January 31, 2012
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
Occasionally, we see/ hear a legal phrase utilized that we were not familiar with. Our thinking, if we are not aware of it then… FULL STORY
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Call Now to Halt CRC Ratification
| Sign the Petition | Donate | Volunteer | Learn More | View Online |
|
|
| P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org |
JurisDictionary- How to Win the Game of Law
I thank you for your course. I've used it successfully!
| ... Alan P. I've been helped dramatically while listening to your audios. I play them in the background FULL TIME, and in the middle of doing something else something you say makes me do something differently or include something that may have slipped my mind. ... Al H. I've learned more from you than from any law classes that I've attended. ... Danny G. Settled my case! Without your course I would never have gotten to 1st base. ... Larry S. ... Orlando, Florida I have been using your program for four years and have won every case. Keep up the amazing work! ... John M. ... Phoenix City, Alabama Jurisdictionary WORKS! Won against a powerful attorney. Even the other attorneys in the gallery were talking about it. ... K. Anderson Thank you for providing your course to people at an affordable price. ... Pete B. ... Charlotte, North Carolina Since learning from your course my life has changed for the better, and I am finally in control of my formerly overwhelming legal problems. ... Harold C. ... Jersey City, New Jersey I won a criminal case at trial with two lying witnesses against me. I got Jurisdictionary and learned that law works if it's used correctly. The judge read my memorandum and agreed with me. The most wonderful feeling I ever felt was walking out of that courtroom knowing I won without a lawyer! ... Philip J. ... Albany, Georgia Ordered your 24-hour course. Followed your plan. Other side had 3 attorneys. Cleaned their clock using your methods. Their case came down like a ton of bricks when I proved their elements were not there. Thank you! ... Michael L. ... Springville, New York I have your course. I wish I had a picture of the opposing attorney when I objected to his attempt to get an affidavit admitted! Thanks! ... BJ H ... Pasadena, Maryland Got my second win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Thanks. ... Sonny S. ... Brooklyn, New York
| |||||||
How to Win the Game of Law ...
Monday, January 30, 2012
Big Health Report News
Join Big Health Report on
FACEBOOK!
Big Health Report News
January 30, 2012
Big Health Report News
January 30, 2012
TOP STORIES
- Aborted Children Being Used in U.S. Food Supply?
- Erin Brockovich Launches Investigation Into Tic Illness Affecting N.Y. Teenagers
- CDC: Too Few Americans Getting Screened for Common Cancers
- Pfizer Wins U.S. Approval for Advanced Kidney-Cancer Drug
- FDA Seizes Nearly 14% of Imported Orange Juice
- Measuring Blood Pressure on One Arm Not Enough: Study
- Amylin Wins FDA Approval for Once-Weekly Diabetes Drug
- Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges
NEWS ITEMS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED
- Fried Food Bad for Heart is Myth I am VERY HAPPY to see this
- Mystery Skin Disease Morgellons Has No Clear Cause, CDC Study Says
- Men More Than Women Likely to Experience Memory Loss
- Donor Heart Recipient Unaware It Was Dropped on the Street
- Depression Could Be Linked to Your Mother CPS causes major Depression too.
- HPV Study Finds 7% of U.S. Teens, Adults Carry Virus in Mouths
- Lower Limb Amputation Rates Associated With Diabetes Drop, US
- Tom Brady Boosts Lifelong Mentor's Search for a Kidney
Founders Quote
"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states,
by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of
their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation,
to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most
erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection,
rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to,
and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and
violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the
people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests,
political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole
state is weakened." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations
Follow The Patriot Post:
Foster Parents; Children left behind? Part 4 of 4
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
In part 3, we made suggestions that may assist with this scenario. However, before we continue we would like to repeat our question from part 3…FULL STORY
In part 3, we made suggestions that may assist with this scenario. However, before we continue we would like to repeat our question from part 3…FULL STORY
Why the Truth Matters More Than You Think
Publication Date: January 3, 2012
It all comes down to the truth.
Much like the character in one of his best-selling books, Andy Andrews is first and foremost a Noticer. Sometimes, all one needs is a little perspective and Andy has been providing that perspective to some of the world's most influential companies and organizations for the last 20 years. His ability to transform an individual by their own understanding and desire has made him loved by millions.
