1991). Chapters 1-246, pp. 292.

Florida Statutes 3. (1991). Chapters 409-623, pp. 117, 143-144.

Gelles, R., & Straus, M. (1989). Intimate Violence: The Causes and
Consequences of Abuse in the American Family (). New York: Touchstone
Books.

Jones, D. P. (1991). Professional and clinical challengers to
protection of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 57-66.

Kinney, J. (1991). Making a difference for children, families and
communities. Behavioral Science Institute.

Luza, S., & Ortiz, E. (1991). The dynamic of shame in interactions
between child protective services and families falsely accused of
child abuse. Issues In Child Abuse Accusations, 3(2), 108-123.

NL, ES, & MM plaintiff vs. Gregory L Coler, individually and as
Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
State of Florida, defendant, (1990, March). Case #TCA 90-40069-MP, in
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee
Division.

Ostalkiewicz, J. (1991. February). Family rights: HRS' child abuse
witch hunt. Orlando, FL, Newsletter, 1-8.

Pride, N. (1986). The Child Abuse Industry (). Illinois: Crossway
Books.

Russell, D. (1986). The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls
and Women (). New York: Basic Books.

Schultz, L. (1989). One hundred cases of unfounded child sexual
abuse: A survey and recommendations. Issues In Child Abuse
Accusations, 1(1), 29-38.

Associated Press (1989, February 7). Study: 92% of appealed child-
abuse cases false. The Orlando Sentinel, p. B-1, B-5 and the
Tallahassee Sun-Sentinal, p. 16-A.

Tong, D. (1992). Don't Blame Me, Daddy (). Norfolk, Virginia: Hampton
Roads Publishing Co.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Center of Child
Abuse and Neglect. (1988). Study findings: Study of national
incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect (1988 NIS-2).
Chapter 3, p. 2. Washington, DC: Author.

Wexler, J. (1990). Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War
Against Child Abuse (). New York: Prometheus Books.

Whalen, J. (1991). Florida abuse registry loses in federal court.
Issues In Child Abuse Allegations, 3(4), 228-231.

* Karen Radko is the vice-president of the Board of Directors of
VOCAL of Florida and the District Representative for the Gainesville,
Florida VOCAL Chapter. Ms. Radko, who is pursuing a masters and
doctorate in psychology, can be reached at P.O. Box 7021,
Gainesville, Florida 32605.  [Back]

Network and organize with as many others as you can by
joining groups working on these issues.  Learn as much
as you can about your rights and the law.  THere are
some good internet sites for this such as Child
Protective Services Watch at:
  http://www.cpswatch.com/

http://www.suecps.com/1983act.htm
Regards,
Dave D

----------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE ASIA L. (03/27/03 - No. A098500, A099079) Where the record does
not reflect a likelihood of adoption sufficient to support the
termination of parental rights, the order terminating parental rights
is reversed. The court has not secured compliance with the Indian
Child Welfare Act. To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?
dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/a098500.html To read the full text of this
opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a098500.pdf
======================================================================
  COURT FORMS ONLINE AND FREE! Finally! Over 8,000 FREE online court
forms in ONE location at http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?
url=10214460006_nl. Get the latest forms legal professionals use
everyday such as summonses, complaints, affidavits, and schedules,
all in FindLaw's court forms area. Browse by federal, state,
district, and bankruptcy courts, or by subject areas from adoption to
divorce to civil harassment. Get the court forms you really need
FAST! Search FindLaw's court database today:
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=10214460006_nl
======================================================================


Family Law
Issues: Termination of parental rights
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re S.R.
e-Journal Number: 18539
Judge(s): Memorandum - Schuette, Sawyer, and Wilder
The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother''s parental
rights to the minor children. Although respondent completed some of
the treatment plan, she failed to address through counseling the
principal issues leading to adjudication. She entered substance abuse
therapy and stopped using cocaine, but began abusing a prescription
drug. Despite being treated twice for an overdose, she continued to
deny her abuse. She entered counseling to address her endangerment of
the children, but continued to deny responsibility for her actions.
Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/040103.html#7
full opinion


http://www.michbar.org/opinions/home.html?/opinions/appeals/2003/03270
3/18539.pdf
=====================================================================

Issues: Termination of parental rights
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re M.W.K.L.
e-Journal Number: 18519
Judge(s): Memorandum - O''Connell, Fitzgerald, and Murray
The trial court properly terminated respondent''s parental rights to
her children. The children were removed from her custody because the
home was unfit and she had a longstanding substance abuse problem.
She made only minimal effort to comply with the parent-agency
agreement, completed parenting classes and visited the children, but
failed to obtain suitable housing and employment, and made no
progress in addressing her substance abuse problem. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§§§ 19b(3)(b)(i),
(b)(ii), and (j)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re T.M.S.
e-Journal Number: 18512
Judge(s): Per Curiam –– Schuette, Sawyer, and Wilder
The trial court did not clearly err in finding §§§§ 19b(3)(b)(i) and
(j) for respondent-mother and (b)(ii) and (j) for respondent-father
were established by clear and convincing evidence. The mother pleaded
guilty to child abuse in connection with injuries discovered during
an emergency room visit, including broken ribs and a broken clavicle.
The mother also failed to complete the requirements of her
parent/agency agreement. The trial court found the father failed to
protect the child from the serious abuse, and he did not have
successful visits with her. The father did not know how to tend to
the child''s needs during the visits, and afterwards the child
experienced a variety of negative reactions. Termination of both
parents'' rights was affirmed.

