'Government is not an adequate parent': Children's advocate calls for better care options

Darlene MacDonald released a special report, Permanency Beyond Foster Care, on Wednesday, recommending the province assess whether its rules and policies meet priorities set out by the United Nations on the rights of children and indigenous people. (Childrens' Advocate)

Manitoba's children's advocate is urging the province to better protect almost 6,000 kids in permanent care by finding "loving family environments."

Darlene MacDonald released a special report, Permanency Beyond Foster Care, on Wednesday, recommending the province assess whether its rules and policies meet priorities set out by the United Nations on the rights of children and indigenous people.

"If we want the child welfare system to operate in the best interests of children, youth and families, leaving a child or youth to languish in care as a permanent ward cannot be acceptable," MacDonald said.

"We need to see the system get more creative and more assertively seek out extended family and community members who can provide stable, loving, long-term options. Involving family and community is the only way in which the long-term needs of children will be met. The government is not an adequate parent."

Overall, the current system lacks stability and permanency, MacDonald said.

"It's concerning because children just stay in care. There are babies who come into the system who do not get secure homes, whether that's through custom adoption or other opportunities with relatives."

In 2014, there were 10,293 children in care in Manitoba and of those, 5,848 (57 per cent) were in care as permanent wards, the Office of the Children's Advocate reports.

Children have a right to grow up in a continuous family environment in which they can flourish, the report states.

"When it is not possible to return children to their immediate family, the government must fulfil its obligations to work in a child's best interest and actively build solutions that provide loving family environments to children in care," it states.

"Developing extended family and community or kin placements must be made a priority for how the child welfare system operates."
First Nations get more say in child welfare under proposed Manitoba law

The report also calls on the government to support custom adoptions that reflect indigenous values for First Nations children.

MacDonald declined to outline what custom adoption should look like, saying she would like to see indigenous community leadership set forth that vision.

"What we've seen is kids want a connection to the community. Kids want to know who their parents are and they want stability," she said.

"We need to work with them so it happens in a safe manner."

Just before the children's advocate's report was released, the province announced it is pursuing legislative changes to the Child and Family Services Act that would see more traditional methods of care put in place for indigenous foster children.

Scandal fallout: Oregon pulls foster kids from another provider

Oregon officials have stopped placing foster children with a Clackamas County agency that landed on a state "radar list" of troubled providers, the Department of Human Services said Thursday — more fallout from accusations the department did little to stop neglect by a Portland provider.

The provider, Youth Villages Oregon, is a local branch of a national organization. It was led, until this winter, by Oregon Health Authority director Lynne Saxton. A statement from a Department of Human Services spokesman didn't say why the provider was put on the radar list or how many children were affected.

The department plans to release a letter Friday detailing problems and threatening Youth Villages with the loss of its state license.

Connie Mills, a spokeswoman in Youth Villages' main office in Tennessee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive "we disagree with some of [the department's] conclusions." But she acknowledged that Oregon officials had "asked us to hold off on admissions to our residential campus program for the time being." The provider works with children facing serious behavioral and emotional issues.

Mills also shed some light on some of Oregon's concerns, saying they involved training and supervision issues.

"They have some questions about this program and we are actively addressing those while we work with [the department] on a corrective action plan," she said in a statement. "Some of the things we're doing include enhancing supervision of youth by significantly increasing highly skilled and trained staffing, as well as conducting additional trainings and evaluating other areas in which we can make improvements."

Youth Villages, formerly known as ChristieCare, is one of two providers facing sanctions after Department of Human Services officials this month reviewed seven providers on the most recent radar list.

The other one is Scotts Valley School in Douglas County, which treats behavioral problems and accepts private clients from across the country. Scotts Valley has been on the list longer than any other provider and is expected to receive a letter Monday, officials said. It does not treat any state-paid clients.

The Department of Human Services released information about the list and the results of its review in response to requests from three media outlets, including The Oregonian/OregonLive.

Those requests came during a tense legislative hearing last month on how the Department of Human Services deals with troubled providers. The hearing followed reports that top officials continued to send children to a Northeast Portland foster care provider despite knowing about serious financial issues and abuse accusations.

The state Department of Justice has filed suit against that provider, Give Us This Day, accusing its operator of misspending $2 million in state money to pay for personal expenses such as cosmetic surgery and vacations.

Give Us This Day spent 28 months on the radar list, officials testified at last month's hearing. The list, issued every few months by the department's licensing arm, looks at factors including media attention, the volume and severity of complaints, and chronic noncompliance. The licensing office has three staffers in charge of tracking 203 child-care providers.

"The document became known as the 'radar list,' but it was never intended to be more than an advisory about licensed facilities that someone thought should be added or removed to ensure that DHS executives were informed if asked," department spokesman Gene Evans wrote. "It was never a 'watch list' of locations where immediate action was needed or recommended — it was only an internal advisory document."