Now, Andy Andrews brings his lessons and perspective into the important arena of government, citizenship, and what it means to completely uphold the truth.
If the truth is what sets us free, what does it mean to live in a society where truth is absent? How do truth and lies in the past shape our destiny today? Through the lens of the Holocaust, best-selling author Andy Andrews examines the critical need for truth in our relationships, our communities, and our government.
In this compact, nonpartisan book, Andrews urges readers to be "careful students" of the past, seeking accurate, factual accounts of events and decisions that illuminate choices we face now. By considering how the Nazi German regime was able to carry out over eleven million institutional killings between 1933 and 1945, Andrews advocates for an informed population that demands honesty and integrity from its leaders and from each other.
The future of our country rests on the ability to separate the truth from lies, and Andrews compels each of us to examine our leaders' claims with a critical eye. His question- how do you kill eleven million people?-is provocative, but his warning is clear: "Only a clear understanding of the answer to this question and the awareness of an involved populace can prevent history from continuing to repeat itself as it already has, time and again."
http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Worthless Way to Prevent Cancer
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 29 2012
Story at-a-glance
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices now recommends Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, for males between the ages of 11 and 21
Gardasil is promoted for boys allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts and cancers of the penis and rectum, and to reduce transmission of HPV to girls, thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths. The estimated cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys is $38 million
The HPV vaccine has NOT been proven to actually prevent cervical cancer. Likewise, after evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions “was not observed”
Cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, and anal cancer strikes a mere 5,820 men and women each year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals—330 men and 470 women. Is the cost of this vaccination program truly worth it in light of the fact that we’re allegedly combating some of the LEAST concerning cancers with what’s been shown to be an unusually dangerous vaccine?
FULL STORY
Story at-a-glance
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices now recommends Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, for males between the ages of 11 and 21
Gardasil is promoted for boys allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts and cancers of the penis and rectum, and to reduce transmission of HPV to girls, thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths. The estimated cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys is $38 million
The HPV vaccine has NOT been proven to actually prevent cervical cancer. Likewise, after evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions “was not observed”
Cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, and anal cancer strikes a mere 5,820 men and women each year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals—330 men and 470 women. Is the cost of this vaccination program truly worth it in light of the fact that we’re allegedly combating some of the LEAST concerning cancers with what’s been shown to be an unusually dangerous vaccine?
FULL STORY
American Minute
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
"I shall be telling this with a sigh, 
AmeriSearch, Inc | PO Box 20163 | St. Louis | MO | 63123
|
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Distress - The first mental and emotional cause of cancer
Sunday, January 29, 2012 by: Dr. Keith Nemec
(NaturalNews) How can you live a stress-free life and prevent cancer and other health problems? By learning to manage your cortisol stress hormone levels and by putting the mental/emotional stress in your life in the proper perspective. Once you know how to balance the physical factors of sleep, diet and exercise along with the mental and emotional stresses in your life then you will restore health in your body and mind. This is critical in any alternative cancer treatment.c
It is a fact that high stress is a major contributing factor to cancer and many other diseases. The question is how does stress cause cancer? To answer this, one must look at what the stress response does physiologically in the body
FULL STORY: http://www.naturalnews.com/034798_stress_cancer_emotional.html
I wrote an article 8 years ago titled-
It is a fact that high stress is a major contributing factor to cancer and many other diseases. The question is how does stress cause cancer? To answer this, one must look at what the stress response does physiologically in the body
FULL STORY: http://www.naturalnews.com/034798_stress_cancer_emotional.html
I wrote an article 8 years ago titled-
6-Year-Old Boy Charged With Sexual Battery Over Game Of Tag On Playground
Hercules Family Battles Sex Assault Claim Against 6-Year-Old
January 27, 2012 7:27 PM
San Francisco (CBS 5) – An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.
The parent, who asked only to be identified as Oswin, said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago.
Oswin said his child was kept in the principal’s office for two hours until he confessed. He was suspended, and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record. FULL STORY
January 27, 2012 7:27 PM
San Francisco (CBS 5) – An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.
The parent, who asked only to be identified as Oswin, said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago.