Full Text Opinion
=====================================================================

From:  wizardlaw@...
To: attorneybankert@...
Subject: Legal Education Videotapes
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:41:32

  [ note to the reader I have not used this and have no financial
interest in it -Terry Bankert]


Resources for Legal Self-Representation
Learn how to fight the legal system without a lawyer:

Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure      $23.80
postpaid
Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself  $23.80 postpaid
Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court                  $23.80
postpaid
Video #4 Preparing for
Trial
$23.80 postpaid
Video #5 The Buck Stops Here - US Supreme Court     $23.80 postpaid

All five for $99.00 postpaid.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you have an enforceable, but denied, Court Visitation Order,
VISITATION ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE - $29.95 postpaid

http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

======================================================================

trb 4/1/03

Some of you may remember awhile back I started that campaign for sending complaints to the U.N.  I know, I know, some of you were all riled up by it.  Look, it's not like the U.N. is going to send the cavalry in to save us.  Complaints that make it to the petition phase are taken very seriously.  I received mostly positive feedback.  I have no idea how many people actually sent in complaints because I am not tracking it, I am leaving it up to each individual to decide for themselves.  Anyway, my point here is that I have placed this campaign on my website and sent a new e-mail to the U.N. as follows:

So, for those of you who may be interested, the details are available on the website.  Thanks.

J.

I need your opinions:

Which individuals or organizations are behind creating child protection services as we know them? 

What went wrong? 

Aside: Which is the correct terminology - child protection services or child protective services?

American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law
School



By Geraldine Hawkins

March 7, 2003



The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge

Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the
Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.

She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed
to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal
philosophy has descended to nihilism.

"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are
disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day.
That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.

"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who
wrote that: 'The law of nature … dictated by God himself … is binding … in
all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary
to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their
authority … from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited
power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on
transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.

She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is
"just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and
reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.

"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she
continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow
citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the
rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our
equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this

new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the
rule of law and its roots.

"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly
society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a
moral relativist when your own people are being killed."

According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law
comes from within the legal system itself.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first
writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described
lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The
intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on
venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities

and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled
attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were
respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's
whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the
majority.

"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but

to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares
Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.

"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the
temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law

has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice

they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation
of the law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like
occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects
include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also
been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"

The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win

at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.

However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that
the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others
seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents
or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be
trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of
law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"

Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'

Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of
lawsuits, according to her.

"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are
brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their
clients. … The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to
think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to
achieve social goals than by going into court."

Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for
this kind of abuse.

"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct
evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to
revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from
trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination,
second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous
discrimination suits are filed … creating an atmosphere in which many
corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply
cannot afford to vindicate their positions.

"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for
individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve
redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys'
self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable

social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of
change.'"

Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of
dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."

The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where
is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"

Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the
administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?

"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said.
"Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of
the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage
in a system they perceive as manipulatable."

The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is
encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is
difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.

"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At

the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and
short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being

regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the
public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable
agency action have little recourse."

Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The

Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which
further delineate this problem.

The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from
contemporary legal philosophy.

"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by
theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal
studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each
of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them
addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."

Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who
wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom"
is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward
an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an
individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic
processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."

No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms

The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school

classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even

worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.

"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the

broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted
Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought …
has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning
and value on the basis of … our purely mechanistic understanding of the
universe."

Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread
running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it:
"The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its
ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are
disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but
also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a

whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law

itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to
expediency and less to morality. … The historical soil of the Western legal
tradition is being washed away … and the tradition itself is threatened with
collapse."

Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all
the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality
are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's
book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.

"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is

a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."

Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom,"

Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses?
The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each
according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even
remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.

"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest
society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did
concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as
constitutional monarchy.

"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating
system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV.
These lawyers are willing to say anything."

Potential Nominee to Supreme Court

Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme
Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.

"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for
federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your
nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'

"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People

who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."

Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the
University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by
President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in
Houston.

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from
Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium
on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the
academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge
Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of
legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.

From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over
150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one
of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized

dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice
on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and

policy issues.

The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested
in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three
principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of
governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically
the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it
should be.

<A HREF="http://www.massnews.com/index.shtml">
</A>
> <A HREF="http://www.massnews.com/mn_letters.shtml">Send a Letter to the
Editor</A>

   




© Copyright 2002 Massachusetts News. All Rights Reserved.

Keep more children out of foster care, report recommends
By TIM HOOVER
The Kansas City Star
Posted on Tue, Apr. 01, 2003

JEFFERSON CITY - Missouri must find ways to keep more children in
their homes instead of placing them in foster care, a commission said
Monday in a preliminary report.

That was one of several suggestions from the Missouri Supreme Court
Commission on Children's Justice. The recommendations, which are
still subject to change, will be included in a report to Gov. Bob
Holden, lawmakers and the Supreme Court. A final report is expected
by June 13.

Other recommendations include a two-year pilot project opening child
abuse and neglect court proceedings, creation of a "Child Well-Being"
hot line for calls that do not rise to the level of neglect or abuse,
and increasing pay and reducing case loads of Missouri social workers.

Keeping more children out of foster care, the report said, would
allow social workers to focus more time on the most serious cases of
abuse.

But if children must be removed from their homes, the report said,
priority should be given to placing them with other relatives first
before parental rights are terminated and foster care placement is
necessary.

"Research demonstrates that when children are placed with
relatives/kin, they are less likely to be traumatized, are safer, and
are more likely to achieve timely permanency," the report said.

The recommendation falls in line with testimony from several child
welfare advocates to the commission, which has been meeting since
January.

Too many children nationally are being placed in foster care without
justification, the advocates said. That makes it difficult to reunite
families and creates heavy case loads that allow truly endangered
children to fall through the cracks.

The family-preservation recommendation also mirrors the findings of
an investigation ordered by Holden and those of a Missouri Senate
panel that looked into the foster care system last year.