Gov. Kate Brown responded to the Give Us This Day scandal last month by replacing the Department of Human Services' interim director and announcing an independent investigation of the state's child welfare system.

Her choice to lead the department, state administrator Clyde Saiki, told lawmakers last month that human services managers lacked a central mechanism for spotting troubled providers. Evans said Saiki ordered the review that led to Thursday's announcement.

Evans said Saiki has "established an ongoing review process" to make sure managers meet and track concerns involving child-care facilities.

"This cross-agency team and regular review is one early outcome of the governor's charge to improve oversight of the child foster care system," Evans wrote.

Sen. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, who convened last month's hearing, is working up legislation to toughen licensing requirements and financial rules, and to give regulators the power to suspend a provider's license over abuse claims and other safety violations.

Gelser also has proposed changing how the department processes abuse and neglect allegations. Last year, more than half of complaints were ruled closed during an initial screening, in part because state law strictly limits investigations, usually to cases involving serious injury or an ongoing threat.

Gelser wants to set a lower threshold that would include threats, neglect through the denial of food or medicine, financial fraud and lesser injuries that don't leave a child near death.

— Denis C. Theriault

dtheriault@oregonian.com

503-221-8430; @TheriaultPDX

DHS investigating 7 foster homes

Children have been removed from one foster home as part of a DHS investigation ordered by Gov. Kate Brown and increased media scrutiny of the agency.

Children at the Clackamas County foster care provider Youth Villages have been removed from the facility, according to information released Thursday from the Department of Human Services.

That information became public following DHS's fulfillment of a public records request by the Statesman Journal and other media for the DHS "radar list" of foster care providers.

The list is periodically delivered to DHS executives to alert them about providers that have a high number of complaints or high severity of complaints, a record of chronic noncompliance with rules, or anticipated media attention.

Scotts Valley School, a therapeutic boarding school in Yoncalla, has been on the list for at least 36 months, the longest of any provider. The school does not have state-placed children, but is a private organization accepting payment to house and treat troubled children. Scotts Valley School did not return phone calls Thursday.

Along with Scotts Valley School and Youth Villages, other facilities on the "radar list" are: Chehalem Youth and Family Services, of Newberg, Eastern Oregon Academy, of Burns, Inn Home for Boys, of Portland, Kairos, of Grants Pass, and Youth Progress, of Portland.

The list released Thursday did not include details of any allegations against the organizations. DHS spokesman Gene Evans declined to comment on why those facilities are on the list, although he said Youth Villages and Scotts Valley School are the most serious cases.

"We're not releasing detailed information on those yet, because that's all being redacted," Evans said.

Connie Mills, public relations manager at Youth Villages, a national organization with several campuses, said in a statement that Youth Villages is improving its programming and disagrees with some of DHS's conclusions, but is "extremely concerned about this" and "taking these issues very seriously."

"We believe in being transparent about our work and constantly enhancing our program, so we are working closely and openly with DHS," the statement said.

DHS is working with the Department of Justice to issue "intent to revoke" letters notifying Youth Villages and Scotts Valley School of corrective actions they must take to stay licensed. Those letters are expected to be publicly released following DOJ review and will include detailed information about the allegations.

The existence of the radar list was first reported after journalists learned of it at a public hearing last month. DHS officials testified to the Interim Committee On Human Services and Early Childhood about how they are working to fix problems with the agency's child care system, and mentioned the list.

Gov. Kate Brown ordered an independent review of DHS following media reports that now-defunct foster care provider Give Us This Day had allegedly pocketed upwards of $2 million meant for childcare and provided substandard living conditions. Despite knowing of abuse and mismanagement, DHS officials did not revoke Give Us This Day's license.

Following those revelations, Brown demoted acting-DHS Director Jerry Waybrant and appointed State Chief Operating Officer Clyde Saiki as interim DHS director. Saiki said he plans a "deep" investigation of DHS.

A committee has also been created to guide the investigation, which is ongoing.

gfriedman2@statesmanjournal.com, (503) 399-6653, on Twitter @gordonrfriedman or Facebook.com/gordonrfriedman

Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

We present here a professional medical translation of the full text of the decision of the Italian Court of Rimini holding that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children. First a few observations.

The MMR vaccines used in Italy prior to 2007 were is Merck’s MMR II, GSK’s Priorix and Morupar, from Chiron [until the latter was withdrawn urgently on short notice by W.H.O. because it was unsafe. Morupar is a Urabe mumps virus strain containing vaccine, which is the type abandoned unilaterally and urgently in the UK in September 1992 by the manufacturer [a GSK company] for legal reasons because of the high levels of all kinds of adverse reactions it causes. It was done so urgently that the UK’s Department of Health was not even given a week to break the news. However, the kind of MMR vaccine Hannah Poling in the US received with 8 other vaccines on the same day would have been Merck’s MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps virus. [US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/us20m-hannah-poling-vaccine-autism-case/

And here is the key part of the Italian Court’s judgement:

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

Now a further point to be made is that in common law jurisdictions like England, Australia, Canada and the USA and many more, a finding of fact by a Court of first instance is extremely difficult to overturn except in the case of manifest error or some other factor like fraud.