Oswin said his child was kept in the principal’s office for two hours until he confessed. He was suspended, and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record. FULL STORY
Foster Parents; Children left behind? Part 3 of 4
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
We just made a suggestion on how foster parents could assist in this scenario. Ask yourself this question; would you rather work with a government… FULL STORY
We just made a suggestion on how foster parents could assist in this scenario. Ask yourself this question; would you rather work with a government… FULL STORY
Friday, January 27, 2012
Foster Parents; Children left behind? Part 2 of 4
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
In part 1, we were taking a closer look at an article that we discovered on illegal aliens leaving their children behind after they have been arrested,… FULL STORY
In part 1, we were taking a closer look at an article that we discovered on illegal aliens leaving their children behind after they have been arrested,… FULL STORY
Foster Parents; CPS “the color of law”. Part 6 of 6
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
In part 4-5, we were asking you to read a document we came upon during our research, are we boring you? We know how hard it...… FULL STORY
In part 4-5, we were asking you to read a document we came upon during our research, are we boring you? We know how hard it...… FULL STORY
Thursday, January 26, 2012
System was misguided, officials admit Thousands of children needlessly uprooted
Editor Note- Especially notice the DATE when this article was originally published.
NOTHING has changed over the past 32 years, HAS IT?
Thousands of Ontario children have been needlessly taken out of their homes during the past 20 years by a child welfare system that provincial officials now say was seriously misguided.
The experience, along with the stigma of having been wards of Children's Aid Societies, has shattered some of these children's lives. Many now are strangers in their families, are shunned by employers and are regarded as misfits by former friends and neighbors.
An unknown number, say professionals who deal with these children, have rebelled against their unwarranted plight by turning to crime. Others suffered deep emotional wounds that some experts fear could lead them into crime or other anti-social behavior later.
Both the Ontario Government and Children's Aid Societies say they must share the blame for what has happened to these children.
Societies say that a financing scheme imposed by the Government - and changed this year - encouraged them to take children from families and put them in group homes and other institutions.
Provincial officials say they didn't know their policies were harming children, and add that the financing system was drafted under pressure from societies that wanted money to break up families instead of helping them stay together.
Ciive Chamberlain, a psychiatrist who in the past two decades has seen the child-care system from the different perspectives of an institution and court worker, Government policy adviser and institution administrator, says no one can be blamed for past mistakes. "The pursuit of a scapegoat or a responsible somebody is futile," he said. "It's all of us - the way we think about problems, or the way we don't think about them." While children and their families are the most obvious victims of Ontario's errant child welfare system, taxpayers have also paid a heavy price.
During the two decades in which the so-called interventionist approach predominated - intervention being the jargon for taking children out of their families - spending by Children's Aid Societies multiplied 34 times while Ontario's population grew by less than one-half.
In the same period there was a tripling in the number of group homes, the privately run but Government-financed institutions into which most CAS wards are put.
All told, more than $1 -billion was spent to create a child welfare system for which a recent internal Government document has little praise.
The document is an assessment of Ontario's child welfare system based on a Government review in 1979 and 1980 of 32 of the province's 51 Children's Aid Societies, which are financed by the province and have the prime responsibility for administering child welfare laws.
The Government assessment says that the societies generally have been inept at helping children. Another document, based on the same information, says that many children should have been treated with "less destructive alternatives" to being taken from their homes.
Societies processed children instead of caring for them, says the internal document, and dumped them in group homes where CAS workers lost all contact with them, even though the societies had assumed the legal responsibility of the parents.
The same document notes that while social workers put children in group homes as a matter of course "societies are unable to explain whether or not these agencies work or in what ways they are effective." Finding out why the system went wrong took months of reviewing public and unreleased documents, and scores of interviews with social workers, CAS officials, psychiatrists, psychologists, Government officials and officials of other child welfare agencies.
One major reason that emerged from the investigation is that child welfare was run during the past 20 years by people who believed in the misguided notion that social workers know better than parents how to help children, and that institutions, not the home, are the best place to do this.
Not all child-care professionals thought this way, and many children were justly taken out of their homes for their own good. But because the trend and financial incentives to needlessly take children into care were so strong, most workers had little choice.
T. W. A. van Overdijk of the Brantford Children's Aid Society says his agency's view "has always been that it's no good for a kid to be in the care of the society. But it's been difficult to translate that into reality."
Prompted by its findings that the child welfare system was needlessly taking children into care and costing too much, the Government implemented last January a new financing scheme aimed at tackling both problems.