The report also recommends a two-year pilot project to open child
abuse and neglect court proceedings. The project would take place in
St. Louis, Greene County, Cole County and two other rural counties
yet to be designated.

The presumption would be that court proceedings would be opened, but
the commission recommended allowing judges discretion to close the
hearing and also called for all testimony given by children to be
closed.

Advocates of opening proceedings say it would promote trust and
accountability in the system. Commission members said the locations
for the pilot project were chosen to include jurisdictions of varying
sizes.

The commission also recommended creation of a "Child Well-Being" hot
line to take calls that do not rise to the level of neglect or abuse.

The Division of Family Services' child-abuse hot line received more
than 100,000 calls in 2002, of which 53.7 percent resulted in an
investigation for abuse or neglect.

Some 28.8 percent of those calls resulted in a referral to another
agency or organization for services.

"I think one of the most important things in this report is the move
toward focusing hot line response on the most serious complaints,"
said House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, a St. Louis County Republican
and a member of the commission.

"I think that if we can get rid of about a third of the calls which
don't require an investigation or an assessment, if DFS (Division of
Family Services) can focus on the most serious cases, that's going to
help both prevent children from being taken who shouldn't be taken,
and get kids out of homes where they're being abused," she said.

Other recommendations in the report included:

• Requiring a court hearing with parents and caseworkers present
within 72 hours after an order of protective custody has been issued.
The first priority would be to determine whether the child can be
returned to the parents' home.

• Expanding background checks on foster parents to include an FBI
fingerprint check and a search of civil court records.

• Increasing the pay and benefits of caseworkers to attract and
retain quality workers.

• Reducing case loads, which for Missouri social workers range from
40 to 70 a worker, compared with about 20 a worker in Kansas and 16 a
worker in Illinois.

Any recommendations, however, that affect the state's beleaguered
budget may have to wait.

"Hopefully, what we will be able to do is shift some resources around
that are currently going for these intended purposes," Hanaway
said. "But in terms of more money, there just isn't more money for
anything."

Chief Justice Stephen Limbaugh appointed the 22-member commission,
which is composed of judges, lawmakers, foster care advocates and
others. The panel was formed in the wake of other inquiries that have
delved into problems with the state's Division of Family Services.

The agency has come under fire since the August 2002 death of 2-year-
old Dominic James of Springfield, who died while in foster care. The
boy's foster father, James Dilley of Willard, is accused of shaking
Dominic to death.

After the boy's death, it was learned that Dilley's estranged wife
had been granted a protection order from him, alleging physical abuse.

To reach Tim Hoover, Jefferson City reporter, call (573) 634-3565 or
send e-mail to thoover@....

Three Percent Growth in Child Abuse and Neglect Alarms Prevention
Advocates
Tue Apr 1, 5:45 PM ET





To: National Desk


Contact: Julie Rowe of Prevent Child Abuse America, 773-750-4593 or
312-663-3520 ext. 141


CHICAGO, April 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by
A. Sidney Johnson, III, president and CEO of Prevent Child Abuse
America:


"While these numbers are still lower than the levels of maltreatment
we saw in the early 90s, this is the second increase in two years
leaving us concerned that this could be a new trend. As our network
of chapters and prevention programs face budget cuts nationwide, we
are increasingly concerned with this three percent growth in
confirmed reports of child abuse and neglect. (1)


"We are especially mindful that the stress caused by an economic
downturn coupled with war can put a dangerous strain on families,
increasing the risk of child abuse and neglect. As reports of child
maltreatment grow during these uncertain times, our need for
prevention becomes even more critical.


"One of the keys to preventing child abuse and neglect from
happening in the first place is to provide parents with the
necessary tools to help them be the best parents possible. Voluntary
home visitation programs like Healthy Families America, and parent
support programs such as Circle of Parents, can help reduce the
stress faced everyday by parents; stress that is often exacerbated
by poor economic conditions. But these programs don't just happen;
we need adequate funding for them. As we celebrate the 20th
anniversary of Child Abuse Prevention Month this April there is no
better time to increase our investment in prevention."


--- Interview opportunities available.


--- (1) Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (news -
web sites) released its 2001 national statistics on child abuse and
neglect. It estimates that 2,672,000 U.S. children were reported
abused or neglected in 2001, with 903,000 confirmed victims.




http://www.usnewswire.com/


-0-


/© 2003 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re D.M.H.
e-Journal Number: 18574
Judge(s): Memorandum - Griffin, Neff, and Gage
The trial court properly terminated respondent''s parental rights to
her minor children. The children, then ages 2 years and 11 months,
were removed from respondent''s care after she left them alone for
several hours without supervision or food. Though respondent
participated in some services, the evidence showed it was unlikely
she would ever be able to provide the children with adequate housing
or parenting. There was no evidence to suggest she was any more able
to care for the children at the time of termination than at the time
the children were removed from the home. Affirmed.

FOR FULL TEXT

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/home.html?/opinions/appeals/2003/04010
3/18574.pdf

Anyone ever heard of the Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta/capta1.htm

Read Sec. 101 and 102 under Title I.  See under Sec. 102:

c10  parent’s groups

c11  voluntary groups

c12  family rights groups

c13  children’s rights advocates

Are any of us on this board?  Why not?  Why weren’t we informed (well, we know the answer to that one).  How do we join?

Michael Weber is or was the Chair for the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect.  He also is or was the Chair for the Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network.  http://www.nfpn.org/  Has anyone ever heard of him or NFPN? 

Child-welfare system may have failed baby

FLINT

THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION
Sunday, April 13, 2003
By Edward L. Ronders
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER


Flint - Nicholas DeLong was a tiny 1 pound, 11 ounces when he was
born two months premature on Nov. 29, 2001, at Hurley Medical Center.

