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Zara had always been studious but was increasingly disruptive in class, whilst Ieuan's sensitive, quiet inclination had been replaced by an angry persona.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 Abuse Laws: Legally Abducting Children by Broadening the Definition of “Child Abuse”

September 5, 2012
by Dr. Mercola
Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.

That’s why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It’s exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.

But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you’re not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?

The Legal Abduction of Children

Horrendous as it sounds, it’s true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!

Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective service programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.

A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.
“Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county,”John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper. “These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.

Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact. “As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children’s lives,” he said.

He then cited San Diego CPS for “egregious behaviors” that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.

The ugly truth is that San Diego isn’t the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry “foul.”

About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.

As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.

In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.

But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.

In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.

Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.

How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports

What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families “prematurely or unnecessarily” because federal formulas give states “a strong financial incentive” to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.”

As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouragedmore adoptions.

Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give “bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child  for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number,” NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. “About the only parents the federal government won’t help indefinitely are birth parents,” NCCPR found.

But the injustices don’t stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.
“CPS nationally are doing a job they’ve never been trained to do,” says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years. They’re investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.

This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting.”

The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.
“And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they’re wrong,” she said.

“So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers.”

How are States Spending this Extra Money?

According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This is based on President Obama’s $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.

But this decrease is based on “placement of children in more permanent settings.” In other words, states are getting moremoney to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.

The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.

The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!

In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn’t get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going. But a look at any state’s budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children’s services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .

Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse

This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it’s a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn’t do. It also doesn’t explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).

Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.

While the numbers may not seem exceedingly large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.

On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen

In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down. But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county’s recent court casesthey’d lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.

When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.

The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well asentire websites devoted to helping people who’ve been falsely accused of child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?

Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
“This is an inverted pyramid,” Yazbak says. “It’s an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.

This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it’s the other side that’s making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.

It’s obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they’re literally convicting people before they’re even accused. It’s the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent.”

A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their “businesses” going.

Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.

Again, the numbers tell the story:

In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation.  Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS “investigations.” Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.

But with a “more inclusive” definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.

But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn’t explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.

So what can you or I do about it?

According to Hart, this is an issue that can’t be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It’s a national problem that’s gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.

Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse “prevention” that I’ve talked about here.

In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I’ve included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.

While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it’s possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the “immunity” clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can’t do so without being held responsible.

References:

National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.

Read the entire article here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/05/legal-child-abduction.aspx

Copyright Dr. Joseph Mercola, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/child-abuse-laws-legally-abducting-children-by-broadening-the-definition-of-child-abuse/

Child protective services human experimentation

You Stole Her Heart A Gripping Look into the Department of Human Services

By Joseph Snook
Investigative Reporter

This is an exposé on the Department of Human Services (DHS) and how they stripped three young children from their mother. This article will reflect on how it was done under the auspice of “keeping the children safe.” The tactics DHS used, the rights they abused, the evidence they created and the evidence they simply turned a blind-eye towards is something every mother and father should be aware of. This is a - “Gripping Look into the Department of Human Services.”
When it comes to the safety of children, and their well-being, it is very important to understand that some families endure problematic events that present circumstances where action needs to be taken. Sometimes, removing children from parent(s) to protect everyone in the family is a necessary decision. Sometimes it is not, and this is when the US~Observer gets involved…
As an investigative reporter, I have witnessed many examples of government agencies that don't always do the right thing. For many reasons, the interests of certain government agencies can potentially alter government employees intentions. Sadly, for Amber Caitlin Parker, her three young children have been “stolen by DHS.”
DHS Background – From DHS:

“At any given time, Oregon's DHS can have up to 9,000 children in their system, at a cost of up to $27,000.00 per child annually.” --Margaret Carter, Deputy Director, Oregon Department of Human Services

“The 1971 Oregon Legislature created the Oregon Department of Human Resources, an agency providing a spectrum of human services to individuals, families and communities.
“The 2001 Oregon Legislature reorganized the department and changed its name to the Oregon Department of Human Services. In 2009 the Oregon Legislature transferred many of the health related functions to the newly created Oregon Health Authority. Today, the Department of Human Services key functions serve children, adults and families and seniors and people with disabilities.”