The scheme seems to have curbed the practice of taking children from their homes, but officials concede that it may take 20 years to root the interventionist habit from the system.
And there is still no guarantee that children will no longer be hurt by the system that is supposed to help them. Officials warn that removing the kinks from one part of the system may foul things up elsewhere.
But while provincial officials measure the system's costs in terms of money and shattered lives, another sort of price has been paid: immeasurable damage to the family courts, where child-care professionals say they have been drawn into deceit and distortion to get a judge's approval for custody of a child.
Dr. Chamberlain, who admits to having been "one of the people out there breaking all the rules," says that when the facts didn't justify taking a child out of his or her home, child-care professionals would paint a picture for the judge that would force him to grant custody. "You had to label the kid to get the money to flow," Dr. Chamberlain said. "The label was useless, but you used it.
You distort everything. You abuse the courts, the system, the family. Of course, this had repercussions on the family. Making a child a ward carries the stigma that the parents aren't doing their job well."
Government officials and documents say that the needless removal of children from their homes, the major problem with child welfare during the past 20 years, was compounded by a lack of clear direction from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which finances and supervises the societies.
The ministry admits in documents that its Child Welfare Act is too vague and open-ended to be effective, and that the main tool for implementing policy has been financing schemes that encouraged the abuse of money and power by societies.
Child welfare has been a haphazard service over which neither the Government nor societies had control, the documents say.
The Government acknowledges it smothered societies with red tape and frustrated, through its financing schemes, attempts by some societies to break out of the traditional role of taking children into care.
These Government restrictions bolstered the interventionist attitude among child-care professionals and encouraged the abuse of the courts, said Dr. Chamberlain, now director of the province's Thistletown Regional Centre for Children and Adolescents.
Government documents and officials say that boards of education across the province have been using the courts to rid themselves of children with behavioral and learning problems.
These children, most of whom had committed offences no more serious than skipping classes, were made wards of Children's Aid Societies and put in group homes. Last year, school boards referred 500 children into CAS care,
Dr. Chamberlain said case workers sometimes have had children charged with criminal offences to get them out of their homes and into training schools, from which they could be transferred to residential care institutions such as group homes.
More commonly, the professionals would tell a judge that the child lived in a "pretty destructive" home where he was endangered, Dr. Chamberlain said. They added, conveniently, that a Children's Aid Society was willing to take the child into care. "You'd end up getting the judge to agree that (making the child a ward) was a reasonable thing to do ... . How does he know? He's got a social worker and a psychiatrist swearing on a Bible that the kid needs (a group home) .... He's got 15 or 20 more that day, He doesn't even have the time to ask all the questions." Grant Lowery, executive director of Central Toronto
Youth Services and an outspoken opponent of past financing schemes, said that the paternalistic attitude in family courts has allowed child-care workers the leeway to interpret the Child Welfare Act as they saw fit.
Mr. Lowery, who has worked with adolescents for nearly two decades, said the practice of taking children into care even when they didn't belong there "was fairly prevalent."
"You wouldn't have to say anybody was lying. The legal and service system let it happen. We've collectively allowed that to happen. "The judge was told that the parents couldn't get the kid to behave or attend school," he said. "That's where the poor took a hell of a beating in the earlier interpretations of the Child Welfare Act. If the kid was skipping classes, and there was no one at home because it was a single- parent family and the mother was working, or if both parents were working, the court was told that the parents couldn't control the kid."
Dr. Chamberlain, who ran the in-patient program at the Hincks Treatment Centre in Toronto from 1966 to 1971 and the Metro Family Court Clinic from 1971 to 1977, said that all laws concerning children were abused in one way or another to facilitate taking children into care. "I remember recommending that a child go to training school just so he could get treatment in a group home. I wouldn't have recommended to the judge that that happen unless I knew a group home was ready to take him. I arranged it in advance. It was an abuse of the rules to help the kid. "All of these agencies got used to doing business that way," said Dr. Chamberlain, who from 1977 to 1980 became a senior Government adviser as executive co-ordinator for program policy in the children's services division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
"Sure the judges knew. Everybody played the game. They had to. They had to bend the rules to help the kid ... . The game bothered all of us .... But you've got that kid and he can't wait for the world to change."