In the next 14 months, as Nicholas grew to more than 11 pounds, his
family, the Genesee County court system, Protective Services of the
Family Independence Agency, a foster family and numerous doctors
tried to help Nicholas overcome his tough start.
So why, on Feb. 17, 2003, did Nicholas die?
"Overall, through a bunch of people's fault, you could say the system
failed," said Probate Judge Thomas L. Gadola. "There was no evidence
of neglect or abuse."
Flint police continue to investigate Nicholas' death.
"There are some inconsistencies" in accounts of what happened, said
Sgt. Timothy Johnson, who wouldn't elaborate.
Genesee County Prosecutor Arthur A. Busch said his office has
contacted both the courts and Protective Services with concerns about
how the case was handled.
"We're part of the criminal investigation into this matter," Busch
said. "This is a horrendous case and we need to stop abiding by
artificially, self-imposed timelines that can have a drastic effect
on the well-being of a child."
Busch specifically criticized recent laws that force the courts and
Protective Services to expedite cases, a move he said may not be in
the best interest of the children.
A child advocate agrees.
"Clearly, they dropped the ball and this baby is dead," said Mary Ann
Ketels, executive director of the 4-C Child Care Unlimited, an agency
that refers licensed child care providers to parents. She was not
involved in Nicholas' case. "Protective Services got involved but
didn't follow through, leaving that child in a situation that
ultimately killed him."
An autopsy, performed by Genesee County Medical Examiner Dr. Cathy O.
Blight, failed to determine the cause of death, although further
tests are pending.
Nicholas' mother, Gretchen Vogel, 34, has declined to be interviewed
by police or The Flint Journal on the advice of her attorney, Steven
Beatty. But Beatty is critical of the five months the child was in
foster care.
"I think it's a shame that this mother had to be separated from this
child for such a long time," Beatty said. "The entire family is
mourning the loss of a loved one. The mother is mourning the loss of
her only child."
People on all sides of the case say procedures need to be changed.
Protective Services caseworkers and prosecutors couldn't present even
the most basic facts during a hearing to determine if Nicholas should
be returned to his family.
For example, a caseworker couldn't recall who authorized Nicholas'
removal from his mother's care. And neither the caseworker nor the
prosecuting attorney presented any medical personnel to testify about
Nicholas' treatment.
The hearing to determine his fate was postponed while new referees
were trained in an effort to expedite cases.
The Family Court referee who decided to return Nicholas to his
mother, 25 days before the baby died, was new on the job, having only
about a week's experience with neglect and abuse issues as a referee.
She denied a request to postpone the hearing to allow the prosecution
time to present medical experts, even though none of those involved
objected to the delay.
A rough beginning
Nicholas spent the first five months of his life in Hurley's neonatal
intensive care unit.
He grew to 5 pounds, 3 ounces, gaining about 1 pound per month, which
doctors say is normal. His mother took him home on May 3, 2002.
Nicholas and his family, including two half-sisters and a half-
brother, lived in a mobile home in rural Lapeer County, court records
show, and Nicholas was under the care of several doctors in Flint and
Columbiaville.
A medically fragile child, he was fed through a tube connected to his
stomach and was also placed on an apnea monitor, which sounded an
alarm if he stopped breathing.
Nicholas also had been injured by a nurse before he ever left Hurley.
Another nurse discovered the child had a broken bone in his left
upper arm, Beatty said.
"The baby was mishandled on the third shift and the first-shift nurse
caught it," he said. "Hurley acknowledged to the mother what happened
and wouldn't allow that nurse contact with Nicholas."
A spokeswoman for Hurley said she could not comment, citing patient
confidentiality. But Beatty said the nurse was disciplined, although
he did not know details, including whether the injury was accidental.
Last August, after at least one other move, Nicholas' family moved
into a friend's mobile home in Flint.
On Aug. 24, 2002, a confrontation happened that would change the
family's life dramatically.
Nicholas' father and Vogel's boyfriend arrived at the mobile home at
about 4:15 a.m. after a night of partying, court records show. Vogel
was asleep on a couch with Nicholas nearby in an infant car seat and
didn't hear the two men pounding on the door. Finally, they broke a
window to get in.
When her boyfriend questioned Vogel's care of Nicholas, she allegedly
tossed the baby at him, saying, "If you don't like the way I'm taking
care of him, you take the little mother------," court records show.
Beatty said Vogel denies that incident.
The state steps in
Court and Protective Services documents are fuzzy in outlining what
happened next. They indicate Flint police were called, but police
have no record of it.
Nicholas was taken to Hurley Medical Center, but no one knows by
whom.
He was placed in foster care, but no one now can say who called
Protective Services.
Court records indicate officials took the child because of the
parents' frequent moves, which they said prevented him from getting
proper medical care.
The agency also cited the child's "failure to thrive." When he
entered foster care, Nicholas was 9 months old and weighed 7 pounds,
2 ounces.
The next step for Nicholas was a hearing in Probate Court on whether
Nicholas would stay in foster care or go home.
Hearings normally are scheduled within 89 days of placement, but
Nicholas stayed in foster care for 144 days before his hearing, while
five attorneys were trained as referees to address a backlog of
cases.
Beatty said Vogel visited her son each week and voluntarily attended