“They Stole My Heart”
--Amber Caitlin Parker

Amber Caitlin Parker (Duran)

Albany, OR - After years of abuse endured during two separate intimate relationships, Amber Parker found herself alone, supporting her three young children. Amber's life was threatened on more than one occasion by her former boyfriend David Boatright, father of her oldest child.
Michael Duran, father of Amber's two youngest children and currently married (divorce has been filed) to Amber, had also reportedly threatened and attempted to take her life numerous times.
David Boatwright's criminal history as described in a psychological report, which reflects on DHS documents produced by former DHS employee Kimberly Williams, shows that he has an extensive criminal record. Williams' report didn't differentiate between charges and convictions wherein the crimes included Assault I, Attempted assault of a public safety officer in 2011, Assault IV/Domestic Violence in 2008, Domestic Abuse/Harassment in 2007, Harassment in 2007, Assault/Harassment in 2006, Criminal Mischief II in 2006, Criminal Mischief II in 2007 and Menacing in 2005. Williams wrote that Boatright has a history of alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence. It was confirmed according to documents obtained that Boatright would submit to random UA's and anger management/domestic violence batterer's programming. No information was obtained that confirmed whether or not these courses were completed. This reporter attempted to communicate with Mr. Boatright after a recent full review hearing, but was unable to make contact.
Michael Duran's criminal history was described in a psyche exam, which reflected on a report also produced by Kimberly Williams of DHS. His record reflected: "forcible entry", likely burglary in August of 2000, Possession of Controlled Substance (PCS) in 2002, Open Container in 2002, DUII in 2003, PCS in 2004, Assault IV in 2005, Attempt to elude in 2008. Convictions were for Assault IV, DUII, and attempt to elude. It is somewhat unclear which of these "charges" and "convictions" may have represented the same instances. Further inquiry into Duran's criminal history revealed the following: Parole violation on 11/10/11, Burglary I, PCS in 2005, Manufacture of Rock Cocaine, Felony drug possession 2005, felony drug possession 2006, Child neglect 1st degree 2005, Endangering welfare 2005, Contempt of court 2004. Duran is currently awaiting trial on reported Assault charges against Amber Caitlin Parker (police reports were used in our findings). Mr. Duran was contacted by this reporter and stated that, he was, “Advised not to talk to any reporters.” He further stated that, “He would be willing to talk, once everything was over.”
“I think PTSD played a factor in the following months after this whole thing started, Still I flinch when guys move too quickly if I don't trust them - which is most of them, or when they raise their voice.”
-- Amber Parker
Reported text messages sent from Duran to Amber stated that he would “paint her house in red with her blood.” In the fairly small community of Albany Oregon, one former neighbor of Duran's stated, “His father was in prison for murder, and he has many family members who are into drugs and violence. Michael Duran is probably the worst Duran I know of.”

Amber's bruises, "after one of their arguments," referring to Michael Duran.