Michael Ozerkevich, who until recently was executive director of management information evaluation for the Social Services Ministry, said his 1978 study of child welfare financing first alerted Government officials that the schemes were fuelling the distortion of children's services.
Mr. Ozerkevich, who joined the ministry in 1977 as an expert on financing, drafted the new scheme introduced this year. He said that his predecessors were too overworked to be aware of the problems he discovered.
Evidence of the unwarranted removal of children from their homes has existed since at least 1960.
A report prepared by the Child Welfare League of America in 1960 for the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto criticized the practice by social workers of taking children out of their homes instead of working with families to keep them together.
A study of 14 institutions in Metro Toronto revealed that "for every two children who were placed in a group setting because of their needs, three were placed because of needs unrelated to them," the 1960 report said.
Government officials and child care professionals said in interviews that ministry officials responsible for financing and supervising Children's Aid Societies ignored the evidence of dozens of similar studies in the wake of ontradictory statements from societies that were battling each other for more money.
A handful of Government child welfare officials were swamped by society lobbyists, some of whom decried the financing schemes as encouraging abuses while others praised the financing approach but attributed abuses to lack of money.
The legacy of the system's 20-year blunder, critics say, are the emotional wounds left on thousands of children who should have remained at home but didn't.
Stephen Menzies, a Toronto child welfare lawyer, says he has seen children acquire criminal records as a result of unnecessarily being made wards and put in group homes. "My experience has shown that kids may be put in a group home for ridiculous reasons such as skipping classes," Mr. Menzies said.
"That's the only offence these kids have committed. Subsequent charges laid against them arise because of their rebellion at the place they've been put in - their attempts to free themselves from the system. Those charges would never arise if the kids hadn't been put in the group home in the first place." Mr. Menzies cited cases where children went into group homes without records and within months had been charged with breaking and entering, theft, and other offences committed while running away from the home.
Because of the common perception that Children's Aid Societies deal mainly with tough, problem children, children who are unnecessarily made wards become vulnerable targets. "Removing the child from the family creates new dangers," said Peter Jaffe, a psychologist who is director of the Family Court Clinic in London, Ont. "The child will be labelled a problem child. This could lead to poor self-esteem because the child will blame himself for causing problems in the home since he's the one who was taken away. There may also be problems reintegrating the child into the family and re-establishing relationships with siblings and parents."
Mr. van Overdijk is more blunt: "As soon as you take a child into care, you have helped to establish the destruction of the family as a unit."
Indexing (document details)
Author(s): YVES LAVIGNE
Publication title: The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 23, 1981. pg. P.1
All material copyright Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved.
Original document at- http://ia600809.us.archive.org/13/items/GlobeAndMailArticle/GlobeandmailCombinedR_text.pdf
NOTHING has changed over the past 32 years, HAS IT?
| System was misguided, officials admit Thousands of children
needlessly uprooted Monday, November 23, 1981 By YVES LAVIGNE The Globe and Mail |
Thousands of Ontario children have been needlessly taken out of their homes during the past 20 years by a child welfare system that provincial officials now say was seriously misguided.
The experience, along with the stigma of having been wards of Children's Aid Societies, has shattered some of these children's lives. Many now are strangers in their families, are shunned by employers and are regarded as misfits by former friends and neighbors.
An unknown number, say professionals who deal with these children, have rebelled against their unwarranted plight by turning to crime. Others suffered deep emotional wounds that some experts fear could lead them into crime or other anti-social behavior later.
Both the Ontario Government and Children's Aid Societies say they must share the blame for what has happened to these children.
Societies say that a financing scheme imposed by the Government - and changed this year - encouraged them to take children from families and put them in group homes and other institutions.
Provincial officials say they didn't know their policies were harming children, and add that the financing system was drafted under pressure from societies that wanted money to break up families instead of helping them stay together.
Ciive Chamberlain, a psychiatrist who in the past two decades has seen the child-care system from the different perspectives of an institution and court worker, Government policy adviser and institution administrator, says no one can be blamed for past mistakes. "The pursuit of a scapegoat or a responsible somebody is futile," he said. "It's all of us - the way we think about problems, or the way we don't think about them." While children and their families are the most obvious victims of Ontario's errant child welfare system, taxpayers have also paid a heavy price.
During the two decades in which the so-called interventionist approach predominated - intervention being the jargon for taking children out of their families - spending by Children's Aid Societies multiplied 34 times while Ontario's population grew by less than one-half.