parenting classes.
Meanwhile, Nicholas spent his first birthday in the hospital. Records
do not indicate why.
"Gretchen went to visit her son on his birthday," Beatty said. "When
she got (to the foster home), only then did she find out he was back
in the hospital."
Problems continued to stack up.
Shelley Spivack, assigned to referee Nicholas' case, scheduled a Jan.
16 hearing to determine who should have custody. But Protective
Services and the Genesee County prosecutor's office - which
represents it in such proceedings - were unprepared.
Protective Services caseworker Jamie Waller was assigned to the case
on Aug. 28, 2002, and told the courts she did not know which
caseworker removed Nicholas from the home.
Although she got Nicholas' case five months before his hearing, she
told the court she had not reviewed any of Nicholas' records to
determine if he had been receiving proper care at home with his
mother.
The Flint Journal was unable to reach Waller for comment. Calls to
her and to her supervisor were referred to a FIA spokeswoman in
Lansing, who said it's the agency's policy to not comment on specific
cases.
Spivack denied the prosecutor's request to postpone the hearing to
get medical personnel to testify, and she chastised Assistant
Prosecutor David Guinn for not reviewing the case before he came to
court.
Busch said Protective Services and Spivack did not put the child's
best interests at the forefront.
He said no caseworker filed a detailed petition asking that Nicholas
be placed in foster care. Protective Services did not heed a request
from Busch's office for a detailed report on the case, he said. Nor
was the child's medical history compiled, leaving the assistant
prosecutor unprepared to present a medical expert to testify about
Nicholas' special needs.
"I don't mean to be a Monday morning quarterback, but the referee's
concerns over a crowded docket were more important than our concerns
for this child's well-being," he said.
Busch also said the referee should have allowed Guinn the opportunity
to present medical evidence to show neglect.
"The referee, whom I believe was hearing one of her first cases,
demanded we get two doctors to testify," Busch said. "It wasn't
possible to get two doctors to leave their medical practice on an
hour's notice. In a situation of this nature, the referee should have
granted an adjournment to allow those people to testify. To me, that
was a very unusual decision that resulted in devastating
consequences."
With no evidence of neglect, Spivack - who declined to comment for
this story - ordered the then-11-pound, 3-ounce Nicholas to his
mother at the Jan. 16 hearing. He went home Jan. 23.
No one involved in the case appealed Spivack's ruling, in which they
could have asked Gadola to review the findings.
"The referee made the correct decision based on the evidence
presented," Gadola said last month. "There was no evidence of medical
neglect. There was no claim the child wasn't receiving proper medical
treatment."
On Feb. 17, Vogel noticed Nicholas wasn't breathing and called 911,
police records show. He died that day at Hurley.
Reviewing the case
Nicholas' case has prompted Gadola to change one court procedure: He
said he will no longer sign a court order until the seven-day window
for appeals has passed.
That will prevent a child from being switched from a foster home back
to its parents, only to face a second possible switch if the judge
overrules the referee's decision.
He also said he will meet with Denise Chambers, director of the
Genesee County Family Independence Agency, to discuss how to improve
handling such cases.
Ketels said more changes are needed.
"This has happened before; unfortunately, it will happen again," she
said. "It will continue until we look at the system and make it work.
It's easy enough to say there's not enough caseworkers and too large
a caseload. We know that. We now have to fix that."
Ketels suggests streamlining the system to help expedite cases,
adding caseworkers and holding caseworkers accountable.
Abuse and neglect complaints are first sent to a central office, and
then to a local caseworker, an unnecessary step, she said.
"Child protection laws requires investigations to begin within 24
hours," she said. "In reality, that doesn't happen. Those are very
long delays that put children at greater risk."
The caseworker assigned to Nicholas didn't file the required court
papers for four days, way beyond the 24-hour rule.
"I can't fault the local caseworkers for a statewide system that
doesn't work. If they have to wait (to get the case back from the
central office), who's fault is it?" Ketels said.
Adding caseworkers would also help, she said. The overload of cases
doesn't permit enough time to investigate abuse.
"The longer a case goes on, you can lose evidence of abuse. ... Any
time delay (in handling a case) is tragic," she said. "The only way
to address that is to increase funding, hire more caseworkers. Then
you must hold caseworkers accountable for the requirements laid out
in the child protection laws."
Police, meanwhile, are awaiting more detailed autopsy results,
Johnson said. They also expect to subpoena the records of the medical
supply firm that provided Nicholas' medical equipment.
Those records, from oxygen and apnea monitors, will provide an
insight into Nicholas' condition over a period of time and show
whether he encountered any undue stress, Johnson said.
Beatty says the system failed when it removed Nicholas from his
mother.
"Two doctors saw Nicholas one week before he was placed in foster
care, and neither one reported (the family) to Protective Services,"
he said. "They were pleased with his weight gain.
"What (the prosecution) presented didn't amount to neglect. Nicholas
had a number of special needs. I don't care if a family moves 100
times, as long as they meet the child's needs it's not neglect."
***
Edward L. Ronders is the day police reporter. He can be reached at
(810) 766-6314 or eronders@....