“Michael and I were arguing (I think about his partying), we were in our bedroom next to the bed, he lifted me up by my neck about 6 inches - 1 foot off the ground and held me against the wall. When he let go about 5-10 seconds later, I almost fell onto our (at the time 2-3 week old) son. I put my hands down to stop myself from landing on him. My neck was very sore and I couldn't turn my head to the right for several days afterwards. I had 3 small bruises on the right side of my neck, and still have a ‘lump’ that sticks out a little bit.”
– Amber Parker
According to police reports, Duran “choked Amber and kicked her in the stomach” just months after she gave birth to their child and threw her out of a moving automobile, then attempted to “run her over.” Duran spent a total of ten months in prison for this and was released in October of 2009. After his release, Amber, apparently naive at the time, wanted to give their family a second chance. Her attempts failed and Duran allegedly continued to abuse her. Amber has since filed for divorce and obtained a restraining order against Duran, issued on December 16, 2011. Duran was recently indicted by a Grand Jury on Feb. 22, 2012 and is awaiting trial for assault IV, felony domestic violence charges. The trial is reportedly set for sometime in August as of this publication.
Amber has claimed many things according to documents from DHS. She has claimed that someone had broken into her house and attempted to poison her children, that they were coming in through the closet and attic. Another report stated that Boatright was drilling holes in her roof to “spy on her.”
They were very strange accusations, but when you look into the issues surrounding them and the domestic abuse that Amber suffered, it's surprising that she has been able to maintain her composure throughout this process. DHS documents claim that Amber was either using drugs or was a paranoid schizophrenic. She was battered, DHS!
On or around November 4, 2011, David Boatright was given custody of Amber's oldest son. On or around November 14, 2011, Amber's two youngest children were officially placed in foster care. At that time, she reportedly volunteered to do whatever she could to get her children back. Amber was referred by DHS to a Psychologist that they often use. Amber underwent a comprehensive psychological exam given by James A. Ewell, Ph.D. in Eugene Oregon. Ewell's report stated, “In addition to information gathered through the procedures mentioned above, I also received background data from Ms. Williams' letter of referral. Accompanying that letter Ms. Williams forwarded additional documents describing Ms. Duran's history, behaviors and contact with agency workers. These materials were briefly reviewed PRIOR to my meeting with her.” Strangely enough, Ewell's diagnosis apparently fell in line with what DHS had presumed... He stated that, “I do not believe Amber would currently be able to safely parent/protect her children, if they were returned to her care. She should be evaluated for the possible use of psychotropic medications. She probably also could benefit from supportive psychotherapy. She should continue to submit random urinalysis screenings...” While reading Ewell's entire report, I found parts of it repetitive and similar to what I had read from DHS reports.
Shortly after her children were taken, Amber obtained the help of the US~Observer. Amber was very skeptical of Ewell's report. She was strongly opposed to using psychotropic drugs, which Ewell suggested, and therefore unwilling to comply with a report she adamantly disagreed with.
Amber subsequently obtained an independent psychological exam from a well known psychologist out of Portland, Oregon.
This second exam was conducted by Frank Colistro Ed. D. (Ed. D. is a Doctor of Education Degree, equivalent to a professor or lecturer at the university level). Colistro found that Amber had similar findings resulting from similar tests given by Ewell, although Colistro's report seemed less repetitive and much more thorough to this reporter. Colistro stated, “Overall, results of this assessment do not support Dr. Ewell's diagnosis of Schizophrenia or any other form of mental illness, nor are there any indications of a substance abuse problem.”
Colistro also stated that Amber's findings were, “supportive of the appellation of Battered Women's Syndrome...”