Additionally, it appears the judgement of the Italian Court was by consent, which also appears to mean 1) the Italian health authorities did not contest the findings and 2) they cannot appeal. If a qualified Italian lawyer might like to comment here on CHS on whether that is a correct intepretation of the judgement that would be appreciated. The relevant part of the judgement is:

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

The English translation provided here has been kindly provided by Dr JLM Donegan.

Dr Donegan is the only English medical practitioner whose advice on vaccination issues has been found in a three week UK General Medical Council legal trial in August 2007 to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to be based on valid medical and scientific literature, not to be misleading and unaffected by any personal views Dr Donegan may hold – in other words Dr Donegan’s advice is independent, objective and unbiased. The findings in the case were most unusual. Instead of finding that the GMC prosecution’s case was not proven, the hearing panel made a positive finding and found in Dr Donegan’s favour to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that her defence was proven.

More information can be found here:

UK’s GMC, Dr Jayne Donegan’s Story, Vaccines & MMR

The hearing came about after Lord Justice Sedley in the English Court of Appeal condemned Dr Donegan’s evidence to the English Family Court as “junk science”. This was without Dr Donegan even being present, given any opportunity for comment or being represented. [So much for English justice].

The GMC’s expert witness at the GMC trial, Dr David Elliman, then of Great Ormond Street Hospital spent 5 months preparing an expert report against Dr Donegan for the August 2007 hearing for the purpose of having Dr Donegan’s medical licence revoked, only to be forced to admit in cross-examination that he was “quibbling” over a few details.

Interestingly, whilst Dr Elliman was spending all this time on his report for the GMC prosecution there were problems in the unit he managed at Gt Ormond St Hospital. Despite being warned by his professional staff he took no management action. This matter came to a head with what has become known as the scandal of the death of “Baby P”. In short a child died, killed as a result of extensive injuries over many months caused by child abuse by the partner of the child’s mother.

Dr Elliman has never been charged by the General Medical Council with anything nor has his licence to practise medicine been revoked. The UK’s General Medical Council appears to have done nothing whatsoever about this despite their main purpose being to regulate the conduct and practice of medical doctors to protect the public. Well, they did not protect “Baby P” and by doing nothing they will not protect all the other “Baby P’s” there may be in future. They did however spend millions of pounds getting Dr Wakefield’s licence revoked and now it appears that all along Dr Wakefield was right.

Here follows the translated judgement. Any observations on or suggestions for improvements to the translation or typographical or other errors would be appreciated as this has been prepared as rapidly as reasonably possible:

Italian Republic

On behalf of the Italian people

The Ordinary Court of Rimini

Civil Division, Labour Section

With a single judge presiding in the person of Judge Lucius ARDIGO’ pronounces

JUDGMENT

in the civil case, with the ritual of work, registered as N.474 \ 10 RGL brought forward by:

XXXX and XXXX on their own behalf and as parents exercising parental authority in the case of their son, a minor xxxx (child)

represented and defended by the lawyer. VENTALORO LUCA with an address for service in Viale Principe Amedeo 12 47900 RIMIN at the Chambers of. VENTALORO LUCA

-APPLICANT-

AGAINST

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CF80242255589), with the ADVOCACY of the lawyer DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE electively domiciled in Via Guido Reni 4 40125 BOLOGNA at the Chambers of. DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE

-AGREED-

Concerning

Compensation under Article 2, paragraph 1, of Law no. 210, 1992

GROUNDS FOR DECISION

By application filed 8 \ 06 \ 2012 XXXX and XXXX on behalf of themselves and in their capacity as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx agreed to press charges against the Ministry of Health, applying that they be ordered to pay compensation for irreversible damages from complications caused by compulsory vaccination

The basis for the application stated that on 26 \ 03 \ 2004 the minor (child) xxxx was subjected to prophylactic trivalent MMR at the AUSL (Local Health Authority) of Riccione.

The same daily worrying symptoms arose daily (diarrhoea, nervousness) between 2004 and 2005. xxxx (the child) experienced signs of serious psychological and physical discomfort as far as the date of 31 \ 08 \ 2007 when the recognition took place that he was invalided totally and permanently to a level of 100%

Only on the date 27 \ 06 \ 2008, did the specialist Dr. Niglio attest as to how the reported damages to the minor (child) were attributable to the vaccination carried out, this theory was definitively confirmed on the date 25 \ 07 \ 2009 by the specialist Dr. MONTANARI.

Therefore on the date 28 \ 04 \ 2008 the parents, the applicants, submitted an application for verification of eligibility requirements for the compensation provided for the benefit of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to mandatory, vaccinations, but on the date 13 \ 10 \ 2008 the Medical Hospital Commission refused the application because the MMR vaccination did not turn out to be compulsory by law or ordinance of Health Authority.