In the same period there was a tripling in the number of group homes, the privately run but Government-financed institutions into which most CAS wards are put.
All told, more than $1 -billion was spent to create a child welfare system for which a recent internal Government document has little praise.
The document is an assessment of Ontario's child welfare system based on a Government review in 1979 and 1980 of 32 of the province's 51 Children's Aid Societies, which are financed by the province and have the prime responsibility for administering child welfare laws.
The Government assessment says that the societies generally have been inept at helping children. Another document, based on the same information, says that many children should have been treated with "less destructive alternatives" to being taken from their homes.
Societies processed children instead of caring for them, says the internal document, and dumped them in group homes where CAS workers lost all contact with them, even though the societies had assumed the legal responsibility of the parents.
The same document notes that while social workers put children in group homes as a matter of course "societies are unable to explain whether or not these agencies work or in what ways they are effective." Finding out why the system went wrong took months of reviewing public and unreleased documents, and scores of interviews with social workers, CAS officials, psychiatrists, psychologists, Government officials and officials of other child welfare agencies.
One major reason that emerged from the investigation is that child welfare was run during the past 20 years by people who believed in the misguided notion that social workers know better than parents how to help children, and that institutions, not the home, are the best place to do this.
Not all child-care professionals thought this way, and many children were justly taken out of their homes for their own good. But because the trend and financial incentives to needlessly take children into care were so strong, most workers had little choice.
T. W. A. van Overdijk of the Brantford Children's Aid Society says his agency's view "has always been that it's no good for a kid to be in the care of the society. But it's been difficult to translate that into reality."
Prompted by its findings that the child welfare system was needlessly taking children into care and costing too much, the Government implemented last January a new financing scheme aimed at tackling both problems.
The scheme seems to have curbed the practice of taking children from their homes, but officials concede that it may take 20 years to root the interventionist habit from the system.
And there is still no guarantee that children will no longer be hurt by the system that is supposed to help them. Officials warn that removing the kinks from one part of the system may foul things up elsewhere.
But while provincial officials measure the system's costs in terms of money and shattered lives, another sort of price has been paid: immeasurable damage to the family courts, where child-care professionals say they have been drawn into deceit and distortion to get a judge's approval for custody of a child.
Dr. Chamberlain, who admits to having been "one of the people out there breaking all the rules," says that when the facts didn't justify taking a child out of his or her home, child-care professionals would paint a picture for the judge that would force him to grant custody. "You had to label the kid to get the money to flow," Dr. Chamberlain said. "The label was useless, but you used it.
You distort everything. You abuse the courts, the system, the family. Of course, this had repercussions on the family. Making a child a ward carries the stigma that the parents aren't doing their job well."
Government officials and documents say that the needless removal of children from their homes, the major problem with child welfare during the past 20 years, was compounded by a lack of clear direction from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which finances and supervises the societies.
The ministry admits in documents that its Child Welfare Act is too vague and open-ended to be effective, and that the main tool for implementing policy has been financing schemes that encouraged the abuse of money and power by societies.
Child welfare has been a haphazard service over which neither the Government nor societies had control, the documents say.
The Government acknowledges it smothered societies with red tape and frustrated, through its financing schemes, attempts by some societies to break out of the traditional role of taking children into care.
These Government restrictions bolstered the interventionist attitude among child-care professionals and encouraged the abuse of the courts, said Dr. Chamberlain, now director of the province's Thistletown Regional Centre for Children and Adolescents.
Government documents and officials say that boards of education across the province have been using the courts to rid themselves of children with behavioral and learning problems.
These children, most of whom had committed offences no more serious than skipping classes, were made wards of Children's Aid Societies and put in group homes. Last year, school boards referred 500 children into CAS care,
Dr. Chamberlain said case workers sometimes have had children charged with criminal offences to get them out of their homes and into training schools, from which they could be transferred to residential care institutions such as group homes.