Two different psychological exams produced two different conclusions

What would you do if you were beaten by the father of your child? What would you do if your life was threatened constantly? What if you were almost intentionally ran over by an automobile driven by your husband? What if you were choked, beaten, had your finger broken, and were constantly attacked and verbally assaulted? What if you were told that your house was going to be painted red with your own blood? What if you were kicked in the stomach? What if your ex's had such extensive rap sheets as reported in this article? What would you do if the people you looked up to for help, reportedly disregarded your claims and ultimately used them against you, then stole your children? What if the people who were supposed to help you, failed to understand that you were the victim of extreme domestic violence? What if the help they offered required UA's instead of treatment for domestic abuse? What if the help you were ridiculed for not accepting, required the use of psychotropic drugs?
One thing is clear to this writer: Amber has taken numerous parenting courses, she has removed herself from the presence of her exes. She has obtained restraining orders against her exes, she has filed for divorce from Duran, and has been doing all she can to get her children back. She has reportedly undergone 20 clean UA's (one was reportedly inconclusive due to a prescription she was taking at that time) and she has NO CRIMINAL HISTORY WHATSOEVER. Amber has a perfect record, minus a couple traffic citations. According to one psyche exam, "Amber has made substantial efforts to grow and learn in the area of parenting. Although not employed, she involves herself in productive, pro-social activities such as volunteering for the Humane Society and staying active in her church."
What would you do if you were subjected to this kind of treatment? What if you were told your children were possibly going to be placed in foster care permanently?
At a recent full review hearing, this writer communicated with DHS employee David Purcell.
Mr. Purcell, Julia Blackburn's (case worker assigned) supervisor, filled in for her at the hearing. Mr. Purcell expressed that he could not communicate with the press, but was willing to listen. Mr. Purcell was given this writers contact phone number and was asked to give it to his supervisor. Mr. Purcell was also informed of Amber's willingness to cooperate with DHS, given they were willing to accept her position regarding the psychological exams. It was surprising to see Mr. Purcell not only do the right thing during the hearing, but his willingness to listen was a trait this writer respects. I can report that Mr. Purcell appeared to be an honest person, who's intentions were truly genuine.
At the recent full review hearing, DHS' Attorney stated, "we've received information that a reporter is present" and asked that the judge not allow it. Judge Daniel Murphy responded by quoting Oregon law and the first amendment, then asked if anyone "objected", to which there was no reply. Concluding the hearing, Judge Murphy stated that if the children are not given back to one of the parents by August 9, 2012, that one of the attorneys needed to schedule another review hearing. Judge Murphy appeared to be concerned for the children, which was evident when he spoke to the many attorney's present.
Editor’s Note: The US~Observer contacted Julia Blackburn who is/was the case worker at DHS assigned to this case. During the short conversation, Blackburn stated, "I don't feel comfortable talking." We were eventually put into contact with DHS supervisor Marco Benavides. Mr. Benavides reassured the US~Observer that Amber’s case would be reassessed. Nothing has been documented to prove anything has happened as of this publication. In fact, Amber is reportedly awaiting a hearing where the determination will be made regarding DHS's decision to keep her children from her permanently.
Amber is a fit mother that needs counseling for Battered Women's Syndrome. DHS has failed thus far at doing the right thing in this case. DHS has given out of office visitation to Duran for the two youngest children and temporary custody of the eldest child to Boatright.
Amber currently has to visit her children under strict supervision at DHS. DHS has even gone as far as telling Amber she cannot "talk to the children about future placement with her..." In other words, if one of her children said they wanted to come home, she must "redirect the conversation." Amber was also recently notified that she was no longer permitted to take photos of her own children during her visits with them.
What is wrong with this picture people? David Boatright has custody of Amber’s oldest son and Michael Duran has visits with Amber’s two younger children, outside of DHS supervision, while he most likely awaits another prison term for his alleged criminal attacks on Amber. Amber’s visits with her own children are closely monitored and supervised, as she is constantly dissected and examined by DHS. This is NOT okay with this writer and this is NOT okay with the US~Observer. This is incompetence, it is negligence and this is absolute abuse of Amber. It will NOT continue…
If you have any information regarding DHS employees, Julia Blackburn, Kimberly Williams (former DHS) or Marco Benavides, please contact the US~Observer immediately via email edtior@usobserver.com, or call 541-474-7885. It’s time to put an end to abuse at the hands of DHS.

http://usobserver.com/archive/june-12/dhs-you-stole-her-heart.htm

Crime Victims' Services Division - Karly's Law

Karly's Law

Other Resources

• Oregon Medical Guidelines for Evaluation of Sexual Abuse in Children and Adolescents (Second Edition 2004)
  
• Oregon Interviewing Guidelines
  
• Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention (CAMI)
  
• CAMI Regional Service Providers
  

Since 2008 Karly’s Law has helped thousands of Oregon children receive the medical care and support they need to find protection from abuse. Named after a 3 year old Corvallis girl who died from abuse after allegations went unchecked; Karly’s Law mandates that children in Oregon who exhibit suspicious physical injuries in the course of a child abuse investigation must receive medical attention within 48 hours.
Karly’s Law has specific requirements regarding the handling of cases involving suspicious physical injury that must be met by law enforcement, the Department of Human Services (DHS), and designated medical providers that have recieved specialized training to assess injuries that may have been caused by child physical abuse. Suspicious physical injury include, but are not limited to::

• Burns or scalds
  
• Extensive bruising or abrasions on any part of the body
  
• Bruising, swelling or abrasions on the head, neck or face
  
• Fractures of any bone in a child under the age of three
  
• Multiple fractures in a child of any age
  
• Dislocations, soft tissue swelling or moderate to severe cuts
  
• Loss of the ability to walk or move normally according to the child’s developmental ability
  
• Unconsciousness or difficulty maintaining consciousness
  
• Multiple injuries of different types
  
• Injuries causing serious or protracted disfigurement or loss of impairment of the function of any bodily organ
  