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

In a preliminary ruling it was asserted that the the capacity to be sued of the Ministry was exempted under the provisions of Article D of .114> L.vo No. 112 of 1998, regarding the contribution to the Region of the functions and administrative tasks relating to Health, Article 123. This same decree explicitly recognized the retention by the State of the duties relating to appeals (to be understood both as administrative and judicial, in the absence of normative distinction) for the payment of compensation in favour of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to vaccinations, compulsory medical treatment and the like.

The latter theory shared by the most recent and prevailing case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Highest Court of Appeal) which has clarified how in the case of especially the capacity to be sued, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Ministry of Health (see most recently Cass. Sec. L n. 29311 of 28 \ 12 \ 2011 Rv. 620379; Compliant same section 13 \ 10 \ 2009 n. 21702, n.21703, n.21704 of 3 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23216, n. 23217, by 5 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23434, the 6 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23588).

In point of law it is considered that the fact that the alleged permanent impairment of physical or mental integrity is due to a compulsory vaccination cannot be an impediment to the recognition of compensation required.

Referred to herein and in fact, to the judgment of the Constitutional Court. 27 \ 1998 and 423 \ 2000 that it was declared unconstitutional by violation of Articles 2 and 32 Constitution, Article 1, paragraph 1, I. February 25, 1992 No 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of an irreversible type because of mandatory vaccination, blood transfusion and the administration of blood products), in so far as it provided no entitlement to compensation under the conditions specified therein, of those who were subjected to non-compulsory vaccinations against Hepatitis B and Poliomyelitis as a result of campaigns by the Health Authority to legally promote the dissemination of these vaccinations.

The aforementioned vaccinations, like the trivalent MMR vaccination in question, had been strongly encouraged by the state while not imposing a legal obligation: it is not constitutionally permissible in the light of Articles 2:32 of the Constitution, to require that the individual puts his own health at risk for the collective interest, without collective being willing to share, if you will, the weight of the negative consequences, there is no reason to differentiate from point of view of the aforesaid principle, the case where medical treatment is required by statute and that in which it is according to a law promoted by public authorities, in view of its widespread distribution in society.

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

As for the ascertainment, on the part of the parents, of the actual knowledge of the cause of disability, it should be noted that in none of the medical records examined was the clinical picture established definitely as post-vaccine, in the sense of, caused by inoculation of the vaccine, and that the causal relationship is indicated for the first time only in the medical report on 27 \ 06 \ 2008 of the specialist Dr. Niglio.

In particular, we should highlight as the starting point, not reckoned in the knowledge of the diagnosis, or by the mere suspicion of an origin from compulsory vaccination, but from the moment when, on the basis of medical records, the claimant is found to have had knowledge of the damage, that awareness of the aetiological relationship between irreversible injury (including ascribability table) and the cause from vaccination (which entitles you to compensation).

As reiterated by the Supreme Court in the analogous issue of knowledge of occupational disease indemnification, it is not sufficient that the employee is informed of the mere professional/ occupational origin of the disease but it is also necessary that the same is aware of the importance of sequelae so as to provide an impairment higher than threshold percentage fixed for the recognition of pension entitlement (see in this sense civil Cassation section. Lav., April 3, 1993, No. 4031, in Riv. In fort. and mal. Prof. in 1993, II, 111; Supreme Court as well as civil sez. Lav., January 8, 1996, n. 63 INAIL Bulgari c rv 495 260)

Therefore, a deadline of two years from knowledge of the cause of the damage is enforced(Article 3 of Law no. 210, 1992), being the permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity due to 1 / \ category in Table A attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834, and should be entitled to compensation provided for under Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210 \ 1992 comprised therein for the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that law.

Under the combined provision in the Article 429 c.p.c. and 16. paragraph 6 of Law 30 December 1991, No. 412, the amount due in respect of statutory interest on pension claims is used to offset any amounts payable for the restoration of greater damages for the diminished value of the claim, which is why an adjustment for inflation becomes operational only for periods of time which the amount of interest is not sufficient to cover the full damage due to devaluation.

The court costs are settled on a payment formula accepted by the Ministry according to the general criterion of negative outcomes.

For this same reason they are definitively accepted by the Ministry as are the costs of CTU, to the extent already settled by a separate decree.

FOR THESE REASONS

THE ORDINARY COURT OF RIMINI

with a single judge presiding in the function of judge of the work

pronouncing definitively on the application brought by XXXX and XXXX as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx with an application lodged on 8 \ 06 \ 2012, dismissing all other claims, objections or inferences, will thus provide, in adversarial proceedings with the Ministry of Health:

1) I verify that (child) xxxx has been irreversibly damaged by complications caused by vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR) with a right to compensation referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 210, 1992, ( lifetime pension backdated for fifteen years), I order the Ministry of Health in the person of the Minister in charge to pay to (child) xxxx the compensation provided for by Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210/1992 including the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that Act (for the arrears plus interest accrued in so far as legally possible and the second monetary revaluation ISTAT indexes, as required by law for payment of the application);

1. I Order the Ministery of Health to pay the court fees in settlement a total of Euro 2.500,00 in addition LVA, CPA and reimbursement of the general charges as required by law;

2. I definitively place the burden on the Ministry of Health to meet expenses of CTU (Expert witnesses).

Thus decided in Rimini, public hearing on the 15 \ 03 \ 2012.