More commonly, the professionals would tell a judge that the child lived in a "pretty destructive" home where he was endangered, Dr. Chamberlain said. They added, conveniently, that a Children's Aid Society was willing to take the child into care. "You'd end up getting the judge to agree that (making the child a ward) was a reasonable thing to do ... . How does he know? He's got a social worker and a psychiatrist swearing on a Bible that the kid needs (a group home) .... He's got 15 or 20 more that day, He doesn't even have the time to ask all the questions." Grant Lowery, executive director of Central Toronto
Youth Services and an outspoken opponent of past financing schemes, said that the paternalistic attitude in family courts has allowed child-care workers the leeway to interpret the Child Welfare Act as they saw fit.
Mr. Lowery, who has worked with adolescents for nearly two decades, said the practice of taking children into care even when they didn't belong there "was fairly prevalent."
"You wouldn't have to say anybody was lying. The legal and service system let it happen. We've collectively allowed that to happen. "The judge was told that the parents couldn't get the kid to behave or attend school," he said. "That's where the poor took a hell of a beating in the earlier interpretations of the Child Welfare Act. If the kid was skipping classes, and there was no one at home because it was a single- parent family and the mother was working, or if both parents were working, the court was told that the parents couldn't control the kid."
Dr. Chamberlain, who ran the in-patient program at the Hincks Treatment Centre in Toronto from 1966 to 1971 and the Metro Family Court Clinic from 1971 to 1977, said that all laws concerning children were abused in one way or another to facilitate taking children into care. "I remember recommending that a child go to training school just so he could get treatment in a group home. I wouldn't have recommended to the judge that that happen unless I knew a group home was ready to take him. I arranged it in advance. It was an abuse of the rules to help the kid. "All of these agencies got used to doing business that way," said Dr. Chamberlain, who from 1977 to 1980 became a senior Government adviser as executive co-ordinator for program policy in the children's services division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
"Sure the judges knew. Everybody played the game. They had to. They had to bend the rules to help the kid ... . The game bothered all of us .... But you've got that kid and he can't wait for the world to change."
Michael Ozerkevich, who until recently was executive director of management information evaluation for the Social Services Ministry, said his 1978 study of child welfare financing first alerted Government officials that the schemes were fuelling the distortion of children's services.
Mr. Ozerkevich, who joined the ministry in 1977 as an expert on financing, drafted the new scheme introduced this year. He said that his predecessors were too overworked to be aware of the problems he discovered.
Evidence of the unwarranted removal of children from their homes has existed since at least 1960.
A report prepared by the Child Welfare League of America in 1960 for the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto criticized the practice by social workers of taking children out of their homes instead of working with families to keep them together.
A study of 14 institutions in Metro Toronto revealed that "for every two children who were placed in a group setting because of their needs, three were placed because of needs unrelated to them," the 1960 report said.
Government officials and child care professionals said in interviews that ministry officials responsible for financing and supervising Children's Aid Societies ignored the evidence of dozens of similar studies in the wake of ontradictory statements from societies that were battling each other for more money.
A handful of Government child welfare officials were swamped by society lobbyists, some of whom decried the financing schemes as encouraging abuses while others praised the financing approach but attributed abuses to lack of money.
The legacy of the system's 20-year blunder, critics say, are the emotional wounds left on thousands of children who should have remained at home but didn't.
Stephen Menzies, a Toronto child welfare lawyer, says he has seen children acquire criminal records as a result of unnecessarily being made wards and put in group homes. "My experience has shown that kids may be put in a group home for ridiculous reasons such as skipping classes," Mr. Menzies said.
"That's the only offence these kids have committed. Subsequent charges laid against them arise because of their rebellion at the place they've been put in - their attempts to free themselves from the system. Those charges would never arise if the kids hadn't been put in the group home in the first place." Mr. Menzies cited cases where children went into group homes without records and within months had been charged with breaking and entering, theft, and other offences committed while running away from the home.
Because of the common perception that Children's Aid Societies deal mainly with tough, problem children, children who are unnecessarily made wards become vulnerable targets. "Removing the child from the family creates new dangers," said Peter Jaffe, a psychologist who is director of the Family Court Clinic in London, Ont. "The child will be labelled a problem child. This could lead to poor self-esteem because the child will blame himself for causing problems in the home since he's the one who was taken away. There may also be problems reintegrating the child into the family and re-establishing relationships with siblings and parents."
Mr. van Overdijk is more blunt: "As soon as you take a child into care, you have helped to establish the destruction of the family as a unit."
Indexing (document details)
Author(s): YVES LAVIGNE
Publication title: The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 23, 1981. pg. P.1
All material copyright Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved.