• Any other injury that threatens the physical well-being of the child
  

Suspicion that injuries are caused by abuse must be addressed in the coordinated comprehensive way required by Karly’s Law. For more information about protocol and procedures please see Karly's Law ORS 419B.022 through 419B.024.


http://www.doj.state.or.us/victims/karlys_law.shtml

Some parents have had their children removed for yelling at them, allowing them to miss or be late to school or having a dirty home. ~Social worker Anthony Cavuoti

For Immediate Release

Federal Appeals Court Finds CPS Tactic Unconstitutional

December 29, 2008

Sacramento, CA — As families gather for the holidays, a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers hope to hundreds of thousands of parents haunted by the nightmare of unproven child abuse allegations.

For years, attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute have warned parents that, once CPS decides to investigate them for child abuse — sometimes based on anonymous tips from neighbors or vindictive ex-spouses — their names can end up on California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). Parents are listed on the CACI even when CPS eventually deems the charges "inconclusive" and closes its files. The CACI listing shows up on background checks for years to come and prevents parents from obtaining jobs or state licenses.

Central Index Blacklist

The Central Index functions as a blacklist of parents. Each state has their own version of the list and once a name is added parents have found it nearly impossible to have their name removed. These lists have been declared unconstitutional in a recently ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Too many people have been listed -- not on the basis of what they have done to bring harm to children, but simply on the basis of CPS caseworker opinions. Most people listed on the Central Index have never been criminally charged, have never been informed that their name appears on the list, neither have they been convicted of any kind of child abuse or neglect.

Yet, having your name appear on the list can and has led to individuals losing jobs, future employment opportunities and can follow them the rest of their lives causing irreparable harm for themselves and their families.

The Gates couple who appear in this video said they became foster-adoptive parents so they could help needy children. The Gary & Melissa Gates have spent the past 8-years and $175,000.00 trying to get their names removed from the Central Registry list in Texas. Each state has their own lists but they are shared from state to state, making it nearly impossible to lead a normal life once your name has been added.

The Gates have founded a non-profit organization — The Texas Center for Family Rights, after they saw the need for families to be protected from invasive investigations by CPS, which can be started by one malicious phone call.

In Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sharply criticized the ease with which people are listed on the CACI and the obstacles which prevent their names from being removed. The court was also troubled by a study indicating that as many as half of the more than 800,000 individuals listed on the CACI "may have a legitimate basis for expungement." Calling the list "the reverse of the presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system," the court ordered the state to enact greater procedural safeguards.

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "It is gratifying that the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged what we have been saying for years — that treating parents as criminals when they are never convicted of a crime is unjust. We call on the legislature to finally fix this broken system in a way that honors basic constitutional rights."

Karen Milam, who directs PJI's Southern California office, stated, "Every year, PJI is inundated with hundreds of calls from desperate parents who do not understand how they could be labeled as child abusers based solely on unproven suspicions. This ruling is an important step toward keeping CPS honest."

About The Pacific Justice Institute

Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.

Pacific Justice Institute's strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, "The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened." "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches... without charge."

If you are able to support PJI, please click here to contribute now or visit Pacific Justice Institute.

Pacific Justice Institute
President Brad Dacus
P.O. Box 276600
Sacramento, CA 95827-6600
Phone: (916) 857-6900

http://kidjacked.com/legal/caci.asp

LA court commissioner admonished by judicial panel

(04-03) 16:01 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

The state commission on judicial performance has publicly admonished a Los Angeles court commissioner for repeatedly being rude and belittling to attorneys and litigants in family court.

According to a public order issued Tuesday, Commissioner Alan Friedenthal should be severely publicly admonished for misconduct and ethics violations in five family law cases.

In one case, he threatened to award custody of a child to non-parental family members in response to a father's statements that he needed a payment plan to pay court fees.

Friedenthal says his rude behavior was infrequent, and came in response to difficult litigants.

The cases were heard between 2007 and 2009 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

A commissioner is a subordinate judicial officer to a judge in California courts.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/03/state/n160117D07.DTL#ixzz1r4yNWt27

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."