In re C.C. (2003) , Cal.App.4th
[No. E032112. Fourth Dist., Div. Two. Apr. 10, 2003.]
In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. B.C., Defendant and Respondent; C.C., Appellant.

(Superior Court of Riverside County, No. SWJ000288, Robert W. Nagby,
Temporary Judge. fn. * )

(Opinion by Richli, J., with Hollenhorst, Acting P. J., and Gaut, J.,
concurring.)

COUNSEL

Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Appellant.

Willaim C. Katzenstein, County Counsel, and Julie A. Koons, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Richard
Pfeiffer for Defendant and Respondent. {Slip Opn. Page 2}

OPINION

RICHLI, J.-

C.C., a minor girl (Minor), appeals from the juvenile court's
dispositional order granting reunification services to her mother,
B.C. (Mother). Despite evidence that Mother's mental illness might
make her incapable of reunifying with Minor, the court concluded it
had no authority to deny services, because Mother would not submit to
a psychological evaluation as required for denial of services under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2).

We conclude a juvenile court has the authority to deny services to a
parent who refuses to comply with a valid court order for a
psychological evaluation. We reverse the order granting services and
remand to give the court and parties an opportunity to determine how
they wish to proceed in light of our decision.


IFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing

Minor was born in January 1999. In March 2002, the Riverside County
Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a dependency
petition regarding Minor. The petition alleged Mother had inflicted
serious physical harm on Minor, causing a nosebleed and a bruise to
her forehead; Mother was mentally ill and unable to protect Minor;
and Minor's father could not be located and provided no support for
{Slip Opn. Page 3} Minor. The petition included a police report
showing that Mother had been arrested for corporal injury to a child
(Pen. Code, § 273d) for causing the injuries to Minor.

DPSS's report for the detention hearing stated that at the time she
was arrested Mother was incoherent and unable to be interviewed. A
maternal aunt who was at the scene said the family had been trying to
get Mother some mental health help for a long time, to no avail.
According to the aunt, Mother said things that did not make sense.
Mother had been trying to prevent relatives from touching Minor
because she thought this would kill Minor. Mother also had been
saying that "[t]he demons [were] coming" and that she was trying to
protect her daughter. Mother referred to the relatives and to herself
as "dead."

The day after the petition was filed, the court ordered Minor removed
from Mother's custody. It also authorized a psychological evaluation
of Mother, to be confidential, and ordered reunification services and
visitation for Mother.

B. Jurisdictional Hearing

The court set a jurisdictional hearing for April 2002. DPSS's report
for the hearing stated Mother had been released on bail after her
arrest, but had been returned to custody when she failed to appear
for a settlement conference in March 2002. When the social worker
interviewed Mother at the jail in April 2002, Mother had
a "disconnected" look on her face. She stated, "I am tired of these
devil games." She also said, "You can't believe anything Breanna
says, she is dead." When the social worker asked her who {Slip Opn.
Page 4} Breanna was, Mother got a disconnected look on her face and
said she did not want to talk anymore.

Mother's mother told the social worker that Mother was depressed and
acted like she was "schizophrenic." She said Mother was "not in her
right state of mind."

The social worker also spoke with Minor's shelter parents. The
shelter mother reported that Minor had said, "[M]y mom slapped me."
Later, Minor told the social worker, "[M]y mommy does not like me."

The court continued the jurisdictional hearing to May 2002 for
receipt of psychological reports. DPSS requested two psychological
evaluations of Mother. However, a question arose whether the
evaluations could be performed without Mother's agreement.

In May 2002, DPSS requested a further continuance to obtain the
results of a psychological examination of Mother. The court again
continued the hearing, to June 2002. It also appointed a guardian ad
litem for Mother.

DPSS's report for the June jurisdictional hearing recommended Mother
receive reunification services. However, DPSS reported Mother was
refusing to receive psychological services and had refused to
complete psychological evaluations. A doctor had reported that Mother
refused to leave her cell and refused to speak with him.

In June 2002, the court set the jurisdictional hearing as a contested
matter for July 2002. At the July hearing, the court found true all
of the jurisdictional allegations of the {Slip Opn. Page 5} petition,
including the allegation that Mother suffered from mental health
problems which endangered Minor's safety and well-being.

C. Dispositional Hearing

Following the jurisdictional findings, the court conducted a
dispositional hearing. It granted custody of Minor to DPSS, for
placement in a foster home, relative home, or suitable facility. The
court ordered no reunification services to Minor's alleged father,
whom DPSS had never been able to locate.

Counsel for Minor argued the court should deny services to Mother as
well, pending her participation in a psychological evaluation. All
parties had stipulated Mother had continuously refused to submit to
an evaluation. Counsel argued that, if a psychological evaluation
showed Mother's mental illness made her unable to benefit from
reunification services, the court could deny services pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2)
(hereafter section 361.5(b)(2).) Mother should not be allowed to
benefit from her refusal to cooperate by receiving services to which
she might not be entitled.

Counsel for DPSS stated DPSS wished it could join in counsel for
Minor's argument, but it could not because there was no provision in
the statutes for denying services to Mother based on her refusal to
be evaluated. Therefore, DPSS recommended services be granted to
Mother.

The court ruled: "[T]he Court does not feel that it has the
jurisdiction to take the leap of finding that mother's failure to
comply with the court ordered testing renders her {Slip Opn. Page 6}
incapable of benefiting from reunification services in this
matter. . . . Although a person has not cooperated in participating
in the evaluation where the court ordered such an assessment to be
made, the [L]egislature has not given us the tools to jump to the
next level from finding that the person is incapable. [¶] . . .
[¶] . . . This is possibly an area where the [L]egislature should act
and indicate that the Court can make such an inference based on the
parent's failure to participate in the examination, but I think
lacking the underlying facts for the Court to make a factual finding
that 361.5(b)(1) [sic] exists by clear and convincing evidence, I
just don't think the court can go there, and therefore, services are
offered to the mother."


IIDISCUSSION
A. Denial of Reunification Services Under Section 361.5(b)(2)

Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (a) provides
that whenever a child is removed from a parent's custody, the
juvenile court shall order reunification services for the parents "[e]
xcept as provided in subdivision (b) . . . ." Subdivision (b) of
section 361.5 provides that services need not be provided when the
court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of 15
enumerated circumstances is true.

We are concerned in this case with section 361.5(b)(2), which states
that services need not be provided where "the parent or guardian is
suffering from a mental disability {Slip Opn. Page 7} that is
described in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7820) of Part 4 of
Division 12 of the Family Code and that renders him or her incapable
of utilizing those services." fn. 1

Family Code section 7827 is part of the chapter of the Family Code
referred to in Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5(b)(2).
Section 7827 provides that a proceeding may be brought, outside of
the dependency context, to free a child from parental custody and
control where the parent or parents "are mentally disabled and are
likely to remain so in the foreseeable future." (§ 7827, subd. (b).)
Section 7827 defines "mentally disabled" to mean "that a parent or
parents suffer a mental incapacity or disorder that renders the
parent or parents unable to care for and control the child
adequately." (Id., subd. (a).)

