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

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

Child Protective Services Truth ( Shocking )

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

New child welfare audit says Oregon can do more to reunite parents and kids in foster care

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/04/post_65.html

Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 6:00 AM     Updated: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 10:43 AM

 By Michelle Cole, The Oregonian 
Follow

RobFinch/The OregonianAn Oregon child caseworker checks on a baby in foster care in this 2008 photo.

SALEM --While Oregon child welfare caseworkers do better than the national average in seeing that children taken into state foster care are returned to their parents, a new audit also finds caseworkers often do not include parents in critical discussions concerning their families and have little time to ensure meaningful visits between parents and kids. 

Overall, the 28-page report portrays a system under stress. 

Overworked child welfare staff do not get much help from the central office in prioritizing their work. Parents were unable to get addiction treatment, mental health care or other services they needed before they could bring their kids back home.

"We read a lot of stories about what's happening with caseworkers and children and we thought it was important for us to go out and see what areas we might be able to help improve," said Gary Blackmer, director of the secretary of state's audits division. 

Auditors analyzed data, visited child welfare offices and reviewed case files from October 2009 through September 2010. During that time caseworkers removed 4,736 children from their homes because of suspected abuse or neglect. In total, about 13,000 kids spent at least one day in foster care during that period. 

The report found 29 percent of the children in foster care were reunited with their parents; nationally 22 percent of the children returned home. Oregon had a lower rate of children returning to foster care because they were abused again. 

"Safely returning kids home to their parents is a priority and has been for the last several years because children do better at home -- as long as they are safe at home," said Gene Evans, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Human Services. 

But Oregon also takes proportionately more children into foster care than other states. Auditors were unable to measure whether there were some youngsters taken from their parents who shouldn't have been, said Andrew Love, the report's lead auditor. 

Much of the report connects the rising number of reports of child abuse and neglect -- up 20 percent in the last five years -- to a mounting load for caseworkers. 

Tasks that state officials consider critical to returning a child home were not being done regularly, if at all. 

For example, while policy requires caseworkers to meet parents face-to-face at least once a month to monitor progress. Those contacts occurred 62 percent of the time. 

Auditors found that "action agreements," forms signed by a parent or caregiver were not completed in 20 of 91 cases reviewed. Of the 71 agreements that were done, 22 were not signed by a parent and some had no date indicating the form had been reviewed by a parent. 

Even though experts stress the need for parents and children who have been separated to have quality time together, across Oregon those visits typically happened for one hour once a week at the local child welfare office. 

"In all the districts we visited, child welfare caseworkers and other stakeholders noted the amount and quality of parent-child visits was rarely adequate," the report said. 

There were exceptions. In Klamath County, auditors noted families have access to a visitation center located away from the child welfare office and where parents can also seek drug and alcohol treatment. 

But auditors did not paint a picture of a situation they expected would improve on its own. They noted that a new computer system had increased caseworker's clerical load. Caseworkers got little guidance from top managers about what in their 1,500-page policy manual should be their priorities. Until last year, child welfare caseworkers did not get job performance reviews. 

In their list of recommendations, auditors suggest that the agency designate a manager in its Salem headquarters to focus on what workers need to do to ensure that children return home. 

"We didn't see strong communication between central office and the field," Blackmer said. 

In a letter of response the agency's chief operating officer, Jim Scherzinger said caseworkers are doing the best they can. 

"Child welfare is staffed at approximately 67 percent of the need, given the current workload and there are tasks that go undone every day," he wrote. 

As for hiring a manager to oversee this part of the work, Scherzinger said the agency doesn't have the financial resources. Besides, he wrote, "a static list of priorities issued from Central Office will not serve families well and could leave children in unsafe settings." 

-- Michelle Cole