THE JUDGE
Lucio ARDIGO ‘

Translated by JLM Donegan 23 May 2012
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/05/italian-court-rules-urabe-mumps-strain-of-mmr-causes-autism.html

First Christmas with his girls for father wrongly jailed for child cruelty

• 
  Family broken up in 2007 when Ben Butler was accused of abusing child Ellie
• Mr Butler was forced to share jail cell with a convicted child abuser
• Parents say reuniting with kids is like 'suddenly having grown up twins'
• The girls and their parents are enjoying their first Christmas as 'a proper family'

By DAVID WILKES

PUBLISHED: 18:11 EST, 23 December 2012 | UPDATED: 19:05 EST, 23 December 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252644/First-Christmas-girls-father-wrongly-jailed-child-cruelty.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

With their two smiling daughters cuddled up on his knee and his loving partner by his side, Ben Butler looks every inch the contented father.

But such scenes of simple domestic bliss are a new experience for all of them - after the family was ripped apart when he was wrongly jailed for child cruelty.

It took three years to clear his name and two more for he and the girls' mother Jennie Gray to win back Ellie and Isabella after a series of legal battles.

Enlarge 

Ben Butler and his two daughters Ellie, 5, and Isabella, 3, get ready for their first Christmas together

Together again: Jennie Gray, Ben Butler's partner, joins the family for a long awaited season celebration

The four had never all lived together - and the two beautiful little girls had not even met each other until a few weeks ago after each being put into separate foster care as babies.

Now the sisters are joined at the hip, excitedly rushing up to 'daddy' and 'mummy' to ask if they can have another chocolate from their advent calendars or to show them their festive drawings of angels, stars and candles.

 

More...

• Ever felt that someone's watching over you? As a survey reveals 41 per cent of us believe in heavenly guardians, meet... The women who talk to angels
• Please come home for Christmas: Wife's desperate plea after mystery disappearance of husband, 50, leaves family devastated
• The cute Christmas pictures that will melt even the coldest heart: Adorable snaps of kittens, puppies, and lambs in festive hats

As the happily reunited family look forward to their first Christmas together - just one of the many milestones they were previously denied by their unjust ordeal - Mr Butler and Miss Gray, both 33, say it is 'like suddenly having grown-up twins'.

And the doting parents are delighted Ellie, five, and three-year-old Isabella are settling in so well after their return to the family home.

Mr Butler said: 'I worked out I've spent more than six months of my life in criminal and family courts over this. All we ever wanted was to be a family, but it was all so draining, there were times I thought it would never happen.

'But we knew we had to keep fighting, fighting and at last here we are back together - just like it should have been all along. We are trying to catch up on the lost years but are Ellie and Izzy are a joy.'

The ordeal began in February 2007 when Mr Butler, a removals man, saved then seven-weeks-old Ellie's life when she stopped breathing while he was looking after her - only to be accused of harming her.

He cleared her airway after she collapsed and rushed her to hospital. But doctors found head injuries similar to those caused when a baby is deliberately hurt by being shaken.

Mr Butler, of Sutton, South West London, insisted he had not harmed Ellie. Miss Gray, who was not living with him then, supported him.

But the couple were arrested and he was charged with grievous bodily harm and cruelty. Ellie, despite going on to make a full recovery, was taken in to foster care.

Mr Butler says having is girls back is like getting two 'grown up twins'

Despite advice from others, Miss Gray remained true to the father of her children and now her concitions have paid off in getting her family back

While awaiting trial the Family Court ruled Mr Butler could see Ellie twice a year for four hours.

Miss Gray, a graphic designer, was allowed contact with her baby six times a year for two hours at a time.

Miss Gray said: 'I was told at one point that if I went against Ben it would be to my advantage and I'd have more chance of getting my daughter back. It's outrageous.'

At his Croydon Crown Court trial in March 2009 Mr Butler was convicted. Given an 18-month sentence, he was forced to share a prison cell with a convicted child abuser.

He said: 'I was put with sex offenders. I never spoke to the guy I shared a cell with - it's like being put in a mental hospital when you're not mental. It was just a horrible, dirty feeling where everyone is on a different wavelength.' After three and a half months behind bars,

Mr Butler was released pending appeal.

Brought together by the nightmare engulfing their lives, he and Miss Gray started seeing each other again.

She became pregnant with Isabella and, by now 'terrified' of the social workers, tried to keep her birth secret. But Isabella too was also taken into foster care aged six months - and social workers wanted her to be adopted.