Family Code section 7827, subdivision (c) requires that a finding of
mental disability be supported by "the evidence of any two experts,"
each of whom must be a psychiatrist or psychologist meeting
educational and experience requirements. Welfare and Institutions
Code section 361.5(b)(2) does not expressly state that it
incorporates the requirement of two expert opinions. However, courts
have found that it does. (See, e.g., {Slip Opn. Page 8} In re Joy M.
(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 11, 18; Linda B. v. Superior Court (2001) 92
Cal.App.4th 150, 152-153; Curtis F. v. Superior Court (2000) 80
Cal.App.4th 470, 474.)

Thus it can be seen that Mother's refusal to submit to a
psychological evaluation placed the court in an untenable position:
it could not, without evaluations from two experts, find Mother was
suffering from a mental disability as described in Family Code
section 7827, subdivision (c). Therefore, it could not, under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 361.5(b)(2), find she was incapable of
utilizing reunification services and deny services to her on that
basis. The court accordingly believed it was bound to offer services
to Mother, notwithstanding the evidence suggesting denial of services
under section 361.5(b)(2) might be shown to be appropriate if a
psychological evaluation were obtained.

B. Disentitlement Doctrine

In MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, a father removed
his children from California to Mexico in violation of a divorce
decree. His former wife obtained a judgment requiring him to pay her
attorney fees and costs incurred in trying to locate the children.
The Supreme Court held the father's violation of the divorce decree
precluded him from appealing from the judgment awarding fees and
costs, stating: "A party to an action cannot, with right or reason,
ask the aid and assistance of a court in {Slip Opn. Page 9} hearing
his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal
orders and processes of the courts of this state. [Citations.]" (Id.
at p. 277.)

The principle that a court may refuse assistance to a party who fails
to comply with a court order has been applied in a dependency
proceeding. In In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, a father
absconded with his daughter, a dependent child whom the juvenile
court had placed in a foster home. Citing MacPherson v. MacPherson,
supra, 13 Cal.2d 271, the court held the father was barred by
the "doctrine of disentitlement" from appealing from the placement
order. It found the father's conduct undermined and frustrated "the
entire purpose of the dependency law" by making it virtually
impossible for the court to extend its protection to the child at a
completely unknown location. The father was "entirely responsible for
paralyzing the court's ability to implement the procedures intended
to benefit the interests of the dependent minor." (In re Kamelia S.
at p. 1229.) The court further held the father was precluded from
seeking the assistance of the court even though he had not initiated
the dependency proceeding which led to the order he violated. (Id. at
pp. 1228-1229; see also In re Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96
Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [grandparents could not appeal from denial of
their guardianship petition where they had caused minor to be removed
to Bahamas in violation of court order]; Adoption of Jacob C. (1994)
25 Cal.App.4th 617, 623-624 [disentitlement doctrine barred mother
who had abducted child from contesting stepmother's petition to
terminate mother's parental rights to other child].) {Slip Opn. Page
10}

Although the above decisions involved abduction of children, the
principle they articulate extends to other kinds of conduct. In
particular, it extends to conduct which, as in this case, frustrates
the ability of another party to obtain information it needs to
protect its own legal rights. In TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71
Cal.App.4th 377, judgment debtors refused to comply with a court
order to answer postjudgment interrogatories designed to secure
information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment against them.
The court dismissed their appeal from the judgment, holding it had
the inherent power to do so without a judgment of contempt. (Id. at
pp. 379-380.)

Mother's refusal to participate in a psychological evaluation in this
case is comparable to the conduct of the parties in the above cases,
which was held to bar their right to seek the assistance of the
courts. Mother's conduct makes it impossible for the court to perform
its obligation to determine, pursuant to section 361.5(b)(2), whether
her mental disability renders her incapable of utilizing
reunification services. Mother's conduct also interferes with the
legal rights of Minor. If Mother is, in fact, incapable of utilizing
services, Minor is entitled to have her case proceed to the
permanency planning stage without the delay of 12 months or more that
must be afforded if reunification services are provided to Mother.
(See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subds. (a)(1), (f).) "While this
may not seem a long period of time to an adult, it can be a lifetime
to a young child." (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.)
Mother, like the offending father in Kamelia S., is "entirely
responsible for paralyzing the court's ability to implement the {Slip
Opn. Page 11} procedures intended to benefit the interests of the
dependent minor." (In re Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p.
1229.)

The Legislature could not have intended this result when it enacted
section 361.5(b)(2). The requirement of two expert evaluations
incorporated into that provision implicitly assumes a cooperative
parent who will submit to the evaluations. Where, as here, the parent
is not cooperative, a court has the inherent power under the
disentitlement doctrine to bar that parent from seeking further
assistance from the court, including the provision of reunification
services. The Legislature could not have intended otherwise.

Application of the disentitlement doctrine is particularly
appropriate in the context of reunification services. "Reunification
services are a benefit, and there is no constitutional 'entitlement'
to these services." (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 476.)
If, as the decisions discussed above hold, a party can be precluded
by its contumacious conduct from exercising its statutory right of
appeal, the rule of preclusion should apply equally to Mother's right
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (a) to
receive reunification services. Mother should not be permitted to
create a classic Catch 22 fn. 2 situation in which the court must
extend her services because it cannot determine whether, in fact, she
is actually entitled to them. {Slip Opn. Page 12}

C. Remedy

The remaining question is the appropriate remedy for Mother's refusal
to submit to a psychological evaluation. We have concluded that a
remand is necessary. Although the record reflects that the court at
the detention hearing "authorized" a psychological evaluation of
Mother, it does not appear the court ever ordered Mother to undergo
an evaluation. Absent such an order, the disentitlement doctrine
would not apply.