Original document at- http://ia600809.us.archive.org/13/items/GlobeAndMailArticle/GlobeandmailCombinedR_text.pdf
JurisDictionary
Jurisdictionary WORKS! Won against a powerful attorney. Even the other attorneys in the gallery were talking about it.
| ... K. Anderson I bought your course, and it paid off! ... Ruben P. ... Miami, Florida You are one in a million! ... Louis D. ... Mesa, Arizona Jurisdictionary has given me the strength and confidence to go before the courts. ... Adrienne M. Won unemployment benefits hearing on my own. Without your Jurisdictionay training, I would not have been effective. The course paid for itself. Your course is a blessing. ... Ben J. ... Los Angeles Settled my case! Without your course I would never have gotten to 1st base. ... Larry S. ... Orlando, Florida I have your complete course and have found it to be the most rewarding study of law I have ever read. ... Dan C. ... Denver, Colorado I won my motion at a hearing this morning. Other people waiting for their case to be called were surprised that I won, because my English is not so good. You are right. Anybody can do this! ... Julius R. I am so glad I read your teaching on the complaint before I filed it. One of the defendants wanted to settle immediately. ... L. Shelby The CDs are great! ... R. Bonderman Your course is nothing short of GENIUS! ... Geoffrey L. ... Bremerton, Washington Your course is working excellently for me. You make this complicated subject simple to understand and, most importantly, easy to apply in the obscure world of law (obscure no more). Most definitely this is an invaluable tool. I will encourage everyone I know to purchase your course! Thank you, for your great contribution to society. ... Victor P.
| |||||||
Foster Parents; CPS “the color of law”. Part 5 of 6
Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
In part 4, we were asking you to read a document we came upon during our research, are we boring you? We understandhow hard it is to...… FULL STORY
In part 4, we were asking you to read a document we came upon during our research, are we boring you? We understandhow hard it is to...… FULL STORY
Target Date Set for CRC Ratification
| Sign the Petition | Donate | Volunteer | Learn More | View Online |
|
Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong. Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone. That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help. The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level. This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions. Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.” But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine), while we must depend entirely on the support of individual donors – people just like you who understand the dangers of letting the government decide whether fit parents are making the best decisions for their children. We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us. As they are turning up the heat, we need your help to meet strength with strength. First, please make as generous a donation as you can right now. We must make certain this treaty is not passed. To give, simply visit parentalrights.org/donate or call us at 540-751-1200 (8:30 - 5:00 EST). Then, pass this on to everyone you know. The freedom of parents to raise children according to their own convictions, and the authority of U.S. states to pass family law without dictates from the federal government or an overseas committee, hang in the balance. Preserve America’s future by supporting the Parental Rights Amendment today. Sincerely,  Michael Farris President    |
| P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org |
OBAMA BOYCOTTING GEORGIA ELIGIBILITY HEARING
WND EXCLUSIVE
Lawyer urges secretary of state to cancel inquiry
January 25, 2012
by BOB UNRUH
Barack Obama has announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings scheduled tomorrow in Georgia to review evidence of whether he legitimately is a candidate for the presidency, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation’s commander-in-chief as acting like a “5-year-old brat.”
A letter apparently from his lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was posted today on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama’s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court. FULL STORY
Apparently this story was pulled this morning, re-written and now is-
GEORGIA WARNS OBAMA OF 'PERIL' OF IGNORING ELIGIBILITY HEARING
Lawyer had urged secretary of state to simply cancel challenges
Published: 10 mins ago
“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think”- Adolf Hitler quotes
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”- Adolf Hitler quotes
Lawyer urges secretary of state to cancel inquiry
January 25, 2012
by BOB UNRUH
Barack Obama has announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings scheduled tomorrow in Georgia to review evidence of whether he legitimately is a candidate for the presidency, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation’s commander-in-chief as acting like a “5-year-old brat.”
A letter apparently from his lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was posted today on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama’s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court. FULL STORY
Apparently this story was pulled this morning, re-written and now is-
GEORGIA WARNS OBAMA OF 'PERIL' OF IGNORING ELIGIBILITY HEARING
Lawyer had urged secretary of state to simply cancel challenges
Published: 10 mins ago
“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think”- Adolf Hitler quotes
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”- Adolf Hitler quotes