Mr Butler's conviction was quashed in 2010 after fresh medical evidence showed Ellie's injuries were caused by a traumatic birth and it was also highlighted how if they had been caused by shaking her full recovery 'would not have been expected'.

It further turned out that Ellie had a cyst in her throat which Mr Butler had pushed out of the way when he cleared her airway after she collapsed. The cyst is clearly visible on a scan taken in hospital, but it was not shown to the original jury.

It then took another two years of battling in the Family Court for the parents to persuade judges and social workers that Ellie, who had been allowed to live with her grandparents, Miss Gray's parents, and Isabella, should be returned to them.

Finally, in October this year, High Court judge Mrs Justice Hogg praised the couple as she ruled the two girls should be allowed to go home.

She said: 'The last five and a half years must have been an extraordinarily difficult time for the parents ... [They] have weathered the storm. They have each been resilient and determined, and shown tenacity and courage... I wish the parents well: they too deserve joy and happiness.' 

The couple had at last achieved their dream, but were understandably anxious how their daughters would cope. Isabella came home first, then Ellie a short while later on November 11, to their new matching pink bedrooms.

Ellie is so attached to her grandparents and had been away so long they were worried if she would settle - or be jealous of the little sister she had never met.

Miss Gray said: 'We started building them up about each other and put a picture of each other next to their beds. Their first meeting came when we took them bowling, one of Ellie's favourite things.

'We thought it would be difficult and they wouldn't be able to connect quickly. But they gave each other a kiss and they were very good with each other.

'The bond has grown between them. They play so well together and do everything together. It's so cute. Ellie helps put Izzy's shoes on and tries to do her hair for her.

'We're learning so much so fast about them, things like what their favourite colours and toys are - Ellie loves Minnie Mouse and Izzy Tinker Bell - that it's like suddenly having grown up twins.'

Mr Butler said: 'I hadn't seen Izzy for two and a half years but she was calling me 'daddy' from the first time we met again. Now you wouldn't know she'd been away. Her foster carers are lovely people and we thank them for all they did.

'But what happened to us was all so wrong. My trial came down to medical opinion only and the medical evidence just didn't add up.

'We've not had a normal life for nearly six years and the pressure has been immense. We've missed out on so many things, like seeing our daughters' first steps and some birthdays.

'Now we're just looking forward to seeing them grow up with us, taking them places and enjoying normal, everyday things. That's all we ever wanted - to be a proper family.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252644/First-Christmas-girls-father-wrongly-jailed-child-cruelty.html#ixzz2G5kl7FED
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Confess or you'll never see your kids

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/confess-or-you-ll-never-see-your-kids-184400401.html?ref=401

Posted: Dec. 21, 2012 | 2:06 a.m.

It sounds like something out of the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials or modern-day North Korea: Authorities separate a husband and father from his family, warning that he can live with them only if he confesses to a crime he didn't commit.

This kind of twisted justice was repudiated by our Founding Fathers, and as a result, the United States legal system is the gold standard of the free world.

Yet this unconscionable scenario played out right here in Clark County over the past few years. And very soon, Southern Nevadans likely will pay dearly for it.

A Nigerian immigrant announced Tuesday that he has filed a federal civil lawsuit against Clark County for keeping him separated from his family for five months after a jury acquitted him of murder and abuse charges in the 2008 death of a 2-year-old boy. Victor Fakoya was not allowed to live with his wife and two daughters unless he admitted responsibility in Family Court to the charges he was found not guilty of in District Court.

"What has been lost in time and the joy of parenting my children is something I will never again regain," he said.

The lawsuit, which seeks $10 million in damages, alleges Child Protective Services employees tried to use the forced separation from his family to coerce Mr. Fakoya into admitting he caused Daniel Jaiwesimi's death.

"It seems morally incongruous for prosecutors to demand of Mr. Fakoya that, in order to settle his Family Court case, he confess to something for which he was acquitted," we wrote in this space in April 2011 - more than a year and a half ago. "It smacks of vindictiveness. There is no rational basis for the demand. The safety of Mr. Fakoya's children can be monitored without demanding a confession that would hang over his life forever, even if he is completely innocent."

Mr. Fakoya, a principled and observant Christian, has steadfastly refused to comply with the prosecutors' demands, even though doing so meant he had to live separately from his wife and two daughters.

A Department of Family Services caseworker recommended dismissal. "In light of the outcome of Mr. Fakoya's criminal trial ... it is respectfully requested and recommended that this matter be dismissed and the case closed," the caseworker wrote in a letter to the court, almost two years ago. But District Attorney David Roger's office pressed on, demanding the confession. (Mr. Roger has since left office.)

Although Mr. Fakoya has filed only against the county, individuals within Child Protective Services and the district attorney's office probably will be named later, says Mr. Fakoya's civil attorney, Brent Bryson.

"The mandate of Child Protective Services is, one, to protect children, and two, to reunify families together. We believe that mission was abandoned in Mr. Fakoya's case," Mr. Bryson said Tuesday.

Indeed. The two missions can sometimes appear to be in conflict. But children fare best within their own families - with both parents, when possible.

The conduct of the agencies in this case went beyond mere caution. They seemed unwilling to accept the verdict of a jury of Mr. Fakoya's peers, determined to use their power over the custody of the children to force a different outcome.

Now, in all likelihood, taxpayers will pay for that intransigence. And what measure of accountability might they get in the face of a multimillion-dollar judgment or settlement? Will anyone within Clark County government face suspension or termination? Will anyone step forward to renounce such Draconian tactics and vow that it will never happen again?

Meantime, as Mr. Fakoya notes, how can he ever be given back those months with his growing children?

Parents who had children wrongly snatched by social services win thousands in compensation

By ANDY DOLAN
UPDATED: 11:12 EST, 22 December 2008



A couple who had their children taken away from them for two years after falsely being accused of sexual abuse have been awarded a six-figure compensation payout.


Tim and Gina Williams went through a 'total nightmare' of having their three young children placed in separate foster homes after being wrongly placed under suspicion by social workers.

The couple's ordeal began after Mr Williams discovered an 11-year-old boy, semi naked and on top of his daughter, Courtney, then aged five, following a neighbourhood paddling pool party staged at their house.

Mr Williams called police, but a medical examination carried out as part of the subsequent examination resulted in social services stepping in.

Tim Williams and his wife Gina with their children Ieuan (left) Courtney (middle) and Zara (right). The couple have been awarded sizeable compensation after they were wrongly accused of failing to protect their three children from sexual abuse

A doctor who examined the child claimed she had been the victim of abuse by an adult, possibly using an implement.

As a result, social services judged Mrs Williams to also pose a potential risk to Courtney and her elder siblings Zara and Ieuan, and the children were taken away in August 2004. Their parents were allowed just two 90-minutes supervised visits per week, at a neutral venue.

The family, from Newport, South Wales, were reunited two years ago after a High Court judge exonerated the parents, who then began a compensation battle against Newport City Council and Royal Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust.

They were yesterday awarded an undisclosed sum in an agreed settlement at the High Court in Cardiff.

The Williams family also received a full written apology from Newport Council. Under the terms of the settlement, the Williams's are banned from commenting further on the case. But they have previously spoken about the devastating impact the separation caused their children.

Speaking last December, they said Zara, now 14, Ieuan, 11, and Courtney, aged nine, were like 'three little strangers' at times.

Zara had always been studious but was increasingly disruptive in class, whilst Ieuan's sensitive, quiet inclination had been replaced by an angry persona. Courtney was left too scared to go to sleep in case she woke to find her parents gone.

Mrs Williams, said: 'None can bear to have us out of their sight because they think we won't come back. They believe they were taken into care because we didn't love or want them any more.'

Mr Williams, now 39, added: 'All three are extra clingy and constantly fight for our attention.

'If they don't see us at the school gates the moment the bell rings they freak out, so we have to get there 10 minutes early and stand in exactly the same spot. We take them everywhere with us because they refuse to go to babysitters. But whenever we see the children angry or in tears, we have to remember that it's not their fault.

'They were ripped from us and still don't understand why. One minute we were a family, the next thing we know social services are taking the children away. It was a total nightmare.'

The couple were banned from discussing the ongoing investigation with their children. When the day came for them to be handed over to social services, they told the trio they were going on a little holiday.

As they walked out of the social services office, they heard their children screaming 'Mummy! Daddy!'.

Over the next two years, they missed milestones such as birthdays, learning to ride bikes and school plays, and two Christmases.

The case against the parents eventually collapsed a week before a final court hearing, after the family consulted an American doctor who found there was no suggestion of any sexual abuse.

A UK doctor gave a second opinion which agreed with the US medic. The original doctor who examined Courtney then accepted their findings.

Newport council asked for the case to be dropped and the children were returned to their parents in September 2006.

The High Court was told at the time that initial evidence against the family was collected by a doctor using outdated practices to examine the girl.

The council later apologised for removing the children but said it had 'acted in good faith.'

In his judgment two years ago, Judge Crispin Masterman criticised social services for failing to follow recommended procedures and not carrying out a proper assessment of the family.

Speaking after the financial settlement yesterday, the couple's QC Robin Tolson said: 'This settlement brings closure, at least of a kind, for Tim and Gina Williams and their children.

'The effect of what happened will continue to be felt for a long time.

'But at least this now marks the end of four years spent fighting for their children and their rights before the court.'

A spokesman for the couple's legal team said that an initial report from the NHS Trust which claimed that Courtney was being abused had been 'fundamentally flawed'.

Child Protective Services Truth ( Shocking )

Leg cramps during pregnancy?

Q: What if I am experiencing leg cramps?

A: If your pain is characterized by tenderness, redness and warmth to touch in specific site it may be associated with decreased calcium.
- You may try a Calcium supplement 1200 to 1500mg daily (Total: including dietary calcium) or
- Dr. Scholls arch supports and support hose


http://www.obgyngroup.com/Obst-FAQ.html

Emergency child custody hearings too disruptive, Juvenile Court says; judges may stop taking calls

 By Sarah Jane Tribble, The Plain Dealer 


CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Judges in Cuyahoga County's Juvenile Court want someone else to make the final decision for removing children from their homes during emergencies -- in part because telephone hearings disrupt the magistrates' schedules and personal lives.

The court's magistrates and judges also want to be relieved of the duty because they feel that many of the calls for emergency hearings and the resulting court orders are "not true emergencies," according to a memorandum filed last month by the children and family services unit of the county prosecutor's office.  

But the controversial proposal disregards an Ohio Supreme Court recommendation and has as made for some unlikely partnerships. The prosecutor and public defender's office, often courtroom adversaries, have joined the county Children and Family Services agency in opposing the move.

The change would mean that a magistrate or judge would not be the deciding party. Instead, they would likely appoint the social worker as a servant of the justice system to make the final decision.

The juvenile court administrators declined requests for interviewers, though confirmed in an email Tuesday that they are reviewing how they handle emergency custody cases.

"We look forward to continue to seek solutions that are in the best interest of the children of Cuyahoga County," the email stated.

The prosecutor's memo -- quoting from an internal juvenile court memo written in November -- notes that the magistrates complained that such calls for emergency telephone hearings were "very disruptive" to their daily dockets and personal lives.  

In 2011, there were 617 cases that required the magistrates in Juvenile Court to hold an emergency telephone hearing, and then issue a court order for the removal of a child, according the prosecutor's office.

Emergency cases typically involve children who are deemed to be in immediate threat or danger of being harmed. One common case is when neighbors report children who have been left home alone.

Under the current system, a social worker quickly investigates such cases, often visiting the home and interviewing relatives or neighbors. Then, a report is given to others at children and family services. Once the division is in agreement, social workers consult the prosecutor's office and call a juvenile court magistrate for an out-of-court hearing. If the magistrate agrees, a court order is issued over the phone. All of this can happen within a few hours.

In only three of the 617 cases last year did a magistrate go against the opinions of the social worker and prosecutor and refuse a court order, said Pat Rideout, administrator of children and family services.

Still, having an impartial representative of the court as the final decider in such emergencies is crucial, Rideout said.

"This is an enormous intrusion on a family and a parent's rights and you simply don't do that lightly," Rideout said. "The court's role is to review what we do. ... I very much want the court's review and approval."

Rideout, who before taking the helm of the agency last year worked in the juvenile court system as an attorney and magistrate, said Cuyahoga County's court had previously appointed social workers to be officers of the court and gave them the authority to remove children from their homes.

But the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed Cuyahoga County's juvenile justice system in 2004 and strongly urged against the practice. While the practice "appears to be legal," the higher court wrote, it is "not a best practice and may well be a conflict of interest."

Instead, the high court said, children and their parents should have an in-court hearing. If that is not possible, the second choice would be a hearing by telephone, which is what is practiced now.

The high court wrote "ex parte hearings and telephonic orders ensure procedural protections at the earliest possible point in the process."

Cuyahoga County's juvenile court switched to the recommended practice within a few of years of the published report, though in a 2005 response to the recommendations the administration hinted at a concern about the increased caseload telephone hearings might cause.

The letter, dated from July 2005, said the court would review the suggestion and "may conclude there is a need to increase the caseload of the Administrative Judge's Magistrates."

Stephen Rubin, a national court consultant and past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said "it's not that complicated" to figure out a solution for busy dockets.

"The judges need to change the way they do business," Rubin said. "They need to dedicate a different judge every day to be the on-call judge."

It is unclear how the judges and magistrates in Cuyahoga County's juvenile court handle emergency hearings because they did not provide an interview. Rubin said the county's juvenile court system had once participated in the national council's model court program, which establishes guidelines for handling cases. But the court dropped out of the program -- a move that is unusual, he said.

"The real focus of the resource guidelines is getting the families the help they need and not taking the kids into care unless it's absolutely necessary," Rubin said.

For Yvonne Billingsley, an assistant prosecutor and supervisor of the children and family services unit in the prosecutor's office for more than 16 years, an in-court hearing would be ideal for giving both the children and family ample opportunity to make their case. But the time and resources in-court hearings take make them unlikely.

A telephone hearing, with or without parental involvement, is the next choice and allows the magistrate to ask a "handful of critical questions" of the social worker to make a final decision.  

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges offers guidelines saying that the unplanned removal of a child is always traumatic and that the court must make as careful and considered a decision as possible during an emergency. It also states that the courts must provide protection for parents as well.

In his March 21 letter to the Juvenile Court Judges, Cuyahoga County Public Defender Sam Amata, who supervises the juvenile division, argues that the telephone hearings should continue, stating that having a social worker make the decision would be "shirking this obvious judicial responsibility."