Moreover, a court has no authority to order a psychological
evaluation of a parent until it has exercised dependency
jurisdiction. "Only after a finding the child is at risk, and
assumption of jurisdiction over the child, do a parent's liberty and
privacy interests yield to the demonstrated need of child protection.
At that stage, where the aim is to reunify parent and child, expert
opinion on the cause and extent of mental illness may be required to
ascertain which services will eliminate the conditions leading to
dependency." (Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195,
202-203.) In contrast, "[f]requently after a finding of jurisdiction
a parent may be ordered to undergo an evaluation to determine if the
parent is mentally disabled and if reunification services are likely
to prevent continued abuse and neglect. [Citation.] Similarly, where
the child is declared a dependent because of parental mental illness,
the parent may subsequently be evaluated to determine if the parent
is incapable of utilizing reunification services. [Citations.]" (Id.
at p. 201.)

Thus, the court could not validly order a psychological evaluation
until it found jurisdiction, and Mother's refusal to submit to an
evaluation up to that point would not {Slip Opn. Page 13} justify
denying her services under the disentitlement doctrine. Now that the
court has found jurisdiction and declared Minor a dependent, however,
it has the authority to order an evaluation, and Mother's failure to
comply with the order would provide a valid basis for denying
services. Since Mother has not had an opportunity to consider whether
to comply with a valid order for an evaluation, a remand is necessary
to afford her that opportunity. The court on remand therefore should
(1) determine whether an evaluation should be ordered; (2) if so,
give Mother a reasonable opportunity to comply with the order; (3) if
Mother submits to an evaluation, determine on the basis of the
evaluation whether to afford or deny her reunification services under
section 361.5(b)(2); and (4) if Mother refuses to submit, determine
whether to deny her services based on her noncompliance with the
court's order.


IIIDISPOSITION
The order of reunification services for Mother is reversed. The
matter is remanded to the juvenile court for proceedings in
accordance with this opinion.

Hollenhorst, Acting P. J., and Gaut, J., concurred.

­FN *. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.

­FN 1. We note in passing that subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5
provides that services may be denied where "the child has been
adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as
a result of . . . the infliction of severe physical harm to the
child . . . by a parent . . . and the court makes a factual finding
that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services
with the offending parent . . . ." The court in this case adjudicated
Minor a dependent based in part on its finding that Minor suffered
serious physical harm inflicted by Mother. However, the possibility
of denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)
(6) was not addressed by the parties or the court, so we will express
no opinion on the issue.

­FN 2. Heller, Catch 22 (1961).

Issues:  Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(c)(ii), and (g); Harmless error; Children's best interests
Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name:  In re A.R.
e-Journal Number:  18663
Judge(s):  Memorandum – Jansen, Kelly, and Fort Hood

While the trial court erred in terminating respondent-mother's
parental rights pursuant to § 19b(3)(c)(ii), the error was harmless
since termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence
under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Respondent failed to substantially
comply with the requirements of her parent-agency agreement other
than to continue her individual counseling. Evidence was produced
showing respondent had held several jobs during the two years the
children were in the trial court's care. She also failed to maintain
suitable housing, to comply with the substance abuse assessment
recommendations, to submit all requested drug screens, and to
regularly visit the children. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion

http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/041503.html#6


Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re C.E.
e-Journal Number: 18666
Judge(s): Memorandum – Jansen, Kelly, and Fort Hood

The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds
for termination of both parents' rights to the minor child were
established by clear and convincing evidence. There was clear and
convincing evidence the respondents failed to comply with the key
components of the parent/agency agreement, particularly regarding
housing, employment, and developing parental skills. The lack of
housing and inappropriate parenting led to the adjudication, these
conditions had not been rectified at the time of termination, and
there was no reasonable likelihood they would be rectified within a
reasonable time, given the child's young age. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/041503.html#6

This summary also appears under Native American Law

Issues: Termination of parental rights; Compliance with the
requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re I.D.W.C.
e-Journal Number: 18669
Judge(s): Memorandum - Jansen, Kelly, and Fort Hood

The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental
rights to the minor child. Respondent received various services while
residing with her child in a special facility for young mothers, and
used drugs and alcohol while there and then fled, abandoning her
child. Even though she had since sought treatment on her own, she was
no closer to reunification than she had been when the child first
came under the court's jurisdiction. Respondent did not show the ICWA
applied because the evidence showed respondent was not a member of
the Tule River tribe and she did not show she or the child's father
was a member of any other tribe. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/041503.html#6

Issues: Termination of parental rights
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re I.N.K.
e-Journal Number: 18667
Judge(s): Memorandum - Jansen, Kelly, and Fort Hood

The trial court properly terminated respondent-father's parental
rights to the minor children. When the children entered foster care,
respondent had been incarcerated for almost two years, and at the
time of the termination hearing, he was still incarcerated and would
continue to be for another 25 months. Although respondent had a
parole hearing within the next year, he had been denied parole once
and there was no evidence his early release was assured or even
likely. Upon his release, respondent would have to show a
relationship with the children, secure employment, and suitable
housing before reunification could have been considered. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/041503.html#6

Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j); Denial of motion for second adjournment; Ineffective
assistance of counsel; Denial of due process; The children's best
interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re J.K.
e-Journal Number: 18665
Judge(s): Memoradum – Jansen, Kelly, and Fort Hood

The trial court did not clearly err in finding at least one statutory
ground for termination of the respondent-mother's parental rights to
the three children was established by clear and convincing evidence.
The children came into care because of respondent's substance abuse
history and incarceration. Despite making substantial process while
participating in services, respondent relapsed and, as of the hearing
date, she was once again incarcerated. Further, the trial court did
not clearly err in its determination the evidence, on the whole
record, did not clearly show termination was not in the children's
best interests. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/041503